The Dawkins fallacy (false difference):
Where the severe unnecessary human-caused suffering of A negates the lesser abuse of B, thereby, by implication trickeration, justifying the actions of those abusing B. In other words, if someone is spitting on you, the Dawkins fallacist will emphasize the fact that somewhere else, someone is getting punched. If someone's punching you, someone else is getting whipped, etc. All of this serves to silence the abused party and functions as a defense of the lesser offender (the spitter).
The reverse Dawkins fallacy (false equivalence):
Where B equates its own abuse to A's without recognizing the difference in severity, generally in order to advance its narrower interests while leaving the more abused behind. B uses A, is yet another abuser of A.
This is one of the major reasons why I keep telling myself I could never write a blog. The overwhelming need to incessantly make caveats, footnotes and clarifications of statements related to fundamental similarities between critical issues would make the whole thing completely unreadable.
Post a Comment