logical fallacies utep tu quaqua look whose talking

#Logical fallacies utep tu quaqua look whose talking how to#
#Logical fallacies utep tu quaqua look whose talking series#

'I'm entitled to my opinion.' You can usually tell when someone has lost the argument when they retreat to this stance. Surely you can agree with that.'Īnd then once you agree to that, they begin working on advancing the more extreme proposition because you allowed them to take and stand on new ground.ġ3. 'Look, I'm not saying I want to be polyamorous, just that monogamy is a social construct. The motte is 'monogamy is a human construct imposed on humans,' while the bailey is that polyamory is perfectly normal. then advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position.' Example: 'Monogamy is a social construct. It's when an adulterer 'conflates two positions which share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the 'motte') and one much more controversial (the 'bailey'). Motte and bailey fallacy - This is harder to spot. Example: 'Your friend cheated, so he can't possibly give you good advice about our situation'ġ2. The genetic fallacy (trying to debunk an argument based on its origins rather than dealing with the substance of the argument itself). Appeal to pity or appeal to emotion ('I had a bad childhood' or 'I'm a sex addict' or 'I was in the fog when I said all those terrible things, so obviously I didn't mean them.' or 'yes, I've slept with multiple men but I really want our marriage and I love you so much. Appeal to authority ('our marriage counselor says we don't communicate well' or 'Esther Perel says affairs are journeys of discovery and empowerment')ġ0. Examples: 'you were promiscuous as a young woman, how dare you judge me' or 'I've seen you looking at other women, so how dare you judge me' - these are also examples of false equivalency.ĩ. WS will do this repeatedly, throwing out an argument or statement which seems relevant but which isn't.Ĩ. Red herring fallacy (throwing out a 'red herring' to throw hounds off the scent). Strawman argument ('So I guess I'm a whore to you now?') - positing an extreme statement or argument you never made so they can easily knock down this 'straw man'ħ. Appeal to people - ad populum - ('So many people commit adultery, so what's the big deal?')Ħ. Naturalistic fallacy ('adultery is acceptable because humans aren't naturally monogamous' - this is a dubious scientific claim in any case and increasingly it may be empirically false as well)ĥ. Circular reasoning (Simply repeating an argument instead of actually proving it) Example: 'You have such a high bar for reconciliation, so you must be against it.'Ĥ. or you must not be a very forgiving person.'ģ.

#Logical fallacies utep tu quaqua look whose talking how to#

Either you don’t understand how to properly handle reconciliation. False dichotomies (an either/or proposition that ignores a third, fourth possibility and so on). Ad hominem attacks (example: 'Thumos you're so blunt in speaking of my adultery. Eventually she stopped most of the games.ġ. But she also stopped that particular tactic, moved on to another one until I called that out, and so on. She got angry, which is to be expected when someone realizes what they thought was a 'rational' way of thinking is crumbling in front of them. You can bring these kinds of games to a grinding halt by calling them out: 'That's a straw man argument,' 'you're being intellectually dishonest' 'that's an ad hominem attack on me and it's illegitimate on its face' etc.

They will grow frustrated, but will shy away from that tactic henceforth. Take a moment, breathe, examine it and then call them out on it. If you feel frozen in time by some gobsmacking statement your WS has made, it's likely because it is a logical fallacy. If betrayed spouses learn how to spot these, they can cut through a lot of the gaslighting blather and blarney they typically are assaulted with.ĭeploying logic in these situations can help spot the word games, mind games, triangulation tactics and crazymaking gambit games that WS's so often like to play. Using a logical fallacy invalidates a statement immediately. There are two ways to invalidate arguments: empirically (a lie, a misstatement of fact) and logically (someone uses flawed reasoning).

#Logical fallacies utep tu quaqua look whose talking series#

I post it here as a reference guide for betrayed spouses trying to penetrate the thick haze of fuzzy thinking and gaslighting waywards so often perpetrate on them.Īlong with DARVO, blameshifting, and rewriting history, waywards will often deploy a series of common logical fallacies. Awhile back I posted a version of this in a thread and many seemed to find it helpful.