Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 19 Oct '16 13:05 / 3 edits
    Great ones! I have been deeply thinking about the idea of equivalence and whether or not an argument may be termed a false equivalence.

    False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none.

    For an argument of false equivalence to exist usually one of three things need to be present, the claim is made on the basis of magnitude, 'We all bleed red. We are all no different from each other.' or it can be demonstrated that the attempt at building equivalence is due to oversimplification and/or ignorance of additional factors.

    Now please bear with me.

    Can one draw an equivalence in this instance, the case of Iran in forcing women to wear hijab is equivalent to the French government enforcing secular laws to coerce women not to wear the Burkini? It appears to me that an equivalence can be drawn because both appear to be an infringement to freedom? Granted there are extenuating circumstances that make the two scenarios different but the equivalence is not being drawn on the basis of these or they are not sufficient to unbalance the equivalence so as to warrant the charge of a false equivalence.

    For example murder is still murder whether five people are killed or one person is killed (magnitude) or that the weapon was an assault rifle or being run over with a car, an equivalence can still be drawn because it is similar in a fundamental way?

    If anyone can help me I would be really appreciative because to be quite frank, its doing my head in.
  2. 19 Oct '16 13:09 / 1 edit
    The right wing uses false equivalence, as where the left uses only truth.

    Hope this clears things up for ya. Glad I could help.
  3. 19 Oct '16 13:16 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by whodey
    The right wing uses false equivalence, as where the left uses only truth.

    Hope this clears things up for ya. Glad I could help.
    I am not sure that is a false equivalence, it would need to be something like, Donald is a moron and Hillary is an idiot, both are therefore unfit to be President. You can see that the argument is an over simplification and while it attempts to present an equivalence it ignores extenuating circumstances like, there is no legislation barring morons or idiots from taking office and even if there was they might make a good President if they have wise advisers and delegate responsibility etc etc
  4. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    19 Oct '16 15:29 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Great ones! I have been deeply thinking about the idea of equivalence and whether or not an argument may be termed a false equivalence.

    False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none.

    For an argument of false equivalence to exist usually one ...[text shortened]... yone can help me I would be really appreciative because to be quite frank, its doing my head in.
    Great ones! I have been deeply thinking about the idea of equivalence and whether or not an argument may be termed a false equivalence.
    ...
    If anyone can help me I would be really appreciative because to be quite frank, its doing my head in.

    Sometimes it is better to stop thinking so deeply and just google it.

    I don't even see what problem it is you need to be solved here. A speaker claims that A = B. Does A = B? If 'Yes', it is equivalent. If 'No', it is a false equivalence.

    Usually it is a rhetorical trick and often deceptive.

    A common example of false equivalence arises when Whodey or normbenign or whoever (the usual suspects) tell us an anecdote by way of argument.
  5. 19 Oct '16 15:43
    Is this like apples and oranges?
  6. 19 Oct '16 15:59 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Great ones! I have been deeply thinking about the idea of equivalence and whether or not an argument may be termed a false equivalence.
    ...
    If anyone can help me I would be really appreciative because to be quite frank, its doing my head in.

    Sometimes it is better to stop thinking so deeply and just google it.

    I don't even see what pr ...[text shortened]... en Whodey or normbenign or whoever (the usual suspects) tell us an anecdote by way of argument.
    if it only were so simple, for the argument of false equivalence to be made its not simply a question of, if A=B , its usually arises if someone claims that A=B therefore C is true, for even when A=B it does not necessitate that C is true and the argument of false equivalence can be made.

    Is the Iranian governments insistence that female chess players wear a hijab similar enough to the French governments imposition of its secular laws to prohibit the wearing of the Burkini? In other words, The French government and Iranian governments coerce women to adopt a particular garb therefore they both limit freedom of choice. A=B therefore C is true. But C might not be true if it can be proven that A is not equal to B or even if A=B , C is not true because of a false equivalence of some kind.
  7. 19 Oct '16 16:06 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by JS357
    Is this like apples and oranges?
    No I don't think so, is apples and oranges not a kind of argument by analogy which turns out to be false? It assumes that because two things are alike in one or more respects, (apples and oranges are fruits, grow on trees etc ) they are of necessity alike in some other respect. (they must be good for baking in pies)
  8. Subscriber mchill
    cryptogram
    19 Oct '16 18:18
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    if it only were so simple, for the argument of false equivalence to be made its not simply a question of, if A=B , its usually arises if someone claims that A=B therefore C is true, for even when A=B it does not necessitate that C is true and the argument of false equivalence can be made.

    Is the Iranian governments insistence that female chess pla ...[text shortened]... A is not equal to B or even if A=B , C is not true because of a false equivalence of some kind.
    Is the Iranian governments insistence that female chess players wear a hijab similar enough to the French governments imposition of its secular laws to prohibit the wearing of the Burkini?

    The best I can come up with is this: Let the rule of law in each country prevail. If Iranian law requires women to wear a hijab, then women who wish to compete in Iran should be required to wear them, frankly, it's not asking a great deal. The same goes for French law, if French law prohibits the wearing of the Burkini, so be it.
  9. 19 Oct '16 18:30
    Originally posted by JS357
    Is this like apples and oranges?
    Mmmm.

    Apples and oranges.
  10. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    19 Oct '16 18:34
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Great ones! I have been deeply thinking about the idea of equivalence and whether or not an argument may be termed a false equivalence.

    False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none.

    For an argument of false equivalence to exist usually one ...[text shortened]... yone can help me I would be really appreciative because to be quite frank, its doing my head in.
    I suppose it could be argued that it is more restrictive to say you must wear X rather than you cannot wear Y IF there are more choices than X and Y.
  11. 19 Oct '16 18:55
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Great ones! I have been deeply thinking about the idea of equivalence and whether or not an argument may be termed a false equivalence.

    False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none.

    For an argument of false equivalence to exist usually one ...[text shortened]... yone can help me I would be really appreciative because to be quite frank, its doing my head in.
    You see false equivalents in political discussions all the time on social media. And this cuts both ways.

    It is disheartening how quickly people will forward such things without any evidence that the person has attempted to think it through in the slightest.
  12. 19 Oct '16 18:56 / 2 edits
    Why did the Romans find algebra so challenging?




    Because X was always 10
  13. 19 Oct '16 19:10 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I suppose it could be argued that it is more restrictive to say you must wear X rather than you cannot wear Y IF there are more choices than X and Y.
    yes that seems valid in principle, I really wonder about the reality though.
  14. 19 Oct '16 19:26
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    In other words, The French government and Iranian governments coerce women to adopt a particular garb therefore they both limit freedom of choice.
    Actually no equivalence is being used in that argument. Both governments clearly limit freedom of choice because they limit freedom of choice. You haven't used a known fact about one to make a declaration about the other based on equivalence.
    The reality is that the two situations are not equivalent, but if you make an argument that one situation is bad and not the other then you must make your argument based on properties that only apply to one - and you must make a reasonable argument, not one that is clearly made up specifically so that it only applies to your preferred target.
  15. 19 Oct '16 20:05
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Great ones! I have been deeply thinking about the idea of equivalence and whether or not an argument may be termed a false equivalence.

    False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none.

    For an argument of false equivalence to exist usually one ...[text shortened]... yone can help me I would be really appreciative because to be quite frank, its doing my head in.
    Better to just let the Muslims stay in Muslim nations and not let them invade your country. It is more of a conflict of societal values here.

    If you don't want to fit in with a nation's culture, then don't enter the country.