Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics.
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Can you elaborate?
I can provide an example, but you might hate me for it. I swear this is just to explain what I mean by this fallacy because I can't think of another example right now.
Justifying killing/using an animal for its skin/hide (e.g. leather or fur), because you're already killing the animal for its flesh, when in actual fact the killing of the animal doesn't need to take place at all (hypothetically).
Or justifying the killing of calves for veal as a necessary component of dairy production, when in fact dairy production isn't necessary, either.
I hope that makes sense
I'm going to come up with a neutral one here for you. Mostly so you can get better replies... I would need to do some research to find a name for it.
Jess wants to draw a picture of a bird, using only red and black. She gets her art supplies out and finds she has no green markers. She cannot draw a picture of a green field without a green marker. Jess says she can't draw her bird picture because she has no green marker.
Or...
When Alan plays tennis, his knee hurts. Alan has a strange condition that his knee only hurts after he plays tennis. When his knee hurts, he has to put ice on it. He stops playing tennis for good. Alan needs to get a new refrigerator. One is affordable with no ice machine, but another is unaffordable and has an ice machine. Alan bemoans he can't get the refrigerator he needs because he needs the ice machine for his knee.
One of these?
Thanks, that's almost what I mean, but I might modify your examples slightly. They're good examples to work from lol (I'm pretty bad at coming up with scenarios that fit what I'm talking about). Sorry if this sounds kind of crazy:
Jess wants to draw a picture of a bird. For this, since Jess is completely broke and homeless, she would need to rob an art store to get art supplies. (Let's say for sake of example that there is genuinely no other way for her to obtain art supplies to draw the picture). Jess justifies this act of robbing the store in order to draw her bird picture because there's no other way she can make the picture otherwise. She makes the claim that robbing the art store is necessary in absolute terms, while overlooking or ignoring the fact that drawing the picture of the bird isn't necessary in the first place (even though she might desire to draw it, she doesn't need to, and therefore doesn't need to rob the art store, either).
Or...
When Alan plays tennis, his knee hurts. Alan has a strange condition that his knee only hurts after he plays tennis. When his knee hurts, he has to put ice on it, which requires an expensive refrigerator with an ice machine since that's the only way he can possibly get a good supply of ice in his situation (hypothetically). Alan then decides to buy the expensive refrigerator with stolen money from his grandma, and claims that it's an absolute requirement for him to, without considering the fact that he doesn't actually need to play tennis, though he might want to.
In both cases, someone is claiming that something (an action, state, etc) is necessary overall, because it's part of a larger goal/endeavour; without addressing the reality that it would only be necessary as a component of that larger goal that it would be in service of, if that larger goal was necessary, which in fact it isn't (and therefore neither are any components that would be required to achieve it).
I hope this makes sense :)
And I'll paste my other example here:
Another example might involve arguing that the disposal of hazardous waste is necessary because it's a byproduct of a particular manufacturing process, while ignoring the question of whether that manufacturing process itself is essential or necessary. This fallacy occurs when one justifies an undesirable or harmful element as a necessary component of a larger practice or system without questioning the necessity of the entire system or practice.
I think this makes sense!
It appears to be a type of irrelevant conclusion.
http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06a.htm
Is this what you were thinking?