Nutpicking

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Nutpicking, named in analogy to "nitpicking" and "cherry picking," is the logical fallacy of smearing a whole group of people by finding a few extreme examples, typically in open comment threads, and holding them up as representative of that group.[1] Nutpicking is similar to the straw man fallacy; the difference is the difference between attacking an argument that only a few extreme people use and attacking an argument that no one uses at all.

Examples

Czech catholic professor of theology Ctirad Václav Pospíšil blames partisan of militant atheism Dawkins for picking the oponions of problematic fundamentalist groups and equivocating them with all Christian believers. He calls such approach deceit and points out that after applying it together with intepreting the opinion of opponent in the most twisted sense a person does not engage in an open dialog but struggles with his or her own strawman instead.[2]

References

  1. Nutpicking
  2. Ctirad Václav Pospíšil (16 February 2010). "Kde se bere tolik nenávisti? (Where so much hatred comes from?)" (in Czech). Katolický týdeník (7). http://www.katyd.cz/clanky/prilohy/perspektivy/kde-se-bere-tolik-nenavisti.html. "Podle Dawkinse jsou však všichni věřící fundamentalisty, kreacionisty a zabedněnci. Je to klasický úskok. Vyberu si názory problematické skupiny a prohlásím, že to platí pro všechny věřící. Dalším úskokem je interpretace názorů toho druhého v tom nejpitomějším možném smyslu. Pak ale nepolemizuji s druhým, nýbrž jen s vlastní interpretací.".