Gaming7 mins ago
What Is The Name Of This Logical Fallacy
8 Answers
I was in a conversation with a guy who said "You might not find soldiers being injured or killed, a form of entertaiment but some people do and who are you to stand in their way?
This was after I confronted someone for mocking the deaths of soldiers in a military group on some website.
This was after I confronted someone for mocking the deaths of soldiers in a military group on some website.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Trevorblack2014. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Here are a few websites that might explain this type of behaviour, although I tend to go for the 'lack of empathy' one:
http:// symptom checker .webmd. com/mul tiple-s ymptoms ?sympto ms=emot ional-d etachme nt%7Cfe eling-o f-being -detach ed-from -realit y%7Cfri ghtenin g-thoug hts%7Ci mpulsiv e-behav ior& ;sympto mids=44 0%7C371 %7C427% 7C265&a mp;loca tions=2 %7C2%7C 2%7C2
https:/ /en.wik ipedia. org/wik i/Deper sonaliz ation_d isorder
http:// blog.tr anquile ne.com/ disconn ection- from-re ality-i s-commo n-in-an xiety-s ufferer s/
http:// www.dia gnose-m e.com/w hat-cau ses/fee ling-de tached- from-re ality.h tml
https:/ /www.qu ora.com /What-d o-peopl e-who-l ack-emp athy-ac t-like
This attitude resembles that shown by German troops in WW2, who executed defenceless civilians in occupied zones.
http://
https:/
http://
http://
https:/
This attitude resembles that shown by German troops in WW2, who executed defenceless civilians in occupied zones.
@Trevorblack2014
Although the example the other person chose is abhorrent to most of us they are basically just pushing the boundaries of "freedom of speech/thought" to its very limits.
Which is kind of the point of most freedom of speech arguments: how repellent/intolerant/unempathic/perverted are we willing to put up with.
The catch is, once you draw a line *anywhere* you can no longer claim to uphold freedom of speech in your country. Some countries make much more of a fuss about it than others. Britain does not have a formal constitution to get hung up about.
Anyway I see no logical fallacy. I do, however see crapulence. (you won't find that in the dictionary though; please don't pass it on).
Although the example the other person chose is abhorrent to most of us they are basically just pushing the boundaries of "freedom of speech/thought" to its very limits.
Which is kind of the point of most freedom of speech arguments: how repellent/intolerant/unempathic/perverted are we willing to put up with.
The catch is, once you draw a line *anywhere* you can no longer claim to uphold freedom of speech in your country. Some countries make much more of a fuss about it than others. Britain does not have a formal constitution to get hung up about.
Anyway I see no logical fallacy. I do, however see crapulence. (you won't find that in the dictionary though; please don't pass it on).
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --