Difference between revisions of "Stolen concept"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Examples: two more examples) |
(→Examples: two more examples) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
*[[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. | *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 argue that the [[Equal Protection Clause]] was meant only to protect certain politically favored groups. That interpretation defeats the whole point of that clause. | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
*[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 21:56, July 26, 2011
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.
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.