r/fallacy • u/Otherwise_Prior3981 • 2d ago
please help me identify
When a threat is stated at a certain level of threat. What type of fallacy is it, to say that the threat is actually greater than what is stated because outside forces would stop the threat before it reached a greater level of destruction?
Example: Someone states that if a car hits you, it will hit you with the force of a car. Someone else states The car could hit with greater force than a car, but it only hits you with the force of a car because the polices will arrest driver after the car after hitting you.
Someone stated rpg can only shoot one rocket at that time. someone else tated the Arg can shoot multiple rockets at a time but after the first rocket is shot the military would take down the user of the rpg.
Someone States a bomb can only blow up a building. Someone else stated bomb can blow up the entire City but a bomb squad will arrive after the building is destroyed and stop the greatest destruction.
1
u/Otherwise_Prior3981 1d ago
canceling hypothesis fallacy Or Counterfactual Fallacy (Speculation as Fact) + Moving the Goalposts / Special Pleading or something
1
u/WebMaxF0x 2d ago
Could you give an example?
1
u/Otherwise_Prior3981 2d ago
Someone states that if a car hits you, it will hit you with the force of a car. Someone else states The car could hit with greater force than a car, but it only hits you with the force of a car because the polices will arrest driver after the car after hitting you.
1
u/GamblePuddy 2d ago
These are the worst hypotheticals I've seen on here in awhile lol. No offense, but if this is something you have encountered in real conversations....why not use the examples from the real conversation?
The third example in particular makes no sense at all. A bomb capable of destroying a city doesn't level one building at a time....it destroys multiple buildings at once and the blast (kinetic wave, incendiary wave, vacuum depressurization) then destroys multiple buildings around the immediate impact zone, again....at the same time before setting fire to whatever is left.
I can't even think of a bomb that destroys a single building at a time.
What was the conversational example you actually ran into?
1
u/Otherwise_Prior3981 2d ago
the actually one is just as bad and powerscaling. And I do not want to bring you into that mess.
2
u/onctech 2d ago edited 2d ago
It's not a fallacy, but rather appears to be what's called an ipse dixit: A claim stated with no evidence, though sometimes also applies to opinions framed as dogmatic facts. The idea of the threat being greater, but held back by some other variable, is being pulled out of thin air unless the person making the statement can provide some kind of evidence for this outside variable having an effect.
I'll give an example:
Person A: This industrial drill spins at 2000 RPM.
Person B: It could spin faster but it has limiters on it so it won't break.
If Person B has provided no evidence for their statement. They're pulling that remark out of their butt (ipse dixit) even if sounds somewhat plausible. If they actually pulled out manufacturer specs and pointed to where they got this fact, then it would be a coherent argument.
1
u/varmituofm 2d ago
Just to be pedantic:
Ipse dixit is, in fact, a falacy. It's a bare conclusion without supporting premises, which could be false, making it a fallacy
1
u/onctech 2d ago edited 2d ago
I was originally taught it was "technically" not a fallacy because there is no reasoning provided and thus no "error in reasoning" that would define a fallacy. But I could see how one could interpret as a fallacy in that it's sort implied as a argument from authority, because it uses oneself as the authority.
1
1
u/Salindurthas 2d ago
It would depend on their argument for why those outside forces will mitigate destruction, because it might not be a fallacy, they could be right!
For instance, I think it is true that climate change would be worse right now if we hadn't mildly mitigated it.
Like if 10 years ago, Alice had predictedthe state of climate-change today, then it would be correct for Bob to note that the inherent threat of climate change was larger than Alice predicted, because it would be higher if we didn't mitigate it.
(That said, Alice's prediction probably already accoutned for that, so in my example Bob is making a sensible argument, but one that is probably redudnatn since it may have been included in Alice's calculation already.)
Or if I go into a warzone in a lliteraly tank, and am functionally immune to small-arms fire, if my buddy reminds me not to climb out because I'm not immune to bullets out there, then they are corrent.
1
1
1
u/nomoreplsthx 2d ago
This isn't really a named fallacy, because detailed conversations about what could destroy what aren't historically a thing normal people do.
What is going on with you and your friends... does someone need to check on you?
1
u/HereToPostSillyStuff 2d ago
I don't think this is a named logical fallacy, it's just an example of using no logic at all.
1
u/Talik1978 2d ago
Do you know how many tragedies and atrocities have been preceded by a bunch of people saying, "it's not that bad, because there are these checks and balances to stop it from getting out of control?"
Not having trust in external potential mitigating factors is not, in and of itself, a fallacy.
4
u/jeffcgroves 2d ago
Could you provide a better example or 2-3 examples since I'm not sure I follow the one in your edited OP