Find the fallacy

Continuing the discussion from Trickle-down kids' TV: Sesame Street will air on HBO 9 months before PBS:

If this was a logical argument, I can see at least two logical fallacies. Can anyone beat two? Who can name them?

1 Like

Straw man (who cares, first one)
Appeal to probability (its no different anyway)
Argument from ignorance (who cares, second one)

1 Like

Also, Begging the Question

1 Like

Do you mean my characterization of the first argument is a strawman? I don’t think it is, there is definitely a difference between one group and the other, and by arguing that the difference won’t matter, they are effectively saying “who cares.”

But to be clear, I meant, what mistakes did I make in formulating this post, if my intent was to make a sound argument.

I would say that this is a false dichotomy. People may well not agree upon the measurement of value or resources. And even if they did, does not suggest why people should identify people with their resources - “wealth/poverty” versus “wealthy/impoverished people”. This could be an ecological fallacy, but I am not sure if I understand how it is typically used.

Pre-emptively implying that the dichotomy is not false could be interpreted as shifting the burden of proof.

Assuming that “different” implicitly means “worse” could be a naturalistic fallacy.

Sounds presumptuous, but I don’t know what fallacy this would be.

I am being tentative, because (believe it or not) I was never taught these in school, and have only started learning them a bit here and there recently. I have a lot of experience auditing formal reason, but I don’t yet share any common vocabulary with people for discussing such things.

Perhaps I got my fallacies wrong, but"who cares about A or B" is a fallacy, right? I often get fallacy names wrong (called formally the Japhroaig Fallacy), but I am generally pretty good at finding logic issues.

1 Like

I guess the fact that I didn’t phrase my post as an actual logical argument makes this too awkward a game.

1 Like

Also,and I don’t know if this is where you are going with this but 9 months later is a school year. If one devalues the content that is supposed to be educational by a Grade, either the content is suspect or the Grade is suspect. Is that a fallacy or just an observation?

Unwarranted assumption? You could argue that Sesame Street wasn’t a vital part of education for rich or poor kids, so offering a premium service earlier in exchange for making up some of what is lacking in public funds might be a good compromise. Also, if everything was completely equal for rich and poor, there wouldn’t be a meaningful distinction between rich and poor at all. The idea that you can pay money for education and entertainment options outside of school isn’t necessarily a bad thing (especially if this means that more Sesame Street is ultimately available for everyone). Excluded middle perhaps?

Ha! I don’t think anyone around here is worried about awkwardness, and I am sure everyone likes to keep their mind sharp :smiley:

1 Like

Precisely my point. The meaning is subjective, so it cannot be assumed as having universal meaning or validity. Assuming it to be objective or universal could be a referential or existential fallacy, respectively.

Whether or not it qualifies as “a bad thing” is matter of opinion. But it certainly would be dependent upon people being willing to take your payment, and have a suitable service on offer. Assuming that it would naturally happen in any case could be a fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Blessed is the cheesemaker!

1 Like

So different thing is not necessarily different education. I think I was relying on the idea that Sesame Street formed part of the education of children because data showed that it worked. I certainly think that’s of the most arguable.

What I was going for was very close to that, which is that I’m equivocating to import a sneaky idea. Maybe from what other people said I could very literally say that they don’t care if poor kids get a different education than rich kids in this very narrow context but I make it sound as though they don’t care if the state has an outright bias towards the rich in the provision of public education. I can say I’m right because of a narrow, technical reading, but I imply a lot more than that reading.

The other one I thought of was just a plain old ad hominem.

Anyway, my post wasn’t at all a logical argument, so I think my little game here wasn’t pretty problematic. I should have restated it like it was a series of assumptions and a conclusion.


BTW, can I sincerely and without sarcasm say You Are Cool?


Marry, ‘tis true. Such honest self-examination is rare (online in particular, and god knows I could stand to do it more often to my own arguments), but IMO ol’ Humba demonstrated fundamental coolness from the first post I read.

Not that I’m any arbiter of coolness. I still like bellbottoms.


You and Humba are hoopy froods if I have ever seen. I expect disagreement, but not fizzy drinks afterwards.


Glad to see I’m not late this time.


Have you played her game?