crazietalk.net

I know next to nothing about logical fallacies (I stayed away from Philosophy courses) so I was wondering if someone here might be able to help me. I heard an argument today that I am certain is a logical fallacy of some kind but, as I said, I know little about them so, if I am right and this is a fallacy, can someone please tell me which one it is?

Here is the argument:
Drinking is not illegal. Driving is not illegal. Therefore drinking and driving should not be illegal.


Thanks.

colchar wrote: Drinking is not illegal. Driving is not illegal. Therefore drinking and driving should not be illegal.

Only a drunk person could find the logic in that.

One of the desks in the second floor classroom of the Gray Building (Department of Religion) had the following syllogism carved into it. It always brought a smile to my face when I sat at this desk:

God is love.
Love is blind.
Ray Charles is blind.
Therefore, Ray Charles is God.

Never drink and drive.
You might run over a bump and spill your drink.

My friend told me his wife drove him to drink.
He lost his license and it was too far to walk to get to the liquor store.

Reminds me of one of my favorite Toby Keith songs, "You ain't much fun since I quit drankin'".

bjornolf wrote:Reminds me of one of my favorite Toby Keith songs, "You ain't much fun since I quit drankin'".

Billy Currington - People Are Crazy - lyrics from chorus: God is great, beer is good and people are crazy

colchar wrote:I know next to nothing about logical fallacies (I stayed away from Philosophy courses) so I was wondering if someone here might be able to help me. I heard an argument today that I am certain is a logical fallacy of some kind but, as I said, I know little about them so, if I am right and this is a fallacy, can someone please tell me which one it is?

Here is the argument:
Drinking is not illegal. Driving is not illegal. Therefore drinking and driving should not be illegal.


Thanks.

Drinking to excess is illegal in many places. Therefore, drinking and driving may be illegal. It may be called a fallacy of accident...but I don't really remember. The conclusion of the statement above is also conditional. So, that makes it difficult to assess.

Hell, I was an engineer. I don't have a clue...

There are a lot of ridiculous statements like that. And, as pointed out, drinking to excess, which is really what we're talking about with "drinking and driving" (even if excess is only a few drinks in the driving example), IS illegal. Hence the charge of "drunk in public", one of Ron White's favorites to talk about. ;)

The fallacy of composition, is what we have here. I think. I could be wrong. Here's the entire list.

Example 7, though, seems to work:
Sodium is dangerous to humans.
Chloride is dangerous to humans.
Therefore, combinations of Sodium and Chloride are dangerous to humans.

We know that humans need (some) salt to live, so the argument is incorrect.

As pointed out above, it's also an overgeneralization. Not all drinking is legal, and not all driving is legal, in fact, one kind of driving that's not legal is driving after too much drinking (or, in North Carolina, after drinking AT ALL if you are under 21 - or is it 18?).

BTW, my favorite fallacy is "post hoc ergo propter hoc" - which is what some parents of autistic children are engaging in when they blame the the autism on inoculations. "My kid seemed fine before the shots, so the shots must have caused the autism." Um, no. No it doesn't.


PS - I started this post as an edit, then got a phone call, then couldn't edit anymore. so this isn't blatant PWing.

This is blatant PW'ing.

Johnboy wrote:This is blatant PW'ing.

I don't think its discouraged at all.

YmoBeThere wrote:

Johnboy wrote:This is blatant PW'ing.

I don't think its discouraged at all.

In fact, it seems to be encouraged!
You get little trophies underneath your name the more you do it
Sadly, I only have one at the moment.

Just kidding, I have 2. As of two posts ago I guess? :ugeek: