|
|
A Logical analysis of this argument in the Rittenhouse trial."Mr. Rittenhouse, why didn't you let the person trying to kill you kill you before you decided to defend yourself." Seems like a presupposition that the person he killed was going to kill him. After all, that assumption is unknowable and we cant ask the dead their intention. This also seems to ignore the context. Context being that Rittenhouse was Blue Lives Matter who went to a Black Lives Matter protest with an AR-15 that was not his property, and he had no property or business there he was defending. Seems he went as a provocateur. And shots were fired, and the crowd identified Rittenhouse as an active shooter so they were trying to stop him from shooting anyone else. It also seems like an appeal to smart a** fallacy, kind of like the appeal to ridicule because of course we all know he cant shoot someone if he is dead first. Anything else you can add that I am not seeing? |
| asked on Saturday, Nov 20, 2021 11:41:17 AM by Jason Mathias | |
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Part one is about how science works even when the public thinks it doesn't. Part two will certainly ruffle some feathers by offering a reason- and science-based perspective on issues where political correctness has gone awry. Part three provides some data-driven advice for your health and well-being. Part four looks at human behavior and how we can better navigate our social worlds. In part five we put on our skeptical goggles and critically examine a few commonly-held beliefs. In the final section, we look at a few ways how we all can make the world a better place.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
"Mr. Rittenhouse, why didn't you let the person trying to kill you kill you before you decided to defend yourself." This isn't an argument, but we can make it one. If we did, I would imagine this would be a strawman fallacy as I doubt anyone ever suggested this. But defense lawyers constantly commit fallacies—that is part of their job. Reason and truth is not their goal—it is defending their client, which often involves manipulating the jury with emotion and rhetoric. |
| answered on Saturday, Nov 20, 2021 11:51:50 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
