HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "Apples and oranges" argu...

Mon Jan 30, 2017, 11:00 AM

"Apples and oranges" arguments - there's a name for this

I'm seeing this on FB a lot. For example, a response to a post about the Women's March will be "how can you complain when women in the Middle East have no rights." Huh? It's true but what does that have to do with American womens' rights being threatened?

The latest one is in response to the refugee crisis - "but Bill Clinton banned illegal immigrants in 1995!" Again, huh? We're talking about people who went through all the hoops to get here and are still denied.

There's a name for this kind of argument, it's in Wikipedia and someone posted the name and definition on FB recently but I can't find it. Would love to have this handy for rebuttals.
Anyone?

10 replies, 2910 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply "Apples and oranges" arguments - there's a name for this (Original post)
Freddie Jan 2017 OP
JaneQPublic Jan 2017 #1
skylucy Jan 2017 #2
ck4829 Jan 2017 #3
Croney Jan 2017 #4
Laura PourMeADrink Jan 2017 #8
Proud Liberal Dem Jan 2017 #5
trotsky Jan 2017 #6
Freddie Jan 2017 #7
Greybnk48 Jan 2017 #9
HughBeaumont Jan 2017 #10

Response to Freddie (Original post)

Mon Jan 30, 2017, 11:05 AM

1. A non sequitur?

A non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow", an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie (Original post)

Mon Jan 30, 2017, 11:05 AM

2. "There's a name for this kind of argument...but I can't find it..."

The name for it is BULLSHIT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie (Original post)

Mon Jan 30, 2017, 11:08 AM

3. A red herring?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

Argument A is presented by person 1.

Person 2 introduces argument B.

Argument A is abandoned.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red-Herring

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie (Original post)

Mon Jan 30, 2017, 11:20 AM

4. False equivalence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Croney (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 30, 2017, 11:42 AM

8. Yes ! And how about the folksy "Grasping at straws"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie (Original post)

Mon Jan 30, 2017, 11:22 AM

5. I'm not exactly sure but it's hella annoying

Just because women have it worse in the ME doesn't mean that women shouldn't be protesting here about things that are happening to women HERE. We have no shortage of unenlightened (mostly male) legislators trying to curtail rights for women here and a slim majority of people in this country, including some women, voted a guy into the Presidency with clear issues with how to talk to/treat women. Anyhoo, the Republican Tea Party got to have their protests about the phantom "Tyranny" and "Socialism" of President Obama and his health care law for the past 8 years, so maybe they shouldn't protest and be thankful they don't live somewhere with REAL tyranny and oppression, like, say, North Korea? When people say stuff like that, I feel like they're being dismissive of legitimate concerns. Everybody's feelings are valid and we have a right to express our feelings about how things are in this country even if you disagree with them. Period.

Also, not sure of all of the details but I'm pretty sure that whatever they're saying Bill Clinton (or Barack Obama) might have done in the past regarding immigration is almost certainly not quite comparable to what Trump did the other day with his EO (which obviously was not very well thought out and probably not even vetted).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie (Original post)

Mon Jan 30, 2017, 11:24 AM

6. The first one (comparing women's rights) is called the fallacy of relative privation.

I.e., "not as bad as." http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as

The other one I guess would fit as a "tu quoque" (you too!) even though the Clinton/Obama actions are not the same thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #6)

Mon Jan 30, 2017, 11:40 AM

7. That's it! Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #6)

Mon Jan 30, 2017, 11:46 AM

9. I'd say the tu quoque fallacy is closest. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #6)

Mon Jan 30, 2017, 01:40 PM

10. "Not as Bad as" is a conservative favorite.

It's how they get to argue that there's no poverty here because our citizens aren't eating breakfast bugs or living in tents amid dust storms or mud huts.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread