Talk:Fallacy of relative privation: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:33, 31 October 2015

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]

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]

This should seriously be removed

It's not a logical fallacy, it's not a term that seen any use anywhere (almost no google hits except rationalwiki and this) and it's really really stupid. 86.191.192.87 (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I tried to find suitable references in academic literature, and all that comes up is the blogs referenced here. It's a cute term. But it needs better sourcing to be on Wikipedia.Trumpetrep (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 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.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/107.3.94.182|107.3.94.182]] ([[User talk:107.3.94.182|talk]]) 20:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 :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).   <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/129.100.199.44|129.100.199.44]] ([[User talk:129.100.199.44|talk]]) 09:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+[[Special:Contributions/173.75.145.27|173.75.145.27]] ([[User talk: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.
 ==Whataboutery==