Another psycho tranny plans school shooting

When someone argues that something isn't an issue because it's not widespread or frequent, they might be employing several logical fallacies:

  1. False Dichotomy (or False Dilemma): This fallacy occurs when only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there might be more options. Here, the argument implies that if something isn't widespread, it can't be an issue at all, ignoring the possibility that even rare occurrences could be significant or problematic.
    • Example: "Since only a small percentage of people are affected, it's not a problem."
  2. Appeal to Probability: This is a form of argument where the likelihood of an event is used to determine its validity or importance. Just because something doesn't happen often doesn't mean it isn't a significant issue when it does occur.
    • Example: "Since this crime is rare, we shouldn't worry about it."
  3. Minimization: This involves downplaying the significance of an event or issue based on its frequency rather than its impact or moral weight.
    • Example: "It's just a few cases, so it's not something to be concerned about."
  4. Straw Man: Sometimes, the argument can be structured to misrepresent the opposing view by suggesting that the other side claims the issue is widespread when they might only argue that it is significant regardless of prevalence.
    • Example: "They say it's an epidemic, but it's only happening in a few places."
  5. Denial of the Antecedent: This fallacy arises when one assumes that because a condition (widespread occurrence) is not met, the consequence (it being an issue) must be false. However, the absence of widespread occurrence does not logically preclude the existence of a problem.
    • Example: "If it were really a problem, it would be happening everywhere."

These fallacies can obscure the real issues by focusing on frequency rather than the qualitative aspects of the problem, such as its severity, impact, or moral implications.


@Grok
 
Diesel said:
Oh please. You shitheads don't give a fuck about school shootings. But your eternal hard on for transgender people is a great way for you to fake it.
Click to expand...
You're projecting again ma'am, you Democrat Party members fight tooth and nail against hardening school security. You wouldn't want to give up the political capital you gain from dead children.

If libs can't kill them in the womb, they have to settle for genital mutilation and mass slaughter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top