0-DCB
Random question, but...
If I were to say something like, "People who live in France speak French. Therefore, people who live in France don't speak English," would that be a logical fallacy? What specific fallacy would it be?
I had a class where the {guest} teacher brought up a similarly structured argument. While I understand his point, I think the way he argued it was faulty. In short, he was discussing the problems/difficulties with proclaiming that there is a "Standard English" and that all other forms should be left at home. He argued that if you say Standard English is spoken by intelligent people {due to SE being the predominant English taught and spoken in the school-system}, then you must be saying that non-Standard English {or as he said, "substandard"} is spoken by unintelligent people.
I just think the argument itself is flawed. Am I crazy?
While I can't tell you the name of the fallacy, I know it is one. Because a person can know multiple languages. Having a native language that is spoken more often doesn't mean someone doesn't know or speak more. Like, we're not limited to just knowing or speaking on language unless we want to be. While it may be a true statement for some people (those who choose not to learn another language, or who learn languages other than English) it cannot be applied to all. There's also the fact that some people living in France may have emigrated from somewhere that does speak English and English is even their first language (though they may - or may not! - speak French because, you know, it's easier to do things when you speak the language you're surrounded by). You might want to look into fallacies that are excluding in nature, or fallacies which make too many jumping assumption. Like, if A isn't B and B isn't C, then A isn't C. Which is basically a twist on the if A is B and B is C then A is C fallacy. It's a kind of deductive fallacy. Furthermore, it's also a fallacy to claim that anyone who supports SE as being intelligent is automatically calling non-SE unintelligent. This one I do know the name of: Straw Man. It's where you oversimplify a person's argument and then attack it because now you've made it hollow. Like saying any person who doesn't support the increase of minimum wage must hate the poor. Which is clearly ridiculous and impossible to assume, because there could be all sorts of complex, complicated reasons why a person might prefer one over the other. A full, real, and non-fallacious argument will address the opposing argument point by point to refute it with logic rather than try to turn it into a single, non-complex, and often horribly-motivated statement.
Oh gods, it's like I'm talking about everything wrong with the way politicians give speeches or answer questions
cat_gonk
Wikipedia's list of fallacies
Master list of logical fallacies
150
100
