'I can't do much by myself so I'll ignore it'

Is this a logical fallacy? And if so, does it have a name?

To expand on the title, it can be interpreted as:
'I won't stop littering because the amount of littering that is currently happening in the town means that there will be no real difference even if I myself stopped.'

I don't think it is 'argumentum ad populum' as the issue isn't based on other people's actions but a lack of impact of one's own actions.

OP

OP

Anybody?

It's not a logical fallacy. A lack of moral conviction perhaps but there is no contradiction in the statement as presented.

Reply 4

BasicMistake

OP

18

Thanks, that has been bugging me for some time. I had been trawling through the list of fallacies on Wikipedia but I couldn't find it.

Reply 5

BasicMistake

OP

18

I'll be on the lookout for it when I go to the library. It sounds quite interesting.

Reply 6

VannR

21

This is an informal fallacy, not a logical fallacy.

Reply 7

Chicken.M.

20

Most so called logical fallacies aren't logical fallacies. It's just a different line of thinking and reasoning that's perfectly valid that the pretentious like to dismiss and give a label to make themselves feel smart.

I just did. lel

Sometimes it actually makes sense though, stupid to give it an ultimatum. A person may say "I would be a vegetarian but that doesn't change the number of animals that are slaughtered".

Reply 10

BasicMistake

OP

18

Original post by Protégé

Sometimes it actually makes sense though, stupid to give it an ultimatum. A person may say "I would be a vegetarian but that doesn't change the number of animals that are slaughtered".

True, but I was thinking that this line of thinking can lead to people committing crimes and atrocities.

Reply 11

Chicken.M.

20

Clearly there is. Otherwise I wouldn't be disagreeing with you.

Reply 12

Man.bear.pig

2

Original post by BasicMistake

Is this a logical fallacy? And if so, does it have a name?

To expand on the title, it can be interpreted as:
'I won't stop littering because the amount of littering that is currently happening in the town means that there will be no real difference even if I myself stopped.'

I don't think it is 'argumentum ad populum' as the issue isn't based on other people's actions but a lack of impact of one's own actions.

dunno about philosophical terms but common sense terms says it's called defeatism.

Reply 13

Chicken.M.

20

You said there are no other line of thoughts other than yours. The fact that I think differently to you is enough evidence against you.

Reply 14

Chicken.M.

20

lmao no. You made a very silly statement saying there is only one line of thought. You are the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. You basically say something silly and then add a lot of long fluffy words and padding onto the end in the hopes of sounding smart. Even though it doesn't add anything to your position.

It obviously is evidence because other people go down different paths of thought and disagree including me rofl. What you said is nonsense and is hardly worth a reply.

Reply 15

Chicken.M.

20

lmao. You're the type of person I was referring to in my OP. I actually couldn't be bothered to give you a proper reply because of that. Why have a discussion with someone whos close minded, arrogant, dismissive and rude? "I studied X so my opinion is the only one that matters." lol pls.

But things like slippery slope etc. People like you would just dismiss them as being untrue when in fact in a lot of the cases they are true. For example gateway drugs leading onto more drugs. One example for you. Basically it's common sense vs psuedo intellectual logic a lot of the time.

You are also acting like an arrogant authority making some silly claims like, "There is only one line of thinking." It's so ridiculous how can you even reply to something like that?

(edited 8 years ago)

'I can't do much by myself so I'll ignore it'

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you