|
|
Post by luro2020 on Mar 24, 2017 15:47:35 GMT
I truly believe all of the tactics people use one way another (counter exampling to disprove the majority, the burden of proof, the intimidation) can be shut down if we point out the logical fallacy, and how it is pertainant to heightism instead of educating them without having a name to the fallacies because if people see scholarly evidence (fallacious arguments were obviously rooted in scholarly research), then they will understand, so rather than just challenging them on heightism itself, challenge them on how the fallacy is used in heightism discussions, they may throw their tantrums, but we will atleast give them concrete evidence because these imbeciles will be slow to understand if they are allowed to work with their narrative without us being able to identify these fallacies.
|
|
|
|
Post by HeightismAOS on Mar 24, 2017 20:18:54 GMT
Sure man, I'll list off a few of the fallacies I've seen from heightism apologists: - Relative Privation: "Height discrimination is not that bad because someone else has it worse."
- Just-World: The childish belief that bad things happen to bad people. "It's not about height, it's your bad personality."
- Kafkatrapping: Inducing guilt then using any denial of guilt as further evidence of guilt. People accuse short men of having Short Man syndrome, then when any short man goes against this, they use it as further confirmation of SMS.
- Biological Determinism: "Height prejudice is the natural way of things."
- Burden of Proof: The burden of proof lies with the person who is making a claim. Society claims many nasty things about short men, yet expects short men to "disprove" these stereotypes - the accused is guilty until proven innocent. You all know I've written about this, but I'll link it here again in case someone new drops by: heightismhub.freeforums.net/thread/33/heightism-confirming-stereotypes
|
|
|
|
Post by luro2020 on Mar 24, 2017 20:56:24 GMT
Sure man, I'll list off a few of the fallacies I've seen from heightism apologists: - Relative Privation: "Height discrimination is not that bad because someone else has it worse."
- Just-World: The childish belief that bad things happen to bad people. "It's not about height, it's your bad personality."
- Kafkatrapping: Inducing guilt then using any denial of guilt as further evidence of guilt. People accuse short men of having Short Man syndrome, then when any short man goes against this, they use it as further confirmation of SMS.
- Biological Determinism: "Height prejudice is the natural way of things."
- Burden of Proof: The burden of proof lies with the person who is making a claim. Society claims many nasty things about short men, yet expects short men to "disprove" these stereotypes - the accused is guilty until proven innocent. You all know I've written about this, but I'll link it here again in case someone new drops by: heightismhub.freeforums.net/thread/33/heightism-confirming-stereotypes
I'm sorry for the confusion, it was a suggestion and an idea, I wasn't asking anyone to give me common fallacies, I made this post because fallacies don't seem to get attention in the heightism community but all of the status quo's arguments stem from them, so they should be addressed. |
|
|
|
Post by luro2020 on Mar 24, 2017 20:57:35 GMT
But those certainly are some of the critical ones used to derail us, good references.
|
|
|
|
Post by HeightismAOS on Mar 24, 2017 21:00:58 GMT
Sure man, I'll list off a few of the fallacies I've seen from heightism apologists: - Relative Privation: "Height discrimination is not that bad because someone else has it worse."
- Just-World: The childish belief that bad things happen to bad people. "It's not about height, it's your bad personality."
- Kafkatrapping: Inducing guilt then using any denial of guilt as further evidence of guilt. People accuse short men of having Short Man syndrome, then when any short man goes against this, they use it as further confirmation of SMS.
- Biological Determinism: "Height prejudice is the natural way of things."
- Burden of Proof: The burden of proof lies with the person who is making a claim. Society claims many nasty things about short men, yet expects short men to "disprove" these stereotypes - the accused is guilty until proven innocent. You all know I've written about this, but I'll link it here again in case someone new drops by: heightismhub.freeforums.net/thread/33/heightism-confirming-stereotypes
I'm sorry for the confusion, it was a suggestion and an idea, I wasn't asking anyone to give me common fallacies, I made this post because fallacies don't seem to get attention in the heightism community but all of the status quo's arguments stem from them, so they should be addressed. Saw you mention naming fallacies so I did it anyway. Why not, right? I also wanted to make it a blog post on my site so I can copy/paste it all at once, instead of grabbing individual sources every time this stuff pops up. This forum barely has anyone posting anyway, so if you guys know any other fallacies, personally I'd like to see them. |
|
|
|
Post by luro2020 on Mar 24, 2017 21:06:14 GMT
Here are a list of general common ones, the ones that i've seen from those apologists are no true scotsman (I am short and I don't get discriminated against), composition/division (Just because you don't face heightism, doesn't mean it isn't a real unacknowledged prejudice), and genetic (Always judging the media depictions instead of looking for relevant sources anti-heightism), the fallacy fallacy (If we don't articulate ourselves 100 % perfectly, heightism doesn't exist in the eyes of apologists), the black or white (Ok fine blame your height) discrimination being either a 0 or 10, similar to the fallacy of relative privitation also looking at heightism as horrible or nonexistant, and one of the most annoying ones, the middleground (We're going to have to agree to disagree, ok heightism is wrong i'm done arguing). The quotes are how i've seen these fallacies used by apologists.
|
|
|
|
Post by luro2020 on Mar 24, 2017 21:06:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Heightism Report on Mar 24, 2017 21:07:13 GMT
Great idea HeightismAOS.
Strawman Argument: It seems that no matter what type of evidence we introduce, it gets dismissed with "You're pathetic for hating women just because you can't get laid." It doesn't matter if we're not even discussing anything even remotely related to women, they still find this go-to argument as an easy one to introduce
|
|
|
|
Post by luro2020 on Mar 24, 2017 21:33:21 GMT
Great post HeightismAOS
I just learned about kaftatrapping today, and this one seems to be very prevalent "oh you're just mad you're short" "Stop blaming it on your height, you obviously are insecure" and like HeightismReport said, "we're just bitter because we can't get laid. Knowing about Kaftatrapping will help alot in discussions, because it can be hard to pin and subtle (The argument appears technically stable, but it is very manipulative because it is looking at the emotional response rather than validity of the content)
|
|
|
|
Post by Luro2020 on Mar 24, 2017 21:36:05 GMT
You already used the example of any response to being accused of SMS further confirmation, those are some other killers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Heightism Report on Mar 24, 2017 22:03:03 GMT
Either or Fallacy: Attempt to discredit by oversimplifying possible outcomes into two polar opposite categories
"Well, you can either live a happy life or you can overobsess about heightism, die a Virgin, and never leave your Mom's basement."
Ummmm no. You can actually learn about heightism, have a girlfriend, have a mansion, and lead a happy life, or fall anywhere between any of those possibilities. It's not a scenario where the only two options are life success or discussing heightism
|
|
|
|
Post by Heightism Report on Mar 24, 2017 22:20:16 GMT
Slippery Slope: Using the logic that one thing will lead to a series of undesirable events in the future
"So now we have to worry about heightism? It never ends. If we keep giving different groups rights, before you know it, we'll have hiring quotas for people with mustaches and will have to pay taxes to buy Batmobiles for people who want to live their lives as Batman."
|
|
|
|
Post by HeightismAOS on Mar 27, 2017 16:05:18 GMT
I have another one, "appeal to the people," where if many people think or say something, it must be true.
"Look at how many people talk about short man syndrome. Where there's smoke there's fire."
"If so many women talk about their innate love for tall men, it must be natural."
|
|
|
|
Post by Heightism Report on Mar 27, 2017 16:16:54 GMT
I have another one, "appeal to the people," where if many people think or say something, it must be true. "Look at how many people talk about short man syndrome. Where there's smoke there's fire." "If so many women talk about their innate love for tall men, it must be natural." Exactly. I've also heard the opposite of that argued. "If heightism is a real issue, why does no one ever talk about it?" That one is kind of appeal to the people with some Just World Fallacy mixed-in |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2019 23:50:52 GMT
Reading all these fallacies and perusing for more fallacies on wikipedia, I found this one that hasn't been covered en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9Thought terminatng cliche- Thought-terminating clichés, also known as thought-stoppers, or semantic stopsigns, are words or phrases that discourage critical thought and meaningful discussion about a given topic. ... Sometimes they are used in a deliberate attempt to shut down debate, manipulate others to think a certain way, or dismiss dissent.
Ex: Heightism won't fully go away, we have to learn to cope with it, if you can't get taller get wider. These platitudes i've noticed also harbor the naturalistic fallacy because of "evolutionary psychology" I have read on numerous posts. And then what follows is one of these platitudes, as alluded to in the definition of the Thought-Terminating cliche. |
|
