What logical fallacy is “If you don't like it, move!”?
up vote
22
down vote
favorite
When criticizing government, society or whatever, people often retort, "If you don't like America, why don't you move somewhere else?"
What kind of fallacy would this qualify as?
At first glance, it doesn't appear to make an argument at all. However, there is an implied argument:
If one doesn't like (whatever), one should move (rather than trying to fix the problem).
Can anyone suggest what kind of fallacy this is?
EDIT
Yikes, it's hard to choose the correct answer. Bread's response is the most popular by far, yet there are several others who argue that this isn't a fallacy at all.
I concur with Robus' observation that this could be classified as an ad hominem attack.
I think what we have is a complex "thing" that can be used in a variety of situations. While debating the merits of capitalism vs socialism, a person might challenge "Why don't you move to Cuba?" following it up with comments on Cuba's poverty or authoritarian government. There is some logic to the response (though it can be rebutted).
On the other hand, a person could just say something similar as a knee-jerk insult. For example, Mr. A. is griping about the sad state of entertainment, when Mr. B. growls, "Why don't you move to Haiti?"
The connection between media and Haiti may be weak or non-existent. He just knows that Haiti is a place not many people would want to live...so why don't you just stop criticizing something I support and go live in a really crappy place?
In summary, I think "Why don't you just move to X" can qualify as a logical fallacy in certain situations but not in others. In addition, it can qualify as different kinds of fallacies.
It will take me more time to get my head wrapped around it, but that's my current thinking. I up voted all the responses but two, including the suggestion that these words usually target immigrants.
fallacies
add a comment |
up vote
22
down vote
favorite
When criticizing government, society or whatever, people often retort, "If you don't like America, why don't you move somewhere else?"
What kind of fallacy would this qualify as?
At first glance, it doesn't appear to make an argument at all. However, there is an implied argument:
If one doesn't like (whatever), one should move (rather than trying to fix the problem).
Can anyone suggest what kind of fallacy this is?
EDIT
Yikes, it's hard to choose the correct answer. Bread's response is the most popular by far, yet there are several others who argue that this isn't a fallacy at all.
I concur with Robus' observation that this could be classified as an ad hominem attack.
I think what we have is a complex "thing" that can be used in a variety of situations. While debating the merits of capitalism vs socialism, a person might challenge "Why don't you move to Cuba?" following it up with comments on Cuba's poverty or authoritarian government. There is some logic to the response (though it can be rebutted).
On the other hand, a person could just say something similar as a knee-jerk insult. For example, Mr. A. is griping about the sad state of entertainment, when Mr. B. growls, "Why don't you move to Haiti?"
The connection between media and Haiti may be weak or non-existent. He just knows that Haiti is a place not many people would want to live...so why don't you just stop criticizing something I support and go live in a really crappy place?
In summary, I think "Why don't you just move to X" can qualify as a logical fallacy in certain situations but not in others. In addition, it can qualify as different kinds of fallacies.
It will take me more time to get my head wrapped around it, but that's my current thinking. I up voted all the responses but two, including the suggestion that these words usually target immigrants.
fallacies
1
The problem with this is that (if we limit ourselves to our native country, if you have migrated as an adult it is a very different situation) you didn't pick the country you were born in. So if that country somehow violates your basic human rights (such as imprisoning gays for being homosexual) it is not you who are at fault but rather the laws and you are the victim of immoral laws. Forcing you to move when you just want to live your life not bothering anyone is like forcing the victim of bullying in school to move rather than the bully. Are you Swedish?
– d-b
17 hours ago
10
It gets ironic, when the same people who tell you to move out of X if you don't like it there oppose the arrival of individuals who didn't like the situation in their country Y and want to move to X to have a better life.
– M.Herzkamp
16 hours ago
2
Wikipedia: "A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves" in the construction of an argument". What you suggest doesn't include anything invalid in the reasoning itself, but rather its consequences.
– Yechiam Weiss
10 hours ago
2
I have to say that I don't think the statement is a logical fallacy, so much as an expression of the speaker's opinion. People who say this don't really mean that they think there are literally only two options ('like it' or 'leave') but that they think changing the way things are is a bad idea and they would prefer it didn't happen.
– DJClayworth
7 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
22
down vote
favorite
up vote
22
down vote
favorite
When criticizing government, society or whatever, people often retort, "If you don't like America, why don't you move somewhere else?"
What kind of fallacy would this qualify as?
At first glance, it doesn't appear to make an argument at all. However, there is an implied argument:
If one doesn't like (whatever), one should move (rather than trying to fix the problem).
Can anyone suggest what kind of fallacy this is?
EDIT
Yikes, it's hard to choose the correct answer. Bread's response is the most popular by far, yet there are several others who argue that this isn't a fallacy at all.
I concur with Robus' observation that this could be classified as an ad hominem attack.
I think what we have is a complex "thing" that can be used in a variety of situations. While debating the merits of capitalism vs socialism, a person might challenge "Why don't you move to Cuba?" following it up with comments on Cuba's poverty or authoritarian government. There is some logic to the response (though it can be rebutted).
On the other hand, a person could just say something similar as a knee-jerk insult. For example, Mr. A. is griping about the sad state of entertainment, when Mr. B. growls, "Why don't you move to Haiti?"
The connection between media and Haiti may be weak or non-existent. He just knows that Haiti is a place not many people would want to live...so why don't you just stop criticizing something I support and go live in a really crappy place?
In summary, I think "Why don't you just move to X" can qualify as a logical fallacy in certain situations but not in others. In addition, it can qualify as different kinds of fallacies.
It will take me more time to get my head wrapped around it, but that's my current thinking. I up voted all the responses but two, including the suggestion that these words usually target immigrants.
fallacies
When criticizing government, society or whatever, people often retort, "If you don't like America, why don't you move somewhere else?"
What kind of fallacy would this qualify as?
At first glance, it doesn't appear to make an argument at all. However, there is an implied argument:
If one doesn't like (whatever), one should move (rather than trying to fix the problem).
Can anyone suggest what kind of fallacy this is?
EDIT
Yikes, it's hard to choose the correct answer. Bread's response is the most popular by far, yet there are several others who argue that this isn't a fallacy at all.
I concur with Robus' observation that this could be classified as an ad hominem attack.
I think what we have is a complex "thing" that can be used in a variety of situations. While debating the merits of capitalism vs socialism, a person might challenge "Why don't you move to Cuba?" following it up with comments on Cuba's poverty or authoritarian government. There is some logic to the response (though it can be rebutted).
On the other hand, a person could just say something similar as a knee-jerk insult. For example, Mr. A. is griping about the sad state of entertainment, when Mr. B. growls, "Why don't you move to Haiti?"
The connection between media and Haiti may be weak or non-existent. He just knows that Haiti is a place not many people would want to live...so why don't you just stop criticizing something I support and go live in a really crappy place?
In summary, I think "Why don't you just move to X" can qualify as a logical fallacy in certain situations but not in others. In addition, it can qualify as different kinds of fallacies.
It will take me more time to get my head wrapped around it, but that's my current thinking. I up voted all the responses but two, including the suggestion that these words usually target immigrants.
fallacies
fallacies
edited 4 hours ago
asked yesterday
David Blomstrom
2,370517
2,370517
1
The problem with this is that (if we limit ourselves to our native country, if you have migrated as an adult it is a very different situation) you didn't pick the country you were born in. So if that country somehow violates your basic human rights (such as imprisoning gays for being homosexual) it is not you who are at fault but rather the laws and you are the victim of immoral laws. Forcing you to move when you just want to live your life not bothering anyone is like forcing the victim of bullying in school to move rather than the bully. Are you Swedish?
– d-b
17 hours ago
10
It gets ironic, when the same people who tell you to move out of X if you don't like it there oppose the arrival of individuals who didn't like the situation in their country Y and want to move to X to have a better life.
– M.Herzkamp
16 hours ago
2
Wikipedia: "A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves" in the construction of an argument". What you suggest doesn't include anything invalid in the reasoning itself, but rather its consequences.
– Yechiam Weiss
10 hours ago
2
I have to say that I don't think the statement is a logical fallacy, so much as an expression of the speaker's opinion. People who say this don't really mean that they think there are literally only two options ('like it' or 'leave') but that they think changing the way things are is a bad idea and they would prefer it didn't happen.
– DJClayworth
7 hours ago
add a comment |
1
The problem with this is that (if we limit ourselves to our native country, if you have migrated as an adult it is a very different situation) you didn't pick the country you were born in. So if that country somehow violates your basic human rights (such as imprisoning gays for being homosexual) it is not you who are at fault but rather the laws and you are the victim of immoral laws. Forcing you to move when you just want to live your life not bothering anyone is like forcing the victim of bullying in school to move rather than the bully. Are you Swedish?
– d-b
17 hours ago
10
It gets ironic, when the same people who tell you to move out of X if you don't like it there oppose the arrival of individuals who didn't like the situation in their country Y and want to move to X to have a better life.
– M.Herzkamp
16 hours ago
2
Wikipedia: "A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves" in the construction of an argument". What you suggest doesn't include anything invalid in the reasoning itself, but rather its consequences.
– Yechiam Weiss
10 hours ago
2
I have to say that I don't think the statement is a logical fallacy, so much as an expression of the speaker's opinion. People who say this don't really mean that they think there are literally only two options ('like it' or 'leave') but that they think changing the way things are is a bad idea and they would prefer it didn't happen.
– DJClayworth
7 hours ago
1
1
The problem with this is that (if we limit ourselves to our native country, if you have migrated as an adult it is a very different situation) you didn't pick the country you were born in. So if that country somehow violates your basic human rights (such as imprisoning gays for being homosexual) it is not you who are at fault but rather the laws and you are the victim of immoral laws. Forcing you to move when you just want to live your life not bothering anyone is like forcing the victim of bullying in school to move rather than the bully. Are you Swedish?
– d-b
17 hours ago
The problem with this is that (if we limit ourselves to our native country, if you have migrated as an adult it is a very different situation) you didn't pick the country you were born in. So if that country somehow violates your basic human rights (such as imprisoning gays for being homosexual) it is not you who are at fault but rather the laws and you are the victim of immoral laws. Forcing you to move when you just want to live your life not bothering anyone is like forcing the victim of bullying in school to move rather than the bully. Are you Swedish?
– d-b
17 hours ago
10
10
It gets ironic, when the same people who tell you to move out of X if you don't like it there oppose the arrival of individuals who didn't like the situation in their country Y and want to move to X to have a better life.
– M.Herzkamp
16 hours ago
It gets ironic, when the same people who tell you to move out of X if you don't like it there oppose the arrival of individuals who didn't like the situation in their country Y and want to move to X to have a better life.
– M.Herzkamp
16 hours ago
2
2
Wikipedia: "A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves" in the construction of an argument". What you suggest doesn't include anything invalid in the reasoning itself, but rather its consequences.
– Yechiam Weiss
10 hours ago
Wikipedia: "A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves" in the construction of an argument". What you suggest doesn't include anything invalid in the reasoning itself, but rather its consequences.
– Yechiam Weiss
10 hours ago
2
2
I have to say that I don't think the statement is a logical fallacy, so much as an expression of the speaker's opinion. People who say this don't really mean that they think there are literally only two options ('like it' or 'leave') but that they think changing the way things are is a bad idea and they would prefer it didn't happen.
– DJClayworth
7 hours ago
I have to say that I don't think the statement is a logical fallacy, so much as an expression of the speaker's opinion. People who say this don't really mean that they think there are literally only two options ('like it' or 'leave') but that they think changing the way things are is a bad idea and they would prefer it didn't happen.
– DJClayworth
7 hours ago
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
up vote
29
down vote
It is the False Dilemma or Bifurcation Fallacy.
If you don't like it, then move.
Let's say you have caused some problems by questioning the decisions, speech, and actions of someone who is actively seeking social, economic, and/or political power. And you're confident that you have every right -- or even duty -- to do so. Those in power who are profiting from the situation aren't willing to change anything, hence they feel threatened by any kind of criticism. So they choose to solve the problem by employing a logically twisted rhetorical tactic against you in order to get rid of you fast. They assume that you aren't intelligent or educated enough to catch the fallacy in their argument. It goes like this:
Either you agree with the way we're handling things, or you don't.
If you like it, you're no threat to us (you can stay).
But your dissent creates a dilemma for us (so you can't stay). "Move."
The point is, they offer no other options. Just two: agree and stay, or disagree and leave. They're not willing to discuss it with you, because they know they'll lose that argument, so they're going to insist that you go away. But since they don't want to argue with you, they want you to think it's your choice. Thus they create a false dilemma.
"It's too bad you don't like it, because that means you should leave."
Well, not really. It doesn't have to mean that you should leave, because there are other options your opponents refuse to acknowledge. You might prefer to remain in the land of your forefathers, the land that you love, and work diligently to improve the socio-political climate where you are, along with any other important problems you and your loved ones might be facing there.
Logical Fallacies explains it well:
The bifurcation fallacy is committed when a false dilemma is presented, i.e. when someone is asked to choose between two options when there is at least one other option available. Of course, arguments that restrict the options to more than two but less than there really are, are similarly fallacious.
Example:
- (1) Either a Creator brought the universe into existence, or the universe came into existence out of nothing.
- (2) The universe didn’t come into existence out of nothing (because nothing comes from nothing). Therefore:
- (3) A Creator brought the universe into existence.
The first premise of this argument presents a false dilemma; it might be thought that the universe neither was brought into existence by a Creator nor came into existence out of nothing, because it existed from eternity.
4
To add to this, the other choice is to change the society. There's a reason America has Amendments - people have changed their mind over time on how things should be run.
– Graham
19 hours ago
1
Just to complete the picture - the other option that is for some reason not mentioned here is to agree and leave. It might not appear as attractive one to the OP but it is still the option. And the above definitions of bifurcation fallacy or false dilemma do not say anything about attractiveness of the not mentioned options.
– kukis
18 hours ago
5
You have radically changed OP's example into something that is a fallacy, while the original question never was.
– pipe
18 hours ago
2
@marshal craft I really appreciate your intelligent contributions to Philosophy, thanks. I liked the example from Logical Fallacies because I believe that logically the eternal universe itself is the "single benevolent" God, although I realize there are many who have problems accepting that idea. However, I didn't pursue that line of thought in my answer, since as an example only, it was not completely on topic. By the way, I found my answer by googling, "fallacies of presumption".
– Bread
13 hours ago
1
It is a good demonstration and reminds/reveals times I have probably employed the fallacy not entirely realizing it.
– marshal craft
13 hours ago
|
show 9 more comments
up vote
18
down vote
It may very well be a poor argument, but it's not a logical fallacy
People are too quick to jump on the "fallacy" bandwagon. There is no logical fallacy occurring here. It may very well be an argument that is not particularly convincing (In fact, I wouldn't use the argument), but there is nothing logically fallacious about it.
If a person asks
"If you don't like America, why don't you move somewhere else?"
Bread states that "there are other options your opponents refuse to acknowledge," however this seems somewhat of a stretch. This is clearly reading more into what was said, than what was actually being said (In fact, this appears to be a straw man argument, which is ironically a fallacy itself). From this phrasing there is nothing that says that moving is the only way to achieve change. It just raises moving as an option. Clearly, this is an option that many people take, because people migrate all the time to countries they prefer to live in. In some cases it may even be the preferred way to achieve the change that you wish in your life.
Let's take a similar example. Consider the following statement:
"If you want to earn more money, why don't you work more hours per week?"
Would anyone seriously think that this person is suggesting that working more hours per week is the only possible way to earn more money? I think that most people can see that they are simply raising one possible avenue of earning more money.
Instead, if someone said
"If you don't like America, your only option is to move somewhere else."
Then, sure, their statement would be logically fallacious.
On the other hand, Mark Andrews analyzes the statement as
“There is nothing seriously wrong with this society, so the problem must lie in your own attitudes.” That is the conclusion. When the proponent recommends that the other person leave the country, the validity of this conclusion is taken as a given. The question of the truth or falsehood of the conclusion (which has become the assumption) is sidestepped completely.
But again, there is nothing fallacious in thinking "I like the country as it is; I would prefer if you didn't change it; therefore I would prefer that you leave rather than changing the country." Again, I'm not telling you to be convinced by the argument. But there is really nothing logically fallacious going on. To the question "Why don't you move somewhere else?" You are completely free to respond "Because I would rather change [what I perceive to be] the flaws of this country rather than moving."
4
Bread used the quote "If you don't like it, then move." (paraphrasing the question's title) and you have used the quote "If you don't like America, why don't you move somewhere else?" (which is from the question's body and subtly different) and from the way you phrased the response appear to be attributing Bread's response to that quote - which is not what they addressed.
– MT0
17 hours ago
2
@MT0 But I am addressing the actual quote from the OP. When I say that Bread is reading more into the statement than what is actually said, I am (gently) criticizing their changing of the original quote. They are setting up a straw man by changing the quote. As pipe said: "You have radically changed OP's example into something that is a fallacy, while the original question never was."
– Eff
17 hours ago
4
The question's title is "If you don't like it, move".
– MT0
17 hours ago
1
@MT0 Fair enough, but I see the title as short phrase that indicates what the question is about, and the actual post [i.e. the OP] is what sets up the real question that needs to be answered. However, I will say that my points hold even if the quote was "If you don't like it, move." I still think it's somewhat of a stretch to believe that the person saying that actually believes that moving is the only option. It's still just a suggestion that you can reject.
– Eff
17 hours ago
1
There still could be fallacy in the fact that clearly you are in disagreement, however you need do nothing and physical action is required of the proponent in leaving the countries territory. You are placing the burden of compromise entirely on the proponent. But you are neglecting equality, and essentially the idea of compromising on equality. "One persons freedoms end where another begins". Clearly the Christianity motivated cooperation is required.
– marshal craft
14 hours ago
|
show 10 more comments
up vote
11
down vote
No fallacy - but a loaded assumption
There is no fallacy here, no logical error in argument as e.g. in affirming the consequent. This is so, not least because there is no argument here at all - only an expression of viewpoint. Fallacy presupposes argument. No argument, no fallacy : the concepts are tied.
But there is a loaded assumption, namely that if you don't like America, the onus is on you to stop criticising or otherwise complaining and move out. In other words the American status quo is fine, great or at least all right : so leave us alone and go.
A right to leave , but nowhere to go
Not a loaded assumption but 'If you don't like it, move' assumes that since a person has a right to emigrate, he has a right to go somewhere. With minimal exceptions, however, states do not allow free immigration but place restrictions on who can cross their borders and take up residence. So 'moving' is not the universally recognised right it would need to be for this viewpoint to be unqualifiedly reasonable.
The toll of moving
Suppose, though, that a person can 'go somewhere' - to another state - let's make a humdrum comparison to show that 'moving' state is exceptionally consequential. So : there's a great difference between (a) 'If you don't like this shop, go to another' and (b) 'If you don't like this country, move to another'.
(a) is often perfectly reasonable. There need be no cost or inconvenience in switching one's custom from one shop to another. But there is a complete lack of parallel between (a) and (b) - or is very likely to be.
I may not have the resources to move. (b) In moving I sever my cultural roots. (c) Another country may not accept me. (d) I may have dependants whose interests will be harmed if I move to another country.
In the shop example, switching to another shop standardly carries no 'costs' or toll to myself. Or the 'costs', of time for instance, may be negligible or worth paying in order to avoid an uncongenial venue. I can exercise my preference without prohibitive or significant disadvantage.
By contrast, moving to another country is likely to involve prohibitive or significant disadvantage. Exercising this preference, even if I have it, is far more seriously consequential.
The activist's response - 'stay and fight'
There's also the point that if I don't like my (or a) country, there is a strong prima facie case for staying in it in order to help change it. You seldom improve a situation by running away from it. Maybe the American status quo isn't fine, great or at least all right and the assumption that it is should be rebutted by argument and protest.
It's not that I disagree with what you've said. In fact, I agree. But does it really answer the question? Is the statement a fallacy? If so, which? I totally agree that there are many costs associated with leaving a country, but I don't see how that makes the statement a fallacy. It just lends itself to an easy answer. Question: "If you don't like the country, why don't you move?" Answer: "Because the costs associated with moving are too high [because of X or Y], and I would prefer to change the country that I live in for the better." No fallacy occurred, just responded to the question.
– Eff
18 hours ago
It is also worth pointing out that while there is a "toll of moving" there is similarly a "toll of changing." There are a lot of costs associated with changing a country. It is up the individual to weigh these costs and benefits against each other.
– Eff
17 hours ago
Point taken - and (I hope) addressed in revised answer. Best : GLT
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
17 hours ago
Yes, I like it now. Upvoted.
– Eff
16 hours ago
Your post suggests a response to "If you don't like it, move" ... usually this is an attempt to shut someone up and deprive them of their free speech rights ..."If you don't like the First Amendment, then move."
– emory
12 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
I suppose that there are a whole pile of fallacies behind such arguments. The one that first comes to mind is that the argument assumes what it sets out to prove.
“There is nothing seriously wrong with this society, so the problem must lie in your own attitudes.” That is the conclusion. When the proponent recommends that the other person leave the country, the validity of this conclusion is taken as a given. The question of the truth or falsehood of the conclusion (which has become the assumption) is sidestepped completely.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Simply on the basis of seeing this bumper sticker quite often throughout my life here in America I am also going to include the Bandwagon fallacy, ad populum. Just because it seems to be a popular and damaging argument used through advertisement.
I also agree with the bifurcation fallacy based on it assuming there is only ONE option in this situation of not liking where you are.
And I am also going to include, ad hominem fallacy, because I feel the insinuation may be directed toward immigrants or any minority in disagreement with current laws or traditions or sacrosanct arguments and can include such aspects as: culture, education level, religion, ethnic majority, eccentric behaviors, gender preference etc.
BINGO! I was just about to add a comment that, to my mind, this sounds kind of like an ad hominem attack.
– David Blomstrom
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
It is not a fallacy at all
First of all, this kind of criticism is usually aimed at people who are first of second generation immigrants. They came in US searching for better life conditions, which implies that their own old country had worse life conditions, and they were unable to improve them. If they could not improve country with lower living standard (lower goal post) there is a pretty reasonable chance they could not improve country with higher living standard (higher goal post). In fact, possible outcome could be worse living standard for US citizens.
Second, even when this critique is not aimed to immigrants, there is another problem. Person X could argue that he wants US to resemble some other country, let's say Sweden. Currently, large parts of US population abhor idea of US looking like Sweden. Therefore, person X has a long struggle ahead of him to convince or force others to accept his Swedish ideas. It would be more economical for him just to move to Sweden, instead of wasting energy and life on something that others do not want.
I've heard it said to way more people than first or second generation immigrants.
– Joe
11 hours ago
I was just about to post what Joe said. My perception is that this challenge is leveled at just about anyone who criticizes the U.S government, U.S. policy, etc.
– David Blomstrom
4 hours ago
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
29
down vote
It is the False Dilemma or Bifurcation Fallacy.
If you don't like it, then move.
Let's say you have caused some problems by questioning the decisions, speech, and actions of someone who is actively seeking social, economic, and/or political power. And you're confident that you have every right -- or even duty -- to do so. Those in power who are profiting from the situation aren't willing to change anything, hence they feel threatened by any kind of criticism. So they choose to solve the problem by employing a logically twisted rhetorical tactic against you in order to get rid of you fast. They assume that you aren't intelligent or educated enough to catch the fallacy in their argument. It goes like this:
Either you agree with the way we're handling things, or you don't.
If you like it, you're no threat to us (you can stay).
But your dissent creates a dilemma for us (so you can't stay). "Move."
The point is, they offer no other options. Just two: agree and stay, or disagree and leave. They're not willing to discuss it with you, because they know they'll lose that argument, so they're going to insist that you go away. But since they don't want to argue with you, they want you to think it's your choice. Thus they create a false dilemma.
"It's too bad you don't like it, because that means you should leave."
Well, not really. It doesn't have to mean that you should leave, because there are other options your opponents refuse to acknowledge. You might prefer to remain in the land of your forefathers, the land that you love, and work diligently to improve the socio-political climate where you are, along with any other important problems you and your loved ones might be facing there.
Logical Fallacies explains it well:
The bifurcation fallacy is committed when a false dilemma is presented, i.e. when someone is asked to choose between two options when there is at least one other option available. Of course, arguments that restrict the options to more than two but less than there really are, are similarly fallacious.
Example:
- (1) Either a Creator brought the universe into existence, or the universe came into existence out of nothing.
- (2) The universe didn’t come into existence out of nothing (because nothing comes from nothing). Therefore:
- (3) A Creator brought the universe into existence.
The first premise of this argument presents a false dilemma; it might be thought that the universe neither was brought into existence by a Creator nor came into existence out of nothing, because it existed from eternity.
4
To add to this, the other choice is to change the society. There's a reason America has Amendments - people have changed their mind over time on how things should be run.
– Graham
19 hours ago
1
Just to complete the picture - the other option that is for some reason not mentioned here is to agree and leave. It might not appear as attractive one to the OP but it is still the option. And the above definitions of bifurcation fallacy or false dilemma do not say anything about attractiveness of the not mentioned options.
– kukis
18 hours ago
5
You have radically changed OP's example into something that is a fallacy, while the original question never was.
– pipe
18 hours ago
2
@marshal craft I really appreciate your intelligent contributions to Philosophy, thanks. I liked the example from Logical Fallacies because I believe that logically the eternal universe itself is the "single benevolent" God, although I realize there are many who have problems accepting that idea. However, I didn't pursue that line of thought in my answer, since as an example only, it was not completely on topic. By the way, I found my answer by googling, "fallacies of presumption".
– Bread
13 hours ago
1
It is a good demonstration and reminds/reveals times I have probably employed the fallacy not entirely realizing it.
– marshal craft
13 hours ago
|
show 9 more comments
up vote
29
down vote
It is the False Dilemma or Bifurcation Fallacy.
If you don't like it, then move.
Let's say you have caused some problems by questioning the decisions, speech, and actions of someone who is actively seeking social, economic, and/or political power. And you're confident that you have every right -- or even duty -- to do so. Those in power who are profiting from the situation aren't willing to change anything, hence they feel threatened by any kind of criticism. So they choose to solve the problem by employing a logically twisted rhetorical tactic against you in order to get rid of you fast. They assume that you aren't intelligent or educated enough to catch the fallacy in their argument. It goes like this:
Either you agree with the way we're handling things, or you don't.
If you like it, you're no threat to us (you can stay).
But your dissent creates a dilemma for us (so you can't stay). "Move."
The point is, they offer no other options. Just two: agree and stay, or disagree and leave. They're not willing to discuss it with you, because they know they'll lose that argument, so they're going to insist that you go away. But since they don't want to argue with you, they want you to think it's your choice. Thus they create a false dilemma.
"It's too bad you don't like it, because that means you should leave."
Well, not really. It doesn't have to mean that you should leave, because there are other options your opponents refuse to acknowledge. You might prefer to remain in the land of your forefathers, the land that you love, and work diligently to improve the socio-political climate where you are, along with any other important problems you and your loved ones might be facing there.
Logical Fallacies explains it well:
The bifurcation fallacy is committed when a false dilemma is presented, i.e. when someone is asked to choose between two options when there is at least one other option available. Of course, arguments that restrict the options to more than two but less than there really are, are similarly fallacious.
Example:
- (1) Either a Creator brought the universe into existence, or the universe came into existence out of nothing.
- (2) The universe didn’t come into existence out of nothing (because nothing comes from nothing). Therefore:
- (3) A Creator brought the universe into existence.
The first premise of this argument presents a false dilemma; it might be thought that the universe neither was brought into existence by a Creator nor came into existence out of nothing, because it existed from eternity.
4
To add to this, the other choice is to change the society. There's a reason America has Amendments - people have changed their mind over time on how things should be run.
– Graham
19 hours ago
1
Just to complete the picture - the other option that is for some reason not mentioned here is to agree and leave. It might not appear as attractive one to the OP but it is still the option. And the above definitions of bifurcation fallacy or false dilemma do not say anything about attractiveness of the not mentioned options.
– kukis
18 hours ago
5
You have radically changed OP's example into something that is a fallacy, while the original question never was.
– pipe
18 hours ago
2
@marshal craft I really appreciate your intelligent contributions to Philosophy, thanks. I liked the example from Logical Fallacies because I believe that logically the eternal universe itself is the "single benevolent" God, although I realize there are many who have problems accepting that idea. However, I didn't pursue that line of thought in my answer, since as an example only, it was not completely on topic. By the way, I found my answer by googling, "fallacies of presumption".
– Bread
13 hours ago
1
It is a good demonstration and reminds/reveals times I have probably employed the fallacy not entirely realizing it.
– marshal craft
13 hours ago
|
show 9 more comments
up vote
29
down vote
up vote
29
down vote
It is the False Dilemma or Bifurcation Fallacy.
If you don't like it, then move.
Let's say you have caused some problems by questioning the decisions, speech, and actions of someone who is actively seeking social, economic, and/or political power. And you're confident that you have every right -- or even duty -- to do so. Those in power who are profiting from the situation aren't willing to change anything, hence they feel threatened by any kind of criticism. So they choose to solve the problem by employing a logically twisted rhetorical tactic against you in order to get rid of you fast. They assume that you aren't intelligent or educated enough to catch the fallacy in their argument. It goes like this:
Either you agree with the way we're handling things, or you don't.
If you like it, you're no threat to us (you can stay).
But your dissent creates a dilemma for us (so you can't stay). "Move."
The point is, they offer no other options. Just two: agree and stay, or disagree and leave. They're not willing to discuss it with you, because they know they'll lose that argument, so they're going to insist that you go away. But since they don't want to argue with you, they want you to think it's your choice. Thus they create a false dilemma.
"It's too bad you don't like it, because that means you should leave."
Well, not really. It doesn't have to mean that you should leave, because there are other options your opponents refuse to acknowledge. You might prefer to remain in the land of your forefathers, the land that you love, and work diligently to improve the socio-political climate where you are, along with any other important problems you and your loved ones might be facing there.
Logical Fallacies explains it well:
The bifurcation fallacy is committed when a false dilemma is presented, i.e. when someone is asked to choose between two options when there is at least one other option available. Of course, arguments that restrict the options to more than two but less than there really are, are similarly fallacious.
Example:
- (1) Either a Creator brought the universe into existence, or the universe came into existence out of nothing.
- (2) The universe didn’t come into existence out of nothing (because nothing comes from nothing). Therefore:
- (3) A Creator brought the universe into existence.
The first premise of this argument presents a false dilemma; it might be thought that the universe neither was brought into existence by a Creator nor came into existence out of nothing, because it existed from eternity.
It is the False Dilemma or Bifurcation Fallacy.
If you don't like it, then move.
Let's say you have caused some problems by questioning the decisions, speech, and actions of someone who is actively seeking social, economic, and/or political power. And you're confident that you have every right -- or even duty -- to do so. Those in power who are profiting from the situation aren't willing to change anything, hence they feel threatened by any kind of criticism. So they choose to solve the problem by employing a logically twisted rhetorical tactic against you in order to get rid of you fast. They assume that you aren't intelligent or educated enough to catch the fallacy in their argument. It goes like this:
Either you agree with the way we're handling things, or you don't.
If you like it, you're no threat to us (you can stay).
But your dissent creates a dilemma for us (so you can't stay). "Move."
The point is, they offer no other options. Just two: agree and stay, or disagree and leave. They're not willing to discuss it with you, because they know they'll lose that argument, so they're going to insist that you go away. But since they don't want to argue with you, they want you to think it's your choice. Thus they create a false dilemma.
"It's too bad you don't like it, because that means you should leave."
Well, not really. It doesn't have to mean that you should leave, because there are other options your opponents refuse to acknowledge. You might prefer to remain in the land of your forefathers, the land that you love, and work diligently to improve the socio-political climate where you are, along with any other important problems you and your loved ones might be facing there.
Logical Fallacies explains it well:
The bifurcation fallacy is committed when a false dilemma is presented, i.e. when someone is asked to choose between two options when there is at least one other option available. Of course, arguments that restrict the options to more than two but less than there really are, are similarly fallacious.
Example:
- (1) Either a Creator brought the universe into existence, or the universe came into existence out of nothing.
- (2) The universe didn’t come into existence out of nothing (because nothing comes from nothing). Therefore:
- (3) A Creator brought the universe into existence.
The first premise of this argument presents a false dilemma; it might be thought that the universe neither was brought into existence by a Creator nor came into existence out of nothing, because it existed from eternity.
answered 22 hours ago
Bread
659412
659412
4
To add to this, the other choice is to change the society. There's a reason America has Amendments - people have changed their mind over time on how things should be run.
– Graham
19 hours ago
1
Just to complete the picture - the other option that is for some reason not mentioned here is to agree and leave. It might not appear as attractive one to the OP but it is still the option. And the above definitions of bifurcation fallacy or false dilemma do not say anything about attractiveness of the not mentioned options.
– kukis
18 hours ago
5
You have radically changed OP's example into something that is a fallacy, while the original question never was.
– pipe
18 hours ago
2
@marshal craft I really appreciate your intelligent contributions to Philosophy, thanks. I liked the example from Logical Fallacies because I believe that logically the eternal universe itself is the "single benevolent" God, although I realize there are many who have problems accepting that idea. However, I didn't pursue that line of thought in my answer, since as an example only, it was not completely on topic. By the way, I found my answer by googling, "fallacies of presumption".
– Bread
13 hours ago
1
It is a good demonstration and reminds/reveals times I have probably employed the fallacy not entirely realizing it.
– marshal craft
13 hours ago
|
show 9 more comments
4
To add to this, the other choice is to change the society. There's a reason America has Amendments - people have changed their mind over time on how things should be run.
– Graham
19 hours ago
1
Just to complete the picture - the other option that is for some reason not mentioned here is to agree and leave. It might not appear as attractive one to the OP but it is still the option. And the above definitions of bifurcation fallacy or false dilemma do not say anything about attractiveness of the not mentioned options.
– kukis
18 hours ago
5
You have radically changed OP's example into something that is a fallacy, while the original question never was.
– pipe
18 hours ago
2
@marshal craft I really appreciate your intelligent contributions to Philosophy, thanks. I liked the example from Logical Fallacies because I believe that logically the eternal universe itself is the "single benevolent" God, although I realize there are many who have problems accepting that idea. However, I didn't pursue that line of thought in my answer, since as an example only, it was not completely on topic. By the way, I found my answer by googling, "fallacies of presumption".
– Bread
13 hours ago
1
It is a good demonstration and reminds/reveals times I have probably employed the fallacy not entirely realizing it.
– marshal craft
13 hours ago
4
4
To add to this, the other choice is to change the society. There's a reason America has Amendments - people have changed their mind over time on how things should be run.
– Graham
19 hours ago
To add to this, the other choice is to change the society. There's a reason America has Amendments - people have changed their mind over time on how things should be run.
– Graham
19 hours ago
1
1
Just to complete the picture - the other option that is for some reason not mentioned here is to agree and leave. It might not appear as attractive one to the OP but it is still the option. And the above definitions of bifurcation fallacy or false dilemma do not say anything about attractiveness of the not mentioned options.
– kukis
18 hours ago
Just to complete the picture - the other option that is for some reason not mentioned here is to agree and leave. It might not appear as attractive one to the OP but it is still the option. And the above definitions of bifurcation fallacy or false dilemma do not say anything about attractiveness of the not mentioned options.
– kukis
18 hours ago
5
5
You have radically changed OP's example into something that is a fallacy, while the original question never was.
– pipe
18 hours ago
You have radically changed OP's example into something that is a fallacy, while the original question never was.
– pipe
18 hours ago
2
2
@marshal craft I really appreciate your intelligent contributions to Philosophy, thanks. I liked the example from Logical Fallacies because I believe that logically the eternal universe itself is the "single benevolent" God, although I realize there are many who have problems accepting that idea. However, I didn't pursue that line of thought in my answer, since as an example only, it was not completely on topic. By the way, I found my answer by googling, "fallacies of presumption".
– Bread
13 hours ago
@marshal craft I really appreciate your intelligent contributions to Philosophy, thanks. I liked the example from Logical Fallacies because I believe that logically the eternal universe itself is the "single benevolent" God, although I realize there are many who have problems accepting that idea. However, I didn't pursue that line of thought in my answer, since as an example only, it was not completely on topic. By the way, I found my answer by googling, "fallacies of presumption".
– Bread
13 hours ago
1
1
It is a good demonstration and reminds/reveals times I have probably employed the fallacy not entirely realizing it.
– marshal craft
13 hours ago
It is a good demonstration and reminds/reveals times I have probably employed the fallacy not entirely realizing it.
– marshal craft
13 hours ago
|
show 9 more comments
up vote
18
down vote
It may very well be a poor argument, but it's not a logical fallacy
People are too quick to jump on the "fallacy" bandwagon. There is no logical fallacy occurring here. It may very well be an argument that is not particularly convincing (In fact, I wouldn't use the argument), but there is nothing logically fallacious about it.
If a person asks
"If you don't like America, why don't you move somewhere else?"
Bread states that "there are other options your opponents refuse to acknowledge," however this seems somewhat of a stretch. This is clearly reading more into what was said, than what was actually being said (In fact, this appears to be a straw man argument, which is ironically a fallacy itself). From this phrasing there is nothing that says that moving is the only way to achieve change. It just raises moving as an option. Clearly, this is an option that many people take, because people migrate all the time to countries they prefer to live in. In some cases it may even be the preferred way to achieve the change that you wish in your life.
Let's take a similar example. Consider the following statement:
"If you want to earn more money, why don't you work more hours per week?"
Would anyone seriously think that this person is suggesting that working more hours per week is the only possible way to earn more money? I think that most people can see that they are simply raising one possible avenue of earning more money.
Instead, if someone said
"If you don't like America, your only option is to move somewhere else."
Then, sure, their statement would be logically fallacious.
On the other hand, Mark Andrews analyzes the statement as
“There is nothing seriously wrong with this society, so the problem must lie in your own attitudes.” That is the conclusion. When the proponent recommends that the other person leave the country, the validity of this conclusion is taken as a given. The question of the truth or falsehood of the conclusion (which has become the assumption) is sidestepped completely.
But again, there is nothing fallacious in thinking "I like the country as it is; I would prefer if you didn't change it; therefore I would prefer that you leave rather than changing the country." Again, I'm not telling you to be convinced by the argument. But there is really nothing logically fallacious going on. To the question "Why don't you move somewhere else?" You are completely free to respond "Because I would rather change [what I perceive to be] the flaws of this country rather than moving."
4
Bread used the quote "If you don't like it, then move." (paraphrasing the question's title) and you have used the quote "If you don't like America, why don't you move somewhere else?" (which is from the question's body and subtly different) and from the way you phrased the response appear to be attributing Bread's response to that quote - which is not what they addressed.
– MT0
17 hours ago
2
@MT0 But I am addressing the actual quote from the OP. When I say that Bread is reading more into the statement than what is actually said, I am (gently) criticizing their changing of the original quote. They are setting up a straw man by changing the quote. As pipe said: "You have radically changed OP's example into something that is a fallacy, while the original question never was."
– Eff
17 hours ago
4
The question's title is "If you don't like it, move".
– MT0
17 hours ago
1
@MT0 Fair enough, but I see the title as short phrase that indicates what the question is about, and the actual post [i.e. the OP] is what sets up the real question that needs to be answered. However, I will say that my points hold even if the quote was "If you don't like it, move." I still think it's somewhat of a stretch to believe that the person saying that actually believes that moving is the only option. It's still just a suggestion that you can reject.
– Eff
17 hours ago
1
There still could be fallacy in the fact that clearly you are in disagreement, however you need do nothing and physical action is required of the proponent in leaving the countries territory. You are placing the burden of compromise entirely on the proponent. But you are neglecting equality, and essentially the idea of compromising on equality. "One persons freedoms end where another begins". Clearly the Christianity motivated cooperation is required.
– marshal craft
14 hours ago
|
show 10 more comments
up vote
18
down vote
It may very well be a poor argument, but it's not a logical fallacy
People are too quick to jump on the "fallacy" bandwagon. There is no logical fallacy occurring here. It may very well be an argument that is not particularly convincing (In fact, I wouldn't use the argument), but there is nothing logically fallacious about it.
If a person asks
"If you don't like America, why don't you move somewhere else?"
Bread states that "there are other options your opponents refuse to acknowledge," however this seems somewhat of a stretch. This is clearly reading more into what was said, than what was actually being said (In fact, this appears to be a straw man argument, which is ironically a fallacy itself). From this phrasing there is nothing that says that moving is the only way to achieve change. It just raises moving as an option. Clearly, this is an option that many people take, because people migrate all the time to countries they prefer to live in. In some cases it may even be the preferred way to achieve the change that you wish in your life.
Let's take a similar example. Consider the following statement:
"If you want to earn more money, why don't you work more hours per week?"
Would anyone seriously think that this person is suggesting that working more hours per week is the only possible way to earn more money? I think that most people can see that they are simply raising one possible avenue of earning more money.
Instead, if someone said
"If you don't like America, your only option is to move somewhere else."
Then, sure, their statement would be logically fallacious.
On the other hand, Mark Andrews analyzes the statement as
“There is nothing seriously wrong with this society, so the problem must lie in your own attitudes.” That is the conclusion. When the proponent recommends that the other person leave the country, the validity of this conclusion is taken as a given. The question of the truth or falsehood of the conclusion (which has become the assumption) is sidestepped completely.
But again, there is nothing fallacious in thinking "I like the country as it is; I would prefer if you didn't change it; therefore I would prefer that you leave rather than changing the country." Again, I'm not telling you to be convinced by the argument. But there is really nothing logically fallacious going on. To the question "Why don't you move somewhere else?" You are completely free to respond "Because I would rather change [what I perceive to be] the flaws of this country rather than moving."
4
Bread used the quote "If you don't like it, then move." (paraphrasing the question's title) and you have used the quote "If you don't like America, why don't you move somewhere else?" (which is from the question's body and subtly different) and from the way you phrased the response appear to be attributing Bread's response to that quote - which is not what they addressed.
– MT0
17 hours ago
2
@MT0 But I am addressing the actual quote from the OP. When I say that Bread is reading more into the statement than what is actually said, I am (gently) criticizing their changing of the original quote. They are setting up a straw man by changing the quote. As pipe said: "You have radically changed OP's example into something that is a fallacy, while the original question never was."
– Eff
17 hours ago
4
The question's title is "If you don't like it, move".
– MT0
17 hours ago
1
@MT0 Fair enough, but I see the title as short phrase that indicates what the question is about, and the actual post [i.e. the OP] is what sets up the real question that needs to be answered. However, I will say that my points hold even if the quote was "If you don't like it, move." I still think it's somewhat of a stretch to believe that the person saying that actually believes that moving is the only option. It's still just a suggestion that you can reject.
– Eff
17 hours ago
1
There still could be fallacy in the fact that clearly you are in disagreement, however you need do nothing and physical action is required of the proponent in leaving the countries territory. You are placing the burden of compromise entirely on the proponent. But you are neglecting equality, and essentially the idea of compromising on equality. "One persons freedoms end where another begins". Clearly the Christianity motivated cooperation is required.
– marshal craft
14 hours ago
|
show 10 more comments
up vote
18
down vote
up vote
18
down vote
It may very well be a poor argument, but it's not a logical fallacy
People are too quick to jump on the "fallacy" bandwagon. There is no logical fallacy occurring here. It may very well be an argument that is not particularly convincing (In fact, I wouldn't use the argument), but there is nothing logically fallacious about it.
If a person asks
"If you don't like America, why don't you move somewhere else?"
Bread states that "there are other options your opponents refuse to acknowledge," however this seems somewhat of a stretch. This is clearly reading more into what was said, than what was actually being said (In fact, this appears to be a straw man argument, which is ironically a fallacy itself). From this phrasing there is nothing that says that moving is the only way to achieve change. It just raises moving as an option. Clearly, this is an option that many people take, because people migrate all the time to countries they prefer to live in. In some cases it may even be the preferred way to achieve the change that you wish in your life.
Let's take a similar example. Consider the following statement:
"If you want to earn more money, why don't you work more hours per week?"
Would anyone seriously think that this person is suggesting that working more hours per week is the only possible way to earn more money? I think that most people can see that they are simply raising one possible avenue of earning more money.
Instead, if someone said
"If you don't like America, your only option is to move somewhere else."
Then, sure, their statement would be logically fallacious.
On the other hand, Mark Andrews analyzes the statement as
“There is nothing seriously wrong with this society, so the problem must lie in your own attitudes.” That is the conclusion. When the proponent recommends that the other person leave the country, the validity of this conclusion is taken as a given. The question of the truth or falsehood of the conclusion (which has become the assumption) is sidestepped completely.
But again, there is nothing fallacious in thinking "I like the country as it is; I would prefer if you didn't change it; therefore I would prefer that you leave rather than changing the country." Again, I'm not telling you to be convinced by the argument. But there is really nothing logically fallacious going on. To the question "Why don't you move somewhere else?" You are completely free to respond "Because I would rather change [what I perceive to be] the flaws of this country rather than moving."
It may very well be a poor argument, but it's not a logical fallacy
People are too quick to jump on the "fallacy" bandwagon. There is no logical fallacy occurring here. It may very well be an argument that is not particularly convincing (In fact, I wouldn't use the argument), but there is nothing logically fallacious about it.
If a person asks
"If you don't like America, why don't you move somewhere else?"
Bread states that "there are other options your opponents refuse to acknowledge," however this seems somewhat of a stretch. This is clearly reading more into what was said, than what was actually being said (In fact, this appears to be a straw man argument, which is ironically a fallacy itself). From this phrasing there is nothing that says that moving is the only way to achieve change. It just raises moving as an option. Clearly, this is an option that many people take, because people migrate all the time to countries they prefer to live in. In some cases it may even be the preferred way to achieve the change that you wish in your life.
Let's take a similar example. Consider the following statement:
"If you want to earn more money, why don't you work more hours per week?"
Would anyone seriously think that this person is suggesting that working more hours per week is the only possible way to earn more money? I think that most people can see that they are simply raising one possible avenue of earning more money.
Instead, if someone said
"If you don't like America, your only option is to move somewhere else."
Then, sure, their statement would be logically fallacious.
On the other hand, Mark Andrews analyzes the statement as
“There is nothing seriously wrong with this society, so the problem must lie in your own attitudes.” That is the conclusion. When the proponent recommends that the other person leave the country, the validity of this conclusion is taken as a given. The question of the truth or falsehood of the conclusion (which has become the assumption) is sidestepped completely.
But again, there is nothing fallacious in thinking "I like the country as it is; I would prefer if you didn't change it; therefore I would prefer that you leave rather than changing the country." Again, I'm not telling you to be convinced by the argument. But there is really nothing logically fallacious going on. To the question "Why don't you move somewhere else?" You are completely free to respond "Because I would rather change [what I perceive to be] the flaws of this country rather than moving."
edited 14 hours ago
answered 19 hours ago
Eff
1,5251210
1,5251210
4
Bread used the quote "If you don't like it, then move." (paraphrasing the question's title) and you have used the quote "If you don't like America, why don't you move somewhere else?" (which is from the question's body and subtly different) and from the way you phrased the response appear to be attributing Bread's response to that quote - which is not what they addressed.
– MT0
17 hours ago
2
@MT0 But I am addressing the actual quote from the OP. When I say that Bread is reading more into the statement than what is actually said, I am (gently) criticizing their changing of the original quote. They are setting up a straw man by changing the quote. As pipe said: "You have radically changed OP's example into something that is a fallacy, while the original question never was."
– Eff
17 hours ago
4
The question's title is "If you don't like it, move".
– MT0
17 hours ago
1
@MT0 Fair enough, but I see the title as short phrase that indicates what the question is about, and the actual post [i.e. the OP] is what sets up the real question that needs to be answered. However, I will say that my points hold even if the quote was "If you don't like it, move." I still think it's somewhat of a stretch to believe that the person saying that actually believes that moving is the only option. It's still just a suggestion that you can reject.
– Eff
17 hours ago
1
There still could be fallacy in the fact that clearly you are in disagreement, however you need do nothing and physical action is required of the proponent in leaving the countries territory. You are placing the burden of compromise entirely on the proponent. But you are neglecting equality, and essentially the idea of compromising on equality. "One persons freedoms end where another begins". Clearly the Christianity motivated cooperation is required.
– marshal craft
14 hours ago
|
show 10 more comments
4
Bread used the quote "If you don't like it, then move." (paraphrasing the question's title) and you have used the quote "If you don't like America, why don't you move somewhere else?" (which is from the question's body and subtly different) and from the way you phrased the response appear to be attributing Bread's response to that quote - which is not what they addressed.
– MT0
17 hours ago
2
@MT0 But I am addressing the actual quote from the OP. When I say that Bread is reading more into the statement than what is actually said, I am (gently) criticizing their changing of the original quote. They are setting up a straw man by changing the quote. As pipe said: "You have radically changed OP's example into something that is a fallacy, while the original question never was."
– Eff
17 hours ago
4
The question's title is "If you don't like it, move".
– MT0
17 hours ago
1
@MT0 Fair enough, but I see the title as short phrase that indicates what the question is about, and the actual post [i.e. the OP] is what sets up the real question that needs to be answered. However, I will say that my points hold even if the quote was "If you don't like it, move." I still think it's somewhat of a stretch to believe that the person saying that actually believes that moving is the only option. It's still just a suggestion that you can reject.
– Eff
17 hours ago
1
There still could be fallacy in the fact that clearly you are in disagreement, however you need do nothing and physical action is required of the proponent in leaving the countries territory. You are placing the burden of compromise entirely on the proponent. But you are neglecting equality, and essentially the idea of compromising on equality. "One persons freedoms end where another begins". Clearly the Christianity motivated cooperation is required.
– marshal craft
14 hours ago
4
4
Bread used the quote "If you don't like it, then move." (paraphrasing the question's title) and you have used the quote "If you don't like America, why don't you move somewhere else?" (which is from the question's body and subtly different) and from the way you phrased the response appear to be attributing Bread's response to that quote - which is not what they addressed.
– MT0
17 hours ago
Bread used the quote "If you don't like it, then move." (paraphrasing the question's title) and you have used the quote "If you don't like America, why don't you move somewhere else?" (which is from the question's body and subtly different) and from the way you phrased the response appear to be attributing Bread's response to that quote - which is not what they addressed.
– MT0
17 hours ago
2
2
@MT0 But I am addressing the actual quote from the OP. When I say that Bread is reading more into the statement than what is actually said, I am (gently) criticizing their changing of the original quote. They are setting up a straw man by changing the quote. As pipe said: "You have radically changed OP's example into something that is a fallacy, while the original question never was."
– Eff
17 hours ago
@MT0 But I am addressing the actual quote from the OP. When I say that Bread is reading more into the statement than what is actually said, I am (gently) criticizing their changing of the original quote. They are setting up a straw man by changing the quote. As pipe said: "You have radically changed OP's example into something that is a fallacy, while the original question never was."
– Eff
17 hours ago
4
4
The question's title is "If you don't like it, move".
– MT0
17 hours ago
The question's title is "If you don't like it, move".
– MT0
17 hours ago
1
1
@MT0 Fair enough, but I see the title as short phrase that indicates what the question is about, and the actual post [i.e. the OP] is what sets up the real question that needs to be answered. However, I will say that my points hold even if the quote was "If you don't like it, move." I still think it's somewhat of a stretch to believe that the person saying that actually believes that moving is the only option. It's still just a suggestion that you can reject.
– Eff
17 hours ago
@MT0 Fair enough, but I see the title as short phrase that indicates what the question is about, and the actual post [i.e. the OP] is what sets up the real question that needs to be answered. However, I will say that my points hold even if the quote was "If you don't like it, move." I still think it's somewhat of a stretch to believe that the person saying that actually believes that moving is the only option. It's still just a suggestion that you can reject.
– Eff
17 hours ago
1
1
There still could be fallacy in the fact that clearly you are in disagreement, however you need do nothing and physical action is required of the proponent in leaving the countries territory. You are placing the burden of compromise entirely on the proponent. But you are neglecting equality, and essentially the idea of compromising on equality. "One persons freedoms end where another begins". Clearly the Christianity motivated cooperation is required.
– marshal craft
14 hours ago
There still could be fallacy in the fact that clearly you are in disagreement, however you need do nothing and physical action is required of the proponent in leaving the countries territory. You are placing the burden of compromise entirely on the proponent. But you are neglecting equality, and essentially the idea of compromising on equality. "One persons freedoms end where another begins". Clearly the Christianity motivated cooperation is required.
– marshal craft
14 hours ago
|
show 10 more comments
up vote
11
down vote
No fallacy - but a loaded assumption
There is no fallacy here, no logical error in argument as e.g. in affirming the consequent. This is so, not least because there is no argument here at all - only an expression of viewpoint. Fallacy presupposes argument. No argument, no fallacy : the concepts are tied.
But there is a loaded assumption, namely that if you don't like America, the onus is on you to stop criticising or otherwise complaining and move out. In other words the American status quo is fine, great or at least all right : so leave us alone and go.
A right to leave , but nowhere to go
Not a loaded assumption but 'If you don't like it, move' assumes that since a person has a right to emigrate, he has a right to go somewhere. With minimal exceptions, however, states do not allow free immigration but place restrictions on who can cross their borders and take up residence. So 'moving' is not the universally recognised right it would need to be for this viewpoint to be unqualifiedly reasonable.
The toll of moving
Suppose, though, that a person can 'go somewhere' - to another state - let's make a humdrum comparison to show that 'moving' state is exceptionally consequential. So : there's a great difference between (a) 'If you don't like this shop, go to another' and (b) 'If you don't like this country, move to another'.
(a) is often perfectly reasonable. There need be no cost or inconvenience in switching one's custom from one shop to another. But there is a complete lack of parallel between (a) and (b) - or is very likely to be.
I may not have the resources to move. (b) In moving I sever my cultural roots. (c) Another country may not accept me. (d) I may have dependants whose interests will be harmed if I move to another country.
In the shop example, switching to another shop standardly carries no 'costs' or toll to myself. Or the 'costs', of time for instance, may be negligible or worth paying in order to avoid an uncongenial venue. I can exercise my preference without prohibitive or significant disadvantage.
By contrast, moving to another country is likely to involve prohibitive or significant disadvantage. Exercising this preference, even if I have it, is far more seriously consequential.
The activist's response - 'stay and fight'
There's also the point that if I don't like my (or a) country, there is a strong prima facie case for staying in it in order to help change it. You seldom improve a situation by running away from it. Maybe the American status quo isn't fine, great or at least all right and the assumption that it is should be rebutted by argument and protest.
It's not that I disagree with what you've said. In fact, I agree. But does it really answer the question? Is the statement a fallacy? If so, which? I totally agree that there are many costs associated with leaving a country, but I don't see how that makes the statement a fallacy. It just lends itself to an easy answer. Question: "If you don't like the country, why don't you move?" Answer: "Because the costs associated with moving are too high [because of X or Y], and I would prefer to change the country that I live in for the better." No fallacy occurred, just responded to the question.
– Eff
18 hours ago
It is also worth pointing out that while there is a "toll of moving" there is similarly a "toll of changing." There are a lot of costs associated with changing a country. It is up the individual to weigh these costs and benefits against each other.
– Eff
17 hours ago
Point taken - and (I hope) addressed in revised answer. Best : GLT
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
17 hours ago
Yes, I like it now. Upvoted.
– Eff
16 hours ago
Your post suggests a response to "If you don't like it, move" ... usually this is an attempt to shut someone up and deprive them of their free speech rights ..."If you don't like the First Amendment, then move."
– emory
12 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
11
down vote
No fallacy - but a loaded assumption
There is no fallacy here, no logical error in argument as e.g. in affirming the consequent. This is so, not least because there is no argument here at all - only an expression of viewpoint. Fallacy presupposes argument. No argument, no fallacy : the concepts are tied.
But there is a loaded assumption, namely that if you don't like America, the onus is on you to stop criticising or otherwise complaining and move out. In other words the American status quo is fine, great or at least all right : so leave us alone and go.
A right to leave , but nowhere to go
Not a loaded assumption but 'If you don't like it, move' assumes that since a person has a right to emigrate, he has a right to go somewhere. With minimal exceptions, however, states do not allow free immigration but place restrictions on who can cross their borders and take up residence. So 'moving' is not the universally recognised right it would need to be for this viewpoint to be unqualifiedly reasonable.
The toll of moving
Suppose, though, that a person can 'go somewhere' - to another state - let's make a humdrum comparison to show that 'moving' state is exceptionally consequential. So : there's a great difference between (a) 'If you don't like this shop, go to another' and (b) 'If you don't like this country, move to another'.
(a) is often perfectly reasonable. There need be no cost or inconvenience in switching one's custom from one shop to another. But there is a complete lack of parallel between (a) and (b) - or is very likely to be.
I may not have the resources to move. (b) In moving I sever my cultural roots. (c) Another country may not accept me. (d) I may have dependants whose interests will be harmed if I move to another country.
In the shop example, switching to another shop standardly carries no 'costs' or toll to myself. Or the 'costs', of time for instance, may be negligible or worth paying in order to avoid an uncongenial venue. I can exercise my preference without prohibitive or significant disadvantage.
By contrast, moving to another country is likely to involve prohibitive or significant disadvantage. Exercising this preference, even if I have it, is far more seriously consequential.
The activist's response - 'stay and fight'
There's also the point that if I don't like my (or a) country, there is a strong prima facie case for staying in it in order to help change it. You seldom improve a situation by running away from it. Maybe the American status quo isn't fine, great or at least all right and the assumption that it is should be rebutted by argument and protest.
It's not that I disagree with what you've said. In fact, I agree. But does it really answer the question? Is the statement a fallacy? If so, which? I totally agree that there are many costs associated with leaving a country, but I don't see how that makes the statement a fallacy. It just lends itself to an easy answer. Question: "If you don't like the country, why don't you move?" Answer: "Because the costs associated with moving are too high [because of X or Y], and I would prefer to change the country that I live in for the better." No fallacy occurred, just responded to the question.
– Eff
18 hours ago
It is also worth pointing out that while there is a "toll of moving" there is similarly a "toll of changing." There are a lot of costs associated with changing a country. It is up the individual to weigh these costs and benefits against each other.
– Eff
17 hours ago
Point taken - and (I hope) addressed in revised answer. Best : GLT
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
17 hours ago
Yes, I like it now. Upvoted.
– Eff
16 hours ago
Your post suggests a response to "If you don't like it, move" ... usually this is an attempt to shut someone up and deprive them of their free speech rights ..."If you don't like the First Amendment, then move."
– emory
12 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
11
down vote
up vote
11
down vote
No fallacy - but a loaded assumption
There is no fallacy here, no logical error in argument as e.g. in affirming the consequent. This is so, not least because there is no argument here at all - only an expression of viewpoint. Fallacy presupposes argument. No argument, no fallacy : the concepts are tied.
But there is a loaded assumption, namely that if you don't like America, the onus is on you to stop criticising or otherwise complaining and move out. In other words the American status quo is fine, great or at least all right : so leave us alone and go.
A right to leave , but nowhere to go
Not a loaded assumption but 'If you don't like it, move' assumes that since a person has a right to emigrate, he has a right to go somewhere. With minimal exceptions, however, states do not allow free immigration but place restrictions on who can cross their borders and take up residence. So 'moving' is not the universally recognised right it would need to be for this viewpoint to be unqualifiedly reasonable.
The toll of moving
Suppose, though, that a person can 'go somewhere' - to another state - let's make a humdrum comparison to show that 'moving' state is exceptionally consequential. So : there's a great difference between (a) 'If you don't like this shop, go to another' and (b) 'If you don't like this country, move to another'.
(a) is often perfectly reasonable. There need be no cost or inconvenience in switching one's custom from one shop to another. But there is a complete lack of parallel between (a) and (b) - or is very likely to be.
I may not have the resources to move. (b) In moving I sever my cultural roots. (c) Another country may not accept me. (d) I may have dependants whose interests will be harmed if I move to another country.
In the shop example, switching to another shop standardly carries no 'costs' or toll to myself. Or the 'costs', of time for instance, may be negligible or worth paying in order to avoid an uncongenial venue. I can exercise my preference without prohibitive or significant disadvantage.
By contrast, moving to another country is likely to involve prohibitive or significant disadvantage. Exercising this preference, even if I have it, is far more seriously consequential.
The activist's response - 'stay and fight'
There's also the point that if I don't like my (or a) country, there is a strong prima facie case for staying in it in order to help change it. You seldom improve a situation by running away from it. Maybe the American status quo isn't fine, great or at least all right and the assumption that it is should be rebutted by argument and protest.
No fallacy - but a loaded assumption
There is no fallacy here, no logical error in argument as e.g. in affirming the consequent. This is so, not least because there is no argument here at all - only an expression of viewpoint. Fallacy presupposes argument. No argument, no fallacy : the concepts are tied.
But there is a loaded assumption, namely that if you don't like America, the onus is on you to stop criticising or otherwise complaining and move out. In other words the American status quo is fine, great or at least all right : so leave us alone and go.
A right to leave , but nowhere to go
Not a loaded assumption but 'If you don't like it, move' assumes that since a person has a right to emigrate, he has a right to go somewhere. With minimal exceptions, however, states do not allow free immigration but place restrictions on who can cross their borders and take up residence. So 'moving' is not the universally recognised right it would need to be for this viewpoint to be unqualifiedly reasonable.
The toll of moving
Suppose, though, that a person can 'go somewhere' - to another state - let's make a humdrum comparison to show that 'moving' state is exceptionally consequential. So : there's a great difference between (a) 'If you don't like this shop, go to another' and (b) 'If you don't like this country, move to another'.
(a) is often perfectly reasonable. There need be no cost or inconvenience in switching one's custom from one shop to another. But there is a complete lack of parallel between (a) and (b) - or is very likely to be.
I may not have the resources to move. (b) In moving I sever my cultural roots. (c) Another country may not accept me. (d) I may have dependants whose interests will be harmed if I move to another country.
In the shop example, switching to another shop standardly carries no 'costs' or toll to myself. Or the 'costs', of time for instance, may be negligible or worth paying in order to avoid an uncongenial venue. I can exercise my preference without prohibitive or significant disadvantage.
By contrast, moving to another country is likely to involve prohibitive or significant disadvantage. Exercising this preference, even if I have it, is far more seriously consequential.
The activist's response - 'stay and fight'
There's also the point that if I don't like my (or a) country, there is a strong prima facie case for staying in it in order to help change it. You seldom improve a situation by running away from it. Maybe the American status quo isn't fine, great or at least all right and the assumption that it is should be rebutted by argument and protest.
edited 13 hours ago
answered 18 hours ago
Geoffrey Thomas♦
21k21985
21k21985
It's not that I disagree with what you've said. In fact, I agree. But does it really answer the question? Is the statement a fallacy? If so, which? I totally agree that there are many costs associated with leaving a country, but I don't see how that makes the statement a fallacy. It just lends itself to an easy answer. Question: "If you don't like the country, why don't you move?" Answer: "Because the costs associated with moving are too high [because of X or Y], and I would prefer to change the country that I live in for the better." No fallacy occurred, just responded to the question.
– Eff
18 hours ago
It is also worth pointing out that while there is a "toll of moving" there is similarly a "toll of changing." There are a lot of costs associated with changing a country. It is up the individual to weigh these costs and benefits against each other.
– Eff
17 hours ago
Point taken - and (I hope) addressed in revised answer. Best : GLT
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
17 hours ago
Yes, I like it now. Upvoted.
– Eff
16 hours ago
Your post suggests a response to "If you don't like it, move" ... usually this is an attempt to shut someone up and deprive them of their free speech rights ..."If you don't like the First Amendment, then move."
– emory
12 hours ago
add a comment |
It's not that I disagree with what you've said. In fact, I agree. But does it really answer the question? Is the statement a fallacy? If so, which? I totally agree that there are many costs associated with leaving a country, but I don't see how that makes the statement a fallacy. It just lends itself to an easy answer. Question: "If you don't like the country, why don't you move?" Answer: "Because the costs associated with moving are too high [because of X or Y], and I would prefer to change the country that I live in for the better." No fallacy occurred, just responded to the question.
– Eff
18 hours ago
It is also worth pointing out that while there is a "toll of moving" there is similarly a "toll of changing." There are a lot of costs associated with changing a country. It is up the individual to weigh these costs and benefits against each other.
– Eff
17 hours ago
Point taken - and (I hope) addressed in revised answer. Best : GLT
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
17 hours ago
Yes, I like it now. Upvoted.
– Eff
16 hours ago
Your post suggests a response to "If you don't like it, move" ... usually this is an attempt to shut someone up and deprive them of their free speech rights ..."If you don't like the First Amendment, then move."
– emory
12 hours ago
It's not that I disagree with what you've said. In fact, I agree. But does it really answer the question? Is the statement a fallacy? If so, which? I totally agree that there are many costs associated with leaving a country, but I don't see how that makes the statement a fallacy. It just lends itself to an easy answer. Question: "If you don't like the country, why don't you move?" Answer: "Because the costs associated with moving are too high [because of X or Y], and I would prefer to change the country that I live in for the better." No fallacy occurred, just responded to the question.
– Eff
18 hours ago
It's not that I disagree with what you've said. In fact, I agree. But does it really answer the question? Is the statement a fallacy? If so, which? I totally agree that there are many costs associated with leaving a country, but I don't see how that makes the statement a fallacy. It just lends itself to an easy answer. Question: "If you don't like the country, why don't you move?" Answer: "Because the costs associated with moving are too high [because of X or Y], and I would prefer to change the country that I live in for the better." No fallacy occurred, just responded to the question.
– Eff
18 hours ago
It is also worth pointing out that while there is a "toll of moving" there is similarly a "toll of changing." There are a lot of costs associated with changing a country. It is up the individual to weigh these costs and benefits against each other.
– Eff
17 hours ago
It is also worth pointing out that while there is a "toll of moving" there is similarly a "toll of changing." There are a lot of costs associated with changing a country. It is up the individual to weigh these costs and benefits against each other.
– Eff
17 hours ago
Point taken - and (I hope) addressed in revised answer. Best : GLT
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
17 hours ago
Point taken - and (I hope) addressed in revised answer. Best : GLT
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
17 hours ago
Yes, I like it now. Upvoted.
– Eff
16 hours ago
Yes, I like it now. Upvoted.
– Eff
16 hours ago
Your post suggests a response to "If you don't like it, move" ... usually this is an attempt to shut someone up and deprive them of their free speech rights ..."If you don't like the First Amendment, then move."
– emory
12 hours ago
Your post suggests a response to "If you don't like it, move" ... usually this is an attempt to shut someone up and deprive them of their free speech rights ..."If you don't like the First Amendment, then move."
– emory
12 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
I suppose that there are a whole pile of fallacies behind such arguments. The one that first comes to mind is that the argument assumes what it sets out to prove.
“There is nothing seriously wrong with this society, so the problem must lie in your own attitudes.” That is the conclusion. When the proponent recommends that the other person leave the country, the validity of this conclusion is taken as a given. The question of the truth or falsehood of the conclusion (which has become the assumption) is sidestepped completely.
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
I suppose that there are a whole pile of fallacies behind such arguments. The one that first comes to mind is that the argument assumes what it sets out to prove.
“There is nothing seriously wrong with this society, so the problem must lie in your own attitudes.” That is the conclusion. When the proponent recommends that the other person leave the country, the validity of this conclusion is taken as a given. The question of the truth or falsehood of the conclusion (which has become the assumption) is sidestepped completely.
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
I suppose that there are a whole pile of fallacies behind such arguments. The one that first comes to mind is that the argument assumes what it sets out to prove.
“There is nothing seriously wrong with this society, so the problem must lie in your own attitudes.” That is the conclusion. When the proponent recommends that the other person leave the country, the validity of this conclusion is taken as a given. The question of the truth or falsehood of the conclusion (which has become the assumption) is sidestepped completely.
I suppose that there are a whole pile of fallacies behind such arguments. The one that first comes to mind is that the argument assumes what it sets out to prove.
“There is nothing seriously wrong with this society, so the problem must lie in your own attitudes.” That is the conclusion. When the proponent recommends that the other person leave the country, the validity of this conclusion is taken as a given. The question of the truth or falsehood of the conclusion (which has become the assumption) is sidestepped completely.
answered yesterday
Mark Andrews
2,355622
2,355622
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Simply on the basis of seeing this bumper sticker quite often throughout my life here in America I am also going to include the Bandwagon fallacy, ad populum. Just because it seems to be a popular and damaging argument used through advertisement.
I also agree with the bifurcation fallacy based on it assuming there is only ONE option in this situation of not liking where you are.
And I am also going to include, ad hominem fallacy, because I feel the insinuation may be directed toward immigrants or any minority in disagreement with current laws or traditions or sacrosanct arguments and can include such aspects as: culture, education level, religion, ethnic majority, eccentric behaviors, gender preference etc.
BINGO! I was just about to add a comment that, to my mind, this sounds kind of like an ad hominem attack.
– David Blomstrom
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Simply on the basis of seeing this bumper sticker quite often throughout my life here in America I am also going to include the Bandwagon fallacy, ad populum. Just because it seems to be a popular and damaging argument used through advertisement.
I also agree with the bifurcation fallacy based on it assuming there is only ONE option in this situation of not liking where you are.
And I am also going to include, ad hominem fallacy, because I feel the insinuation may be directed toward immigrants or any minority in disagreement with current laws or traditions or sacrosanct arguments and can include such aspects as: culture, education level, religion, ethnic majority, eccentric behaviors, gender preference etc.
BINGO! I was just about to add a comment that, to my mind, this sounds kind of like an ad hominem attack.
– David Blomstrom
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Simply on the basis of seeing this bumper sticker quite often throughout my life here in America I am also going to include the Bandwagon fallacy, ad populum. Just because it seems to be a popular and damaging argument used through advertisement.
I also agree with the bifurcation fallacy based on it assuming there is only ONE option in this situation of not liking where you are.
And I am also going to include, ad hominem fallacy, because I feel the insinuation may be directed toward immigrants or any minority in disagreement with current laws or traditions or sacrosanct arguments and can include such aspects as: culture, education level, religion, ethnic majority, eccentric behaviors, gender preference etc.
Simply on the basis of seeing this bumper sticker quite often throughout my life here in America I am also going to include the Bandwagon fallacy, ad populum. Just because it seems to be a popular and damaging argument used through advertisement.
I also agree with the bifurcation fallacy based on it assuming there is only ONE option in this situation of not liking where you are.
And I am also going to include, ad hominem fallacy, because I feel the insinuation may be directed toward immigrants or any minority in disagreement with current laws or traditions or sacrosanct arguments and can include such aspects as: culture, education level, religion, ethnic majority, eccentric behaviors, gender preference etc.
answered 10 hours ago
Robus
796
796
BINGO! I was just about to add a comment that, to my mind, this sounds kind of like an ad hominem attack.
– David Blomstrom
4 hours ago
add a comment |
BINGO! I was just about to add a comment that, to my mind, this sounds kind of like an ad hominem attack.
– David Blomstrom
4 hours ago
BINGO! I was just about to add a comment that, to my mind, this sounds kind of like an ad hominem attack.
– David Blomstrom
4 hours ago
BINGO! I was just about to add a comment that, to my mind, this sounds kind of like an ad hominem attack.
– David Blomstrom
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
It is not a fallacy at all
First of all, this kind of criticism is usually aimed at people who are first of second generation immigrants. They came in US searching for better life conditions, which implies that their own old country had worse life conditions, and they were unable to improve them. If they could not improve country with lower living standard (lower goal post) there is a pretty reasonable chance they could not improve country with higher living standard (higher goal post). In fact, possible outcome could be worse living standard for US citizens.
Second, even when this critique is not aimed to immigrants, there is another problem. Person X could argue that he wants US to resemble some other country, let's say Sweden. Currently, large parts of US population abhor idea of US looking like Sweden. Therefore, person X has a long struggle ahead of him to convince or force others to accept his Swedish ideas. It would be more economical for him just to move to Sweden, instead of wasting energy and life on something that others do not want.
I've heard it said to way more people than first or second generation immigrants.
– Joe
11 hours ago
I was just about to post what Joe said. My perception is that this challenge is leveled at just about anyone who criticizes the U.S government, U.S. policy, etc.
– David Blomstrom
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
It is not a fallacy at all
First of all, this kind of criticism is usually aimed at people who are first of second generation immigrants. They came in US searching for better life conditions, which implies that their own old country had worse life conditions, and they were unable to improve them. If they could not improve country with lower living standard (lower goal post) there is a pretty reasonable chance they could not improve country with higher living standard (higher goal post). In fact, possible outcome could be worse living standard for US citizens.
Second, even when this critique is not aimed to immigrants, there is another problem. Person X could argue that he wants US to resemble some other country, let's say Sweden. Currently, large parts of US population abhor idea of US looking like Sweden. Therefore, person X has a long struggle ahead of him to convince or force others to accept his Swedish ideas. It would be more economical for him just to move to Sweden, instead of wasting energy and life on something that others do not want.
I've heard it said to way more people than first or second generation immigrants.
– Joe
11 hours ago
I was just about to post what Joe said. My perception is that this challenge is leveled at just about anyone who criticizes the U.S government, U.S. policy, etc.
– David Blomstrom
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
It is not a fallacy at all
First of all, this kind of criticism is usually aimed at people who are first of second generation immigrants. They came in US searching for better life conditions, which implies that their own old country had worse life conditions, and they were unable to improve them. If they could not improve country with lower living standard (lower goal post) there is a pretty reasonable chance they could not improve country with higher living standard (higher goal post). In fact, possible outcome could be worse living standard for US citizens.
Second, even when this critique is not aimed to immigrants, there is another problem. Person X could argue that he wants US to resemble some other country, let's say Sweden. Currently, large parts of US population abhor idea of US looking like Sweden. Therefore, person X has a long struggle ahead of him to convince or force others to accept his Swedish ideas. It would be more economical for him just to move to Sweden, instead of wasting energy and life on something that others do not want.
It is not a fallacy at all
First of all, this kind of criticism is usually aimed at people who are first of second generation immigrants. They came in US searching for better life conditions, which implies that their own old country had worse life conditions, and they were unable to improve them. If they could not improve country with lower living standard (lower goal post) there is a pretty reasonable chance they could not improve country with higher living standard (higher goal post). In fact, possible outcome could be worse living standard for US citizens.
Second, even when this critique is not aimed to immigrants, there is another problem. Person X could argue that he wants US to resemble some other country, let's say Sweden. Currently, large parts of US population abhor idea of US looking like Sweden. Therefore, person X has a long struggle ahead of him to convince or force others to accept his Swedish ideas. It would be more economical for him just to move to Sweden, instead of wasting energy and life on something that others do not want.
answered 19 hours ago
rs.29
1584
1584
I've heard it said to way more people than first or second generation immigrants.
– Joe
11 hours ago
I was just about to post what Joe said. My perception is that this challenge is leveled at just about anyone who criticizes the U.S government, U.S. policy, etc.
– David Blomstrom
4 hours ago
add a comment |
I've heard it said to way more people than first or second generation immigrants.
– Joe
11 hours ago
I was just about to post what Joe said. My perception is that this challenge is leveled at just about anyone who criticizes the U.S government, U.S. policy, etc.
– David Blomstrom
4 hours ago
I've heard it said to way more people than first or second generation immigrants.
– Joe
11 hours ago
I've heard it said to way more people than first or second generation immigrants.
– Joe
11 hours ago
I was just about to post what Joe said. My perception is that this challenge is leveled at just about anyone who criticizes the U.S government, U.S. policy, etc.
– David Blomstrom
4 hours ago
I was just about to post what Joe said. My perception is that this challenge is leveled at just about anyone who criticizes the U.S government, U.S. policy, etc.
– David Blomstrom
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f57335%2fwhat-logical-fallacy-is-if-you-dont-like-it-move%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
The problem with this is that (if we limit ourselves to our native country, if you have migrated as an adult it is a very different situation) you didn't pick the country you were born in. So if that country somehow violates your basic human rights (such as imprisoning gays for being homosexual) it is not you who are at fault but rather the laws and you are the victim of immoral laws. Forcing you to move when you just want to live your life not bothering anyone is like forcing the victim of bullying in school to move rather than the bully. Are you Swedish?
– d-b
17 hours ago
10
It gets ironic, when the same people who tell you to move out of X if you don't like it there oppose the arrival of individuals who didn't like the situation in their country Y and want to move to X to have a better life.
– M.Herzkamp
16 hours ago
2
Wikipedia: "A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves" in the construction of an argument". What you suggest doesn't include anything invalid in the reasoning itself, but rather its consequences.
– Yechiam Weiss
10 hours ago
2
I have to say that I don't think the statement is a logical fallacy, so much as an expression of the speaker's opinion. People who say this don't really mean that they think there are literally only two options ('like it' or 'leave') but that they think changing the way things are is a bad idea and they would prefer it didn't happen.
– DJClayworth
7 hours ago