Difference between revisions of "Stolen concept"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Reverted edits by Clarkbc (talk) to last revision by Aschlafly)
(→‎See also: added one)
(16 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
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.  More formally, the fallacy starts with a premise ''P'' and somehow reaches the conclusion not-''P''.  The term "stolen concept" refers to a concept that is "stolen" from the [[quoting 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.
+
*[[Communist]]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.
−
*[[Liberal]] [[collectivist]]s want greater [[government]] intrusion into our lives to protect [[freedom]].
+
* Liberal Christians may also identify as members of a church defined by adherence to a [[magisterium]], even as they reject that magisterium. This is particularly true of [[cafeteria Catholic]]s.
 
*[[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]].
 
*[[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 state|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 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.
+
*Believers in various forms of egalitarianism implicitly argue that in the name of equality, they are entitled to tell everyone else how to live. More generally, equality of outcome requires that people of different abilities or the like be treated unequally.
−
*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.
−
*Liberals will glady tear down real [[family|families]] to support the concept of the institution of the family as they understand it.
+
*Liberals keep bringing up a subject just to say that that they are not interested in it, which they would not do if they were genuinely not interested in it.
  
 
==See also==
 
==See also==
 +
*[[Morton's fork]]
 
*[[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
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
 +
{{nohearsay}}
 +
==External links==
 
*[http://www.goodart.org/stolen.htm Stolen Concept]
 
*[http://www.goodart.org/stolen.htm Stolen Concept]
 
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]
 
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

Revision as of 17:12, June 13, 2018

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. More formally, the fallacy starts with a premise P and somehow reaches the conclusion not-P. The term "stolen concept" refers to a concept that is "stolen" from the context that gives that concept meaning.

Examples

  • Communists 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 Christians may also identify as members of a church defined by adherence to a magisterium, even as they reject that magisterium. This is particularly true of cafeteria Catholics.
  • 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.
  • Liberals justify special rights as furthering equality and oppose genuine equality as a special right.
  • Believers in various forms of egalitarianism implicitly argue that in the name of equality, they are entitled to tell everyone else how to live. More generally, equality of outcome requires that people of different abilities or the like be treated unequally.
  • 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.
  • Liberals keep bringing up a subject just to say that that they are not interested in it, which they would not do if they were genuinely not interested in it.

See also

References

This page is proudly free from citations

To insist on finding a reference elsewhere for every statement made, as Wikipedia does, is to be a slave to hearsay. The authors of this page have enough confidence in their own insight not to lean on the opinions and assertions of others.

External links

Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Stolen_concept&oldid=1428404"