Difference between revisions of "Stolen concept"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (A more accurate statement would be that socialists claim private property is theft from the community; there is no contradiction) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The fallacy of the '''stolen concept''', also known as the fallacy of the '''self-negating statement''', is the [[logical fallacy]] of implicitly affirming what one wants to disprove or, alternatively, implicitly denying what one wants to prove. That is, the [[conclusion]] [[contradiction|contradicts]] one of the [[premise]]s. The term "stolen concept" referst to a concept that is "stolen" from the [[out of context|context]] that gives that concept meaning. | The fallacy of the '''stolen concept''', also known as the fallacy of the '''self-negating statement''', is the [[logical fallacy]] of implicitly affirming what one wants to disprove or, alternatively, implicitly denying what one wants to prove. That is, the [[conclusion]] [[contradiction|contradicts]] one of the [[premise]]s. The term "stolen concept" referst to a concept that is "stolen" from the [[out of context|context]] that gives that concept meaning. | ||
==Examples== | ==Examples== | ||
| + | *[[Socialist]]s claim that property is theft, but the concept of theft presupposes a right to own property. | ||
*[[postmodernism|Postmodernists]] claim to know objectively that objective knowledge is impossible. | *[[postmodernism|Postmodernists]] claim to know objectively that objective knowledge is impossible. | ||
*[[Liberal Christianity|Liberal Christians]] claim that the [[Bible]], when [[Cafeteria Christianity|"rightly" divided]] and [[allegorical interpretation|"correctly" interpreted]], is the ultimate authority on [[faith]]. However, for that to work, the truly ultimate authority on faith would be the standard used for choosing which Bible verses to follow and for interpreting them, not the Bible itself. | *[[Liberal Christianity|Liberal Christians]] claim that the [[Bible]], when [[Cafeteria Christianity|"rightly" divided]] and [[allegorical interpretation|"correctly" interpreted]], is the ultimate authority on [[faith]]. However, for that to work, the truly ultimate authority on faith would be the standard used for choosing which Bible verses to follow and for interpreting them, not the Bible itself. | ||
| Line 10: | Line 11: | ||
*Liberals argue that the debt ceiling should be raised whenever reached. This argument makes the entire ceiling worthless in preventing excessive spending. | *Liberals argue that the debt ceiling should be raised whenever reached. This argument makes the entire ceiling worthless in preventing excessive spending. | ||
*[[Evolutionists]] use the [[argument from poor design]] to attempt to disprove [[creationism]]; however, according to evolutionism, natural selection should have selected out all suboptimal designs. | *[[Evolutionists]] use the [[argument from poor design]] to attempt to disprove [[creationism]]; however, according to evolutionism, natural selection should have selected out all suboptimal designs. | ||
| − | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
*[[Reductio Ad Absurdum]], a form of argument that can be used to expose a stolen concept | *[[Reductio Ad Absurdum]], a form of argument that can be used to expose a stolen concept | ||
Revision as of 16:46, March 15, 2012
The fallacy of the stolen concept, also known as the fallacy of the self-negating statement, is the logical fallacy of implicitly affirming what one wants to disprove or, alternatively, implicitly denying what one wants to prove. That is, the conclusion contradicts one of the premises. The term "stolen concept" referst to a concept that is "stolen" from the context that gives that concept meaning.
Examples
- Socialists claim that property is theft, but the concept of theft presupposes a right to own property.
- Postmodernists claim to know objectively that objective knowledge is impossible.
- Liberal Christians claim that the Bible, when "rightly" divided and "correctly" interpreted, is the ultimate authority on faith. However, for that to work, the truly ultimate authority on faith would be the standard used for choosing which Bible verses to follow and for interpreting them, not the Bible itself.
- Liberal collectivists want greater government intrusion into our lives to protect freedom.
- Pro-abortion activists argue that since there are no such things as unalienable rights, there is no right to life, so that there is an unalienable right to abortion.
- Liberal nanny statists argue that some acts are contrary to universally accepted standards and that if they are not prevented, everyone will want to do them.
- Liberals justify special rights as furthering equality and oppose genuine equality as a special right.
- Liberals argue that the Equal Protection Clause was meant only to protect certain politically favored groups. That interpretation defeats the whole point of that clause.
- Liberals argue that the debt ceiling should be raised whenever reached. This argument makes the entire ceiling worthless in preventing excessive spending.
- Evolutionists use the argument from poor design to attempt to disprove creationism; however, according to evolutionism, natural selection should have selected out all suboptimal designs.
See also
- Reductio Ad Absurdum, a form of argument that can be used to expose a stolen concept