Post by Radrook Admin on Mar 14, 2020 14:09:19 GMT -5
Fallacy of Inconsistency
Fallacies are mistakes in logic which should be avoided t all costs due to the detrimental effect that they have on our credibility. Such fallacies, or mistakes, take many forms and it is good to know them in order to avoid them like the plague. This one is the fallacy of inconsistency, the saying of one thing one moment and another entirely different thing the next. Or going by some rule one moment but contradicting the rule the next. In short, a person commits the fallacy of inconsistency when he or she makes contradictory claims.
Examples:
I'm a strong believer in freedom of speech and think artists should never be censored. However, when musicians like Marilyn Manson influence the youth, you have to draw a line and say no more.
There is no evil in this world. Though evil exists in some parts of the world, we will overcome it sooner or later.
Though basic human liberty is inviolable, a person like Smith has forfeited his right to be a human by committing such a heinous crime. He deserves to be tortured to death.
Of course consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want. We are in a free country. But some things violate the laws of nature, and if people get caught doing those things, we should send them to jail.
I do think you are an adult and can make your own decisions, but deciding whether you want to have a drink is too important and you'll have to wait until you are 21.
I'm all for equal rights for women. I just think a woman's place is in the home.
There are few philosophic truths more certain that this: all claims to truth in the realm of morality are subjective and arbitrary.
Although religious beliefs are the proper object or faith, not reason, it would be hard to deny that some religious beliefs are simply irrational.
www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Inconsistency.html
How does this weaken your argument?
How does this weaken your argument. Well, there are a variety of ways. For example, such self-contradictions it might indicate that we don't really believe what we are saying. After all, convincing someone requires that we also believe wholeheartedly in our own view. But in this case, the view is stated and contradicted immediately. It is like telling the person that you just lied but consider him is too stupid to notice,.
Or perhaps it might indicate to the listener that we are not in your right mind.
Or maybe that we are being forced or coerced in someway into to saying things and so we contradict ourselves as a way of telling our audience that we don't really mean what we are saying.
All of these impressions are negative. If indeed they are true, then how are we trying to convince others? It conveys the concept of "Do as I say but not as I do"
My experience with this type of fallacy has been mainly with atheists or Theoephobics. In their case it invariable takes the form of vehemently contradicting the criteria which they had enthusiastically previously employed to establish what they consider atheist fact.
But suddenly, when the same criteria is employed in the service of theology, then it no longer establishes irrefutable evidence, because if it did, then it would establish the existence of an Almighty God. So now they will do an about-face and vehemently refuse to abide by it. Which of course is a tacit admission that they have no logical effective rebuttal, and so must resort to contradicting themselves. Otherwise their whole atheist universe would collapse around them and they sure as hell are not going to let that happen on their watch.
Or perhaps it might indicate to the listener that we are not in your right mind.
Or maybe that we are being forced or coerced in someway into to saying things and so we contradict ourselves as a way of telling our audience that we don't really mean what we are saying.
All of these impressions are negative. If indeed they are true, then how are we trying to convince others? It conveys the concept of "Do as I say but not as I do"
My experience with this type of fallacy has been mainly with atheists or Theoephobics. In their case it invariable takes the form of vehemently contradicting the criteria which they had enthusiastically previously employed to establish what they consider atheist fact.
But suddenly, when the same criteria is employed in the service of theology, then it no longer establishes irrefutable evidence, because if it did, then it would establish the existence of an Almighty God. So now they will do an about-face and vehemently refuse to abide by it. Which of course is a tacit admission that they have no logical effective rebuttal, and so must resort to contradicting themselves. Otherwise their whole atheist universe would collapse around them and they sure as hell are not going to let that happen on their watch.