Question

...
Ed F

What Fallacy Is This?--That's Not Important

A makes an argument for claim X

B responds:  I don't think what's important is X.  What's important is that...Y.

---

B's response is both dismissive of A and an attempt to change the subject.  

asked on Sunday, Feb 13, 2022 11:34:02 AM by Ed F

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments
...
0
Shawn writes:

Well, yes, your conclusion does have validity, but it can also be a statement of different sets of values that A & B has. A may claim that X is important because it is central to their personal value system. B, on the other hand, may have an altogether set of values and dismiss X as being important and instead lay claim to Y as being important instead.  So it may not necessarily be a fallacy, but a manifestation of opposing value systems play. At least that is my 2 cents worth. 

posted on Sunday, Feb 13, 2022 12:14:28 PM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Uncomfortable Ideas: Facts don't care about feelings. Science isn't concerned about sensibilities. And reality couldn't care less about rage.

This is a book about uncomfortable ideas—the reasons we avoid them, the reasons we shouldn’t, and discussion of dozens of examples that might infuriate you, offend you, or at least make you uncomfortable.

Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.

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

...
TrappedPrior (RotE)
1

It seems like a case of people talking past each other, because they have different goals. 

So if this were a debate about COVID-19 measures, for instance, person A could be advocating for a lockdown, citing the need to 'save lives'. Person B could be advocating against lockdowns, citing the need to 'preserve the economy'. 

If person A presented their argument, it'd be fine for person B to explain why their goal is more important...as long as they explain why. As in, it would still have to be a counter to the original argument - either accepting that X is important, but less so than Y, or demonstrating that X actually isn't all that important. This way, both people in the conversation could advance different goals while still responding to one another - talking to, rather than past, each other. If they didn't, and simply tried to avoid the subject, this would fall under red herring.
answered on Sunday, Feb 13, 2022 01:30:06 PM by TrappedPrior (RotE)

TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories

Comments