Ygthkb

How would we write a misogynistic character without offending people?

GeometricMean definition

"Murder!" The knight said

How can I be pwned if I'm not registered on that site?

Why does the author believe that the central mass that gas cloud HCN-0.009-0.044 orbits is smaller than our solar system?

It took me a lot of time to make this, pls like. (YouTube Comments #1)

Equivalent to "source" in OpenBSD?

Has the Isbell–Freyd criterion ever been used to check that a category is concretisable?

I am on the US no-fly list. What can I do in order to be allowed on flights which go through US airspace?

Is my plan for fixing my water heater leak bad?

Did 5.25" floppies undergo a change in magnetic coating?

Called into a meeting and told we are being made redundant (laid off) and "not to share outside". Can I tell my partner?

Pure Functions: Does "No Side Effects" Imply "Always Same Output, Given Same Input"?

How to tighten battery clamp?

Does music exist in Panem? And if so, what kinds of music?

Where was Karl Mordo in Infinity War?

I encountered my boss during an on-site interview at another company. Should I bring it up when seeing him next time?

How do ISS astronauts "get their stripes"?

Can I become debt free or should I file for bankruptcy? How do I manage my debt and finances?

Must a tritone substitution use a dominant seventh chord?

Find the next monthly expiration date

What is the wife of a henpecked husband called?

Borrowing Characters

How to count words in a line

Where is the fallacy here?

“Change” last forever? If not what fallacy breaks the chain of reasoning shown here?What is the fallacy where you completely discredit someone because of a single mistake?Does the Fallacy Fallacy make logic useless?Rhetorical fallacy to fill lack of scientific evidence with superstitionWhat are the arguments for and against “one true arithmetic”?Alternate form of “all x are y”What is, and isn't the appeal to emotion logical fallacy?The Euthyphro Dilemma (complete philosophy newbie here)Universe as a container; Critique of the Kalam Cosmological Argument?What fallacy is assuming something is the case because of past events

2

Where is the fallacy here:

1. whatever is natural is not unnatural




2. whatever is unnatural is not natural




3. the phenomenon of cats being born into this world is natural




4. the phenomenon of rabbits being born into this world is not the phenomenon in point 3

Conclusion: the phenomenon of rabbits being born into this world is unnatural

logic

share|improve this question

edited 53 mins ago

brilliant

asked 2 hours ago

brilliantbrilliant

1134

New contributor

brilliant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Obviously not all cats are normal.
  
  – Bread
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Assuming cats are normal: rabbits can also be normal without being cats.
  
  – Bread
  54 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Bread - I did some edits.
  
  – brilliant
  53 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @brilliant My answer responds to your original post. I do not think that the edits change my answer.
  
  – Mark Andrews
  36 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

2

Where is the fallacy here:

1. whatever is natural is not unnatural




2. whatever is unnatural is not natural




3. the phenomenon of cats being born into this world is natural




4. the phenomenon of rabbits being born into this world is not the phenomenon in point 3

Conclusion: the phenomenon of rabbits being born into this world is unnatural

logic

share|improve this question

edited 53 mins ago

brilliant

asked 2 hours ago

brilliantbrilliant

1134

New contributor

brilliant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Obviously not all cats are normal.
  
  – Bread
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Assuming cats are normal: rabbits can also be normal without being cats.
  
  – Bread
  54 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Bread - I did some edits.
  
  – brilliant
  53 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @brilliant My answer responds to your original post. I do not think that the edits change my answer.
  
  – Mark Andrews
  36 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Where is the fallacy here:

1. whatever is natural is not unnatural




2. whatever is unnatural is not natural




3. the phenomenon of cats being born into this world is natural




4. the phenomenon of rabbits being born into this world is not the phenomenon in point 3

Conclusion: the phenomenon of rabbits being born into this world is unnatural

logic

share|improve this question

edited 53 mins ago

brilliant

asked 2 hours ago

brilliantbrilliant

1134

New contributor

brilliant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

share|improve this question

edited 53 mins ago

brilliant

asked 2 hours ago

brilliantbrilliant

1134

New contributor

brilliant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

share|improve this question

edited 53 mins ago

brilliant

asked 2 hours ago

brilliantbrilliant

1134

New contributor

brilliant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

asked 2 hours ago

brilliantbrilliant

1134

New contributor

brilliant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

asked 2 hours ago

brilliantbrilliant

1134

4 Answers
4

active

oldest

votes

1

Here is the argument:

1. No N is not-N.




2. No not-N is N.




3. All C are N.




4. No R are C.

Thus: No R are N.

The syllogism is invalid for two reasons. First, the third premise denies the antecedent (cats) of the fourth. There can be other animals that are normal. Wikipedia: Denying the antecedent; Formal fallacy.

Second, a term that is distributed in the conclusion (normal) is not distributed in the major premise (all cats are normal). Wikipedia: Illicit major.

The first two premises are not needed except as definitions. The second two, about cats and rabbits, state actual relationships between categories,

share|improve this answer

answered 40 mins ago

Mark AndrewsMark Andrews

2,7851623

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Thank you. I guess your answer is fully applicable to the latest edits in my question, too, right?
  
  – brilliant
  24 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

1

You imply in point 3 that all cats are normal. I don't know the specific name of the fallacy, but your argument is invalid because you didn't state that all things normal are cats, only that all cats are normal.

share|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

Jonah.PJonah.P

112

New contributor

Jonah.P is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I am not sure that point 3 is "all" cats are normal or "some" cats are normal.
  
  – Frank Hubeny
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  By "cats are normal" I meant to say that it is absolutely normal that cats are born into and exist in this world, whatever condition some cats may be born in (blind, no limbs, etc.)
  
  – brilliant
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I did some editing to my question.
  
  – brilliant
  53 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

0

Your error here is defining "normal" as a single set of things to which something either belongs or doesn't. That's not a useful (or normal) definition. Things are only normal or abnormal in context, compared to others of their kind. Are they a common or typical example of that kind, or are they an unusual or rare example? Normal cats have long tails (Manx cats might be considered abnormal). But a cat would be, say, a very abnormal voter, or an abnormal vehicle (more typical voters being human and more typical vehicles being machines). A perfectly normal person, likewise, would be an abnormal meal (cannibalism being rare), and a perfectly ordinary vehicle (say a bicycle) would be an unusual piece of art to hang on a wall.

You then make a second error in assuming that the statement "cats are normal" is equating the set of cats with the set of normal things. That's not what "are" means in this context. A more appropriate reading of that sentence would be to make cats a subset of normal things.

share|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

Lee Daniel CrockerLee Daniel Crocker

1,524512

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I did some editing to my question.
  
  – brilliant
  52 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

0

The argument is basically the fallacy of Denying the Antecedant. ~C, C → N |- ~N

• RabbitBirths are not CatBirths,


• CatBirths are NaturalPhenomena,


• therefore RabbitBirths are not NaturalPhenomena.

R → ~C , C → N |- R → ~N

share|improve this answer

answered 32 mins ago

Graham KempGraham Kemp

85618

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "265"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});

brilliant is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f60901%2fwhere-is-the-fallacy-here%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

1

Here is the argument:

1. No N is not-N.




2. No not-N is N.




3. All C are N.




4. No R are C.

Thus: No R are N.

The syllogism is invalid for two reasons. First, the third premise denies the antecedent (cats) of the fourth. There can be other animals that are normal. Wikipedia: Denying the antecedent; Formal fallacy.

Second, a term that is distributed in the conclusion (normal) is not distributed in the major premise (all cats are normal). Wikipedia: Illicit major.

The first two premises are not needed except as definitions. The second two, about cats and rabbits, state actual relationships between categories,

share|improve this answer

answered 40 mins ago

Mark AndrewsMark Andrews

2,7851623

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Thank you. I guess your answer is fully applicable to the latest edits in my question, too, right?
  
  – brilliant
  24 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

1

Here is the argument:

1. No N is not-N.




2. No not-N is N.




3. All C are N.




4. No R are C.

Thus: No R are N.

The syllogism is invalid for two reasons. First, the third premise denies the antecedent (cats) of the fourth. There can be other animals that are normal. Wikipedia: Denying the antecedent; Formal fallacy.

Second, a term that is distributed in the conclusion (normal) is not distributed in the major premise (all cats are normal). Wikipedia: Illicit major.

The first two premises are not needed except as definitions. The second two, about cats and rabbits, state actual relationships between categories,

share|improve this answer

answered 40 mins ago

Mark AndrewsMark Andrews

2,7851623

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Thank you. I guess your answer is fully applicable to the latest edits in my question, too, right?
  
  – brilliant
  24 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Here is the argument:

1. No N is not-N.




2. No not-N is N.




3. All C are N.




4. No R are C.

Thus: No R are N.

The syllogism is invalid for two reasons. First, the third premise denies the antecedent (cats) of the fourth. There can be other animals that are normal. Wikipedia: Denying the antecedent; Formal fallacy.

Second, a term that is distributed in the conclusion (normal) is not distributed in the major premise (all cats are normal). Wikipedia: Illicit major.

The first two premises are not needed except as definitions. The second two, about cats and rabbits, state actual relationships between categories,

share|improve this answer

answered 40 mins ago

Mark AndrewsMark Andrews

2,7851623

share|improve this answer

answered 40 mins ago

Mark AndrewsMark Andrews

2,7851623

answered 40 mins ago

Mark AndrewsMark Andrews

2,7851623

answered 40 mins ago

Mark AndrewsMark Andrews

2,7851623

1

You imply in point 3 that all cats are normal. I don't know the specific name of the fallacy, but your argument is invalid because you didn't state that all things normal are cats, only that all cats are normal.

share|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

Jonah.PJonah.P

112

New contributor

Jonah.P is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I am not sure that point 3 is "all" cats are normal or "some" cats are normal.
  
  – Frank Hubeny
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  By "cats are normal" I meant to say that it is absolutely normal that cats are born into and exist in this world, whatever condition some cats may be born in (blind, no limbs, etc.)
  
  – brilliant
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I did some editing to my question.
  
  – brilliant
  53 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

1

You imply in point 3 that all cats are normal. I don't know the specific name of the fallacy, but your argument is invalid because you didn't state that all things normal are cats, only that all cats are normal.

share|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

Jonah.PJonah.P

112

New contributor

Jonah.P is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I am not sure that point 3 is "all" cats are normal or "some" cats are normal.
  
  – Frank Hubeny
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  By "cats are normal" I meant to say that it is absolutely normal that cats are born into and exist in this world, whatever condition some cats may be born in (blind, no limbs, etc.)
  
  – brilliant
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I did some editing to my question.
  
  – brilliant
  53 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

You imply in point 3 that all cats are normal. I don't know the specific name of the fallacy, but your argument is invalid because you didn't state that all things normal are cats, only that all cats are normal.

share|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

Jonah.PJonah.P

112

New contributor

Jonah.P is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

share|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

Jonah.PJonah.P

112

New contributor

Jonah.P is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

answered 1 hour ago

Jonah.PJonah.P

112

New contributor

Jonah.P is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

answered 1 hour ago

Jonah.PJonah.P

112

0

Your error here is defining "normal" as a single set of things to which something either belongs or doesn't. That's not a useful (or normal) definition. Things are only normal or abnormal in context, compared to others of their kind. Are they a common or typical example of that kind, or are they an unusual or rare example? Normal cats have long tails (Manx cats might be considered abnormal). But a cat would be, say, a very abnormal voter, or an abnormal vehicle (more typical voters being human and more typical vehicles being machines). A perfectly normal person, likewise, would be an abnormal meal (cannibalism being rare), and a perfectly ordinary vehicle (say a bicycle) would be an unusual piece of art to hang on a wall.

You then make a second error in assuming that the statement "cats are normal" is equating the set of cats with the set of normal things. That's not what "are" means in this context. A more appropriate reading of that sentence would be to make cats a subset of normal things.

share|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

Lee Daniel CrockerLee Daniel Crocker

1,524512

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I did some editing to my question.
  
  – brilliant
  52 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

0

Your error here is defining "normal" as a single set of things to which something either belongs or doesn't. That's not a useful (or normal) definition. Things are only normal or abnormal in context, compared to others of their kind. Are they a common or typical example of that kind, or are they an unusual or rare example? Normal cats have long tails (Manx cats might be considered abnormal). But a cat would be, say, a very abnormal voter, or an abnormal vehicle (more typical voters being human and more typical vehicles being machines). A perfectly normal person, likewise, would be an abnormal meal (cannibalism being rare), and a perfectly ordinary vehicle (say a bicycle) would be an unusual piece of art to hang on a wall.

You then make a second error in assuming that the statement "cats are normal" is equating the set of cats with the set of normal things. That's not what "are" means in this context. A more appropriate reading of that sentence would be to make cats a subset of normal things.

share|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

Lee Daniel CrockerLee Daniel Crocker

1,524512

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I did some editing to my question.
  
  – brilliant
  52 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Your error here is defining "normal" as a single set of things to which something either belongs or doesn't. That's not a useful (or normal) definition. Things are only normal or abnormal in context, compared to others of their kind. Are they a common or typical example of that kind, or are they an unusual or rare example? Normal cats have long tails (Manx cats might be considered abnormal). But a cat would be, say, a very abnormal voter, or an abnormal vehicle (more typical voters being human and more typical vehicles being machines). A perfectly normal person, likewise, would be an abnormal meal (cannibalism being rare), and a perfectly ordinary vehicle (say a bicycle) would be an unusual piece of art to hang on a wall.

You then make a second error in assuming that the statement "cats are normal" is equating the set of cats with the set of normal things. That's not what "are" means in this context. A more appropriate reading of that sentence would be to make cats a subset of normal things.

share|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

Lee Daniel CrockerLee Daniel Crocker

1,524512

share|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

Lee Daniel CrockerLee Daniel Crocker

1,524512

answered 1 hour ago

Lee Daniel CrockerLee Daniel Crocker

1,524512

answered 1 hour ago

Lee Daniel CrockerLee Daniel Crocker

1,524512

0

The argument is basically the fallacy of Denying the Antecedant. ~C, C → N |- ~N

• RabbitBirths are not CatBirths,


• CatBirths are NaturalPhenomena,


• therefore RabbitBirths are not NaturalPhenomena.

R → ~C , C → N |- R → ~N

share|improve this answer

answered 32 mins ago

Graham KempGraham Kemp

85618

add a comment | 

0

The argument is basically the fallacy of Denying the Antecedant. ~C, C → N |- ~N

• RabbitBirths are not CatBirths,


• CatBirths are NaturalPhenomena,


• therefore RabbitBirths are not NaturalPhenomena.

R → ~C , C → N |- R → ~N

share|improve this answer

answered 32 mins ago

Graham KempGraham Kemp

85618

add a comment | 

The argument is basically the fallacy of Denying the Antecedant. ~C, C → N |- ~N

• RabbitBirths are not CatBirths,


• CatBirths are NaturalPhenomena,


• therefore RabbitBirths are not NaturalPhenomena.

R → ~C , C → N |- R → ~N

share|improve this answer

answered 32 mins ago

Graham KempGraham Kemp

85618

share|improve this answer

answered 32 mins ago

Graham KempGraham Kemp

85618

answered 32 mins ago

Graham KempGraham Kemp

85618

answered 32 mins ago

Graham KempGraham Kemp

85618