Question

...
Jason Mathias

What logical fallacies are in this depopulation by vaccination argument?

P1: There is a globalist conspiracy to depopulate the earth with covid vaccines. 

P2: 100s of Dr's say the vaccines are dangerous, kill people, and are causing the outbreak. 

P3: None of these Dr's have been sued by the vaccine manufactures for speaking out against them. 

P4: You cant sue the truth, thats why they try and censor the Drs instead. 

C: Therefore, there is a conspiracy to depopulate the earth with vaccines. 

asked on Monday, Oct 18, 2021 01:49:36 PM 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."

Reason: Books I & II

This book is based on the first five years of The Dr. Bo Show, where Bo takes a critical thinking-, reason-, and science-based approach to issues that matter with the goal of educating and entertaining. Every chapter in the book explores a different aspect of reason by using a real-world issue or example.

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.

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

...
Monique Z
2

Argument from silence

Just because the outspoken doctors are not being sued, it doesn't mean that other doctors or pharma companies don't believe they're wrong. After all, we can assume they do not believe the vaccines are dangerous because they administer and reccomend them to the public.But given their silence in the legal realm against the antvax drs, it's assumed they all think there actually is a conspiracy. 

On a side note, the logic of this argument is flawed. If the powers that be wanted to wipe out the population they could have done that by just letting COVID spread and pretend that they have no idea how to cure it. It's always assumed that the prime motovation of the powers that be is money, so it doesn't make sense that they would take money out of their own pockets to pay for everyone to get a vaccine when COVID spreads for free.

I've also heard it argued that the virus itself was manufactured by the powers that be. If that's the case, there really isn't a need for the vaccine as they could have achieved everything they wanted from the virus in the first place. Why make the vaccine at all?

answered on Tuesday, Oct 19, 2021 08:43:58 AM by Monique Z

Monique Z Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
account no longer exists
2

What's the fallacy called, where the premise is the same as the conclusion? I think that alone wrecks the structure of the argument.

General comments, to try to show how the argument is poor :

P1 : a bit nonsensical, as a plan to depopulate the earth would be better done by a virus, rather than a vaccination against the virus 

P2 : More doctors say the opposite

P3 : This is of no consequence and is irrelevant

P4 : Unsupported opinion

C: Non Sequitur

answered on Monday, Oct 18, 2021 03:36:12 PM by account no longer exists

account no longer exists Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
0
TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:

What's the fallacy called, where the premise is the same as the conclusion? I think that alone wrecks the structure of the argument.

Begging the question / Circular reasoning fits the bill. The conclusion is stated in one of the premises already, so the argument proves nothing.

posted on Tuesday, Oct 19, 2021 07:21:53 AM
...
0
account no longer exists writes:
[To Rationalissimus of the Elenchus]

Thank you, ROTE!

[ login to reply ] posted on Wednesday, Oct 20, 2021 04:45:04 AM
...
1
Monique Z writes:

Even though the first premise says the conclusion, the argument is not supported by that statement. The arguer attempts to prove the first premise is true by claiming  antivax drs haven't been sued. If they haven't been sued it's because they're telling the truth. So this isn't an example of circular reasoning. A circular argument would be:

I know there's a conspiracy because I can see there's a conspiracy behind all this. 

posted on Tuesday, Oct 19, 2021 08:26:54 AM
...
account no longer exists
0

First off, this is circular reasoning, because the first premise directly implies the conclusion (it looks more like a statement of what you want to prove rather than a premise).

The second premise appeals to an anonymous authority, because it appeals to “100s of Dr’s”, without specifying or giving an example. I’d also say it commits the fallacy of cherry picking, as it ignores a lot of contradictory evidence.

The third and fourth “premises” seem to be a (unsupported) preemptive counterargument to why the doctors haven’t been sued, but it’s not very clear.

answered on Monday, Oct 18, 2021 03:29:46 PM by account no longer exists

account no longer exists Suggested These Categories

Comments