There’s a certain degree of crossover between different fallacies, which sometimes fit together like puzzle pieces. For example, you could link the Nirvana fallacy and its impossible demand for total perfection as an outcome to your description of Bothsidesism.
I think this discussion is getting a bit off-topic. Distinctions are important, but this topic was started in anticipation of several possible bad-faith fallacious arguments specifically concerning the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If you and others would like to discuss different fallacies in general further I will be glad to split off this discussion for you. Otherwise I can leave things as they stand and let things get back to the main discussion.
No, I don’t think that is necessary. Suffice it to say that we can adeptly respond to bothsidesism by saying simply, “Two wrongs do not make a right, and I never said that [thing] wasn’t wrong, but I’m more concerned about the wrong that is going on right now in front of our eyes, so let’s focus on that for now.”
That’s a lectern
A podium is something you stand on
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
To be accurate, thinking carefully about something does not imply pedantry.
Well both fewer and less Angels if they were cremated right?
I can be pendantic too!!
That would be angel dust.
Since we’re being pedantic, it would be fewer angels and less of the angels or less angel.
… surely the plural of “trolley” is “trolleys”
I’m just reporting the word-swap, don’t look at me.
…That sounds like a plural for “trollop”.