Logical fallacy of the day - Affirming the consequent.
Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy of reasoning that works backwards from an outcome to establish a cause, despite the flow of cause and effect. It is a three-step argument.
1. If P, then Q.
2. Q.
3. Therefore, P.
Senator Conroy uses this often, and it’s parodied well at http://conroylogic.com/, which takes a nonsensical statement and uses it to accuse you of hating children, if you don’t want to protect them (with a filter).
1. Child pornographers would not want an internet filter.
2. You do not want an internet filter.
3. Therefore, you must be a child pornographer.
This ignores the virtual plethora of reasons a sound, rational person would not want the government controlling its access to information. Conroy indirectly levelled this accusation at Kate Lundy for her proposed “opt-out” amendments to the filter.
“We have got an election commitment to deliver,” he said. When asked about his personal views of the proposed amentments, Conroy said: “I’m not into opting in to child porn.”[1]
-
ccake reblogged this from noisybenign and added:
I once had a uni lecturer, while explaining this concept declare A CHICKEN HAS TWO LEGS I HAVE TWO LEGS THEREFOR I AM A...
-
noisybenign reblogged this from nhac and added:
Aaaaand a little backstory, for all you nerds who love logic gates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional
-
nhac reblogged this from stephenconroyisanidiot
-
stephenconroyisanidiot posted this
