Talk:Fallacy of relative privation

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• List of fallacies
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:List of fallacies

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 October 2015. The result of the discussion was redirect to First World problem.

Not Actually a Fallacy?

This is not a fallacy. It is arguing that the argument at present is irrelevant in light of greater issues. To say this argument is a fallacy is to argue the need to prioritize is ridiculous or absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.94.182 (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fallacy might be the assumption that the existence of a large problem invalidates concern for a big problem. That is indeed a logical error (since the existence of a big issue in one place does not in itself eliminate a small issue in another). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.199.44 (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

173.75.145.27 (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)This looks like a special case of Red herring fallacy because it brings up an irrelevant topic, perhaps it should be a section in the Red herring page.[reply]

86.43.160.176 (talk) this isn't a fallacy! —Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is also a type of Strawman, "misrepresentation of an opponent's position" as the opposition is suggesting that because you care about "X" (perceived small issue), you must not care about "Y" (perceived big issue) and that these are mutually exclusive issues for the OP. It is indeed a perfectly reasonable fallacy as it misrepresents not only the original issue at hand, but also the OP's feelings on said issues. 86.175.78.64 (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whataboutery

This term re-directs to the "Fallacy of relative privation" page. You have provided no support for your claim that the term "whataboutery" was first used in reference to the troubles - the article cited makes no mention whatsoever of Ireland, Eire, Ulster or anything related. Japanscot (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SHouldn't Whataboutery redirect to Whataboutism? Iapetus (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite correct! Moved - David Gerard (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Jesselnik

It's probably not worth adding to the article, but Anthony Jesselnik's "Shakespeare" comedy album has a riff on the "I used to lament I had no shoes until I met a man with no feet" line. He added, "So I asked him if I could have his shoes." Nsayer (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fallacy link not working.

Should it be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas871 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

KEEP:

I have needed this link countless times to dispel the appeal to bigger problems informal fallacy which is often waved about as a valid argument. I have seen this page referenced itself many a time on multiple discussion platforms (including Facebook).

If there is a public need and the page is being used, why delete it?

Somebody raised the issue of not all informal fallacies having their own page - perhaps this should be rectified so that they all do. Alternatively, perhaps they are not as commonly searched for or used, in which case there is no demand for individual pages.

This fallacy is completely valid as no one person has to care about one problem or the other in a mutually exclusive way. There is also the point that a worse problem of some kind will always exist at any moment in time. This does not mean we have the resources, power or singular directive to solely focus on this "one" issue over all others. All perceived problems should be considered of equal value of discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.78.64 (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use the page on RationalWiki until this censorship is reverted, it is disappointing that such a stupid decision was carried through. 74.109.213.249 (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]