SOCIAL MEDIA SESSIONS - INVERTED ARGUMENT BUILT ON LOGICAL FALLACIES

This is a quick observation of what would appear to be a reasonable argument to some readers, but is packed with problems, which I will point out.

In response to an article explaining the absence of MMA fighter Luke Rockhold due to family problems, namely abortion, somebody commented the following (albeit beside the point of the article):

Persuasive elements include politeness, good grammar and spelling, and kind of an inverted ‘appeal to emotion’ which suggests they aren’t committing that fallacy, when in fact, in this case it is still a similar fallacy. I’ll get to that.

First of all, he has cleverly inverted the kind of people who were actually using “my body my choice” unreasonably and replaced them as the reasonable crowd, and he does this using the false equivalence fallacy and the false premise fallacy. He’s also using a strawman fallacy. I’ll get to each individually.

Without further ado, here are the 4 mentioned logical fallacies broken down.

---

False Equivalence

Definition:

The comment is drawing equivalence between the extreme right wing political stance which many took against the COVID vaccines, and the people opposing the Roe vs Wade abortion overruling by the Supreme Court. They link the two using the “my body my choice” slogan, but this slogan was used wrongly and in bad faith by the anti-vax crowd, while it bears much more legitimacy to the pro-abortion side.

This is because on one side, people who didn’t want to take the vaccines were actually never forced to at all. The governments and science communicators tried very hard to persuade them with facts and data, on a true premise, but nobody was forced. They always had the choice. On the other hand, with the government and many states now literally banning abortion legally, they have taken that choice away, along with the bodily autonomy that the extreme right was (wrongly) saying was being taken away with the vaccine mandates. The mandates only meant that those who chose not to be vaccinated (for a societally beneficial cause, may I add), would have to have more rigorous testing instead.

Therefore, the commenter is in effect saying that being able to choose whether to have a medical privilege with the fallback of more testing, is the same as not being able to choose whether to have a lifesaving abortion. Who is using “my body my choice” wrongly there?

You then have the reinforcing question “So do you want people telling you what to do with your body or not?”. This is the follow up which serves to switch the perception of unreasonable logic from the anti-vax crowd to the pro-abortion crowd, again drawing a false equivalence.

---

False Premise Fallacy

Definition:

As part of a bid to support their argument, the commenter begins with two assumptions: that the vaccines don’t work as described, and that they were being forced upon people. This is not just a false premise but also a strawman attack, which I’ll get to as well.

With no need to go into it here, and to stay on track, the vaccines work exactly as described, by the people who have the expertise to adequately describe them. If he has listened to too much Joe Rogan, Robert Malone, Tik Tok influencers and far right wing politics, that does not change the data.

"don't work as described"

As for ‘forcing’ a shot into anybody, this is simply false. It is not a legal requirement, nor undoubtedly can anybody name one case in which this has happened. Again, beginning with a false premise feeds into the false equivalence fallacy.

---

Strawman Fallacies & False Dichotomy

Strawman Definition:

False Dichotomy Definition:

I grouped these together as in this case, the false dichotomy is encased within the straw man. The commenter uses the ‘oversimplification’ version of a straw man to make the pro-abortion/vaccine advocates position easier to attack, by saying that the issue in both the vaccines and the abortion arguments is simply about ‘being told what to do with their bodies’:

“So do you want people telling you what to do with your body or not?”

In fact, the argument for abortion is vastly detailed, nuanced, and different to the anti-vax argument. Ironically, the anti vax groups stole the phrase ‘pro-choice’ and ‘my body my choice’ from women’s rights activism originally, used it wrongly, and now use it to say the original use was wrong because they want it both ways. This other commenter was articulate in pointing that out:

Within this straw man simplification, they also pose the above question as one or the other – a false dichotomy. Either you want people telling you what to do or you don’t. In reality, the two situations don’t fit under the same category and vaccines have situational outcomes, and work best when enough people have them – while abortions being banned takes away a personal choice and right.

The second straw man fallacy is this:

“…trying to force people”

– instead of trying to persuade. Once again, nobody forced anybody to have a vaccine. It’s the fact that everyone could choose which meant enough people didn’t have them, and that the very same people think they don’t work. Because people didn’t want them!

Public health experts, governments, scientists, and science communicators all tried hard to persuade people to do the best thing for public health outcomes, which is a lot different from being forced. By saying forced, they are attacking a straw man version of the actual position – opposing something which didn’t happen. Another reasonable commenter:

---

Appeal To Emotion Fallacy

Definition:

I’ll end with this crafty last sentence where they say to think about it logically, and not with emotion. Well, above we’ve already thought about this without emotion, and very, very thoroughly logically! All that is left is to analyse this. I don’t know if there’s an inverted version of the appeal to emotion fallacy already, but I’ll call it appeal to lack of emotion.

They appear to be using what is actually a trait of science and skepticism, and crucial to critical thinking, in coming to the truth. However, as pointed out, there is no merit and no consistent logic to their arguments. It’s a covert way of almost portraying that if you disagree with their above reasoning, you’re the one who is ideological or emotionally biased. They are trying to use a lack of emotion to appear rational and persuade the reader, rather than manipulate raw emotions to support the position; thus, cleverly disguising their own probable bias and emotional positions against vaccines, or against abortions.

---

Conclusions

In deconstructing the flaws of this position that the commenter holds, I don’t claim to know their motives, true feelings, or whether they are deceitful or just ignorant. In any case, it should illustrate how reasonable someone can appear, while simultaneously how flawed their position is. They dish out sound advice in critical thinking which was preceded by the very kind of mistakes which critical thinking should deconstruct, as I (and the other comments) have demonstrated.

---