Question

...
LF2023

What fallacies?

On social media,  Woman points to the woman sign on the bathroom says “back in my day this was easier to understand.” Implying that in today’s context no one knows what a woman is anymore. Someone responds saying “back in your day women couldn’t get a credit card without their husband’s signature.” Then makes a movement and noise to denote that the first woman is stupid. What’s the fallacy in person two’s response? I want to say it’s a combination of the red herring and somewhat of a reductio ad absurdem, but wondering what else might be at play here if at all. 

asked on Saturday, Mar 22, 2025 09:22:39 PM by LF2023

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."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
AI Fallacy Master
0
The response by the second person contains several logical issues:

1. **Red Herring**: This is indeed a red herring fallacy. By mentioning the historical inability of women to get credit cards without a husband's signature, the second person is diverting the discussion away from the original point about the clarity of gender identification signs. This response introduces an unrelated topic, which doesn’t directly address or refute the original argument.

2. **Ad Hominem**: The response also includes an ad hominem fallacy. By implying that the first woman is stupid through a movement and noise, the responder is attacking the person rather than addressing the substance of her argument. This undermines the logic by focusing on discrediting the speaker instead of logically refuting the claim.

3. **Appeal to Tradition**: The original statement by the first woman might suggest an appeal to tradition, which relies on the notion that something is better or correct simply because it is older or traditional. While this isn't a fallacy in the second person's response, it provides context for misunderstanding and fallacious reasoning in the overall exchange.

Considering these points, the main fallacies in the second person's response are the red herring and ad hominem, rather than reductio ad absurdum, as there is no exaggeration of the first argument to absurdity to refute it.
answered on Saturday, Mar 22, 2025 09:23:00 PM by AI Fallacy Master

AI Fallacy Master Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
Mr. Wednesday
0

The first woman's argument is one that you see a lot from conservatives, against the rising prevalence of trans people. There is an appeal to complexity in this argument, that defining "woman" in a way that recognizes the nuances of gender identity in inherently worse than one that relies solely on anatomical sex. But, more relevant to this situation, it has an appeal to tradition , where it's implied that the older definition of "woman" is correct because it's older.

The person responding about the credit card is pointing out the appeal to tradition argument, by showing a situation where, in the past, there was a different understanding of women, that they were too irresponsible to handle their own finances, and it made life worse for them. I don't think the argument is inherently fallacious, but the exchange has happened so many times that these arguments have basically been reduced down to memes. I would say that the movement and noise implying stupidity would probably fall under ad hominem (abusive).
answered on Sunday, Mar 23, 2025 10:04:10 AM by Mr. Wednesday

Mr. Wednesday Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
0
AI Fallacy Master writes:
[To Mr. Wednesday] The exchange described in the original question involves a few logical fallacies and biases.

1. **Red Herring**: The second person's response introduces information about past credit card policies that distract from the original topic about understanding gender symbols and definitions. This is a classic red herring, where an irrelevant topic is introduced to divert attention from the main issue.

2. **Ad Hominem (Abusive)**: The second individual's use of movement and noise to imply that the first person is stupid attacks the person rather than the argument they are making. This is an ad hominem fallacy, which involves undermining someone's argument by attacking their character or intelligence, rather than addressing the content of their statement.

3. **Appeal to Tradition**: As noted by the student, the first person's argument contains an appeal to tradition by suggesting that the historical or "older" understanding of gender was simpler and presumably better. This fallacy assumes that because something is traditional, it is correct or preferable, without providing actual evidence for its superiority.

4. **Appeal to Complexity**: The student also mentions an appeal to complexity in the context of defining "woman" with modern nuances. This is not necessarily a fallacy unless it is used to dismiss the modern understanding simply because it is complex. Dismissing an argument just because it is hard to understand can be a form of argument from ignorance.

Overall, the second responder's approach is problematic due to the use of red herrings and ad hominem attacks, while the first person's argument contains fallacies related to tradition and complexity. Both parties could benefit from focusing more directly on the merits of the arguments rather than resorting to fallacious reasoning.
posted on Sunday, Mar 23, 2025 10:04:16 AM