0

I am coming across quite a few. For example:

Although it isn't obvious from the site. It appears to be backed by the Population Research Institute who clearly has a political (pro-life, anti-euthanasia, and a few others) agenda. Also, the fact that they didn't exactly go out of their way to make it easy to see who was behind the site is enough to make me skeptical.

Being skeptical because it has a political agenda is a truism. By this principle, he should be equally skeptical, if not more of institutions that back population control, as they are in large part government funded. Hell; he should be skeptical of himself for his agenda in writing the post!

Can he really trust a person who is skeptical of an institution simply because it is pro life?

At best, it is informative of the institution being spoken of.

At worst, it poisons the well, and is a red herring detracting from the content of the claims made.

I'd like to know if removing it fits within the general procedure of this stack exchange?

2
  • A. Put a link to the question you use as the example. B. If it's it a general issue appearing in other questions, give them as examples as well. C. What is an informal logical fallacy as opposed to a regular logical fallacy?
    – SIMEL
    Commented Jan 15, 2016 at 18:37
  • @IlyaMelamed Informal Fallacies are inductive based. Formal Fallacies are Deductive based. For instance, an informal fallacy is erroneous for reasons other than structure. A gambler who thinks that he is bound to win at roulette because he has been losing, needs to present evidence in order to actually establish this law. We know it to be generally false. A double standard rarely is valid to present as an argument, so those exercising it should not be given license to exercise it without good qualification. A formal fallacy though would be: A or B. A therefore not B. "Affirming a disjunct"
    – Anon
    Commented Jan 16, 2016 at 13:56

1 Answer 1

2

Edits are appropriate if they don't change the intended meaning of the post.

From this point of view the changes that deviate the most I feel comfortable doing are limited to softening conclusions.

I can imagine that sometimes removing a fallacy might not impact the general meaning, after all it might not be a crucial point. In this case, feel free to edit, however be prepared to accept that the owner might roll back. In that case, simply add a comment and move on.

In all other cases, add a warning comment and, if you think it's warranted, add a down vote. After this, let the question lie.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .