I looked up circular reasoning. And no that isn't what I had implied. I think you did a good job of expanding what I had in mind.
I was thinking also of arguments that avoid what seems to be a next logical assumption because that assumption is not useful to support the assumption that was hoped for. The argument that looks for assumptions that support the agenda and ignores the possibility of evidence that could explain the argument. I find these in political discourse to the point that it is maddening.
I had a discourse with my brothers wife today about her contempt for airline procedure. I tried to be rational and explain that perhaps there is more to it than what seemed like a lack of consideration for the passenger. I said I understand that some airlines have displayed a percieved lack of consideration but that should not be construed to all other perceptions. Her argument was her plane was not allowed to land timely enough because of lighting yet her connecting flight was allowed to take off thus making her miss her connection and having to wait for another flight. Her assumption was if a plane can't land because of lighting then it can't takeoff. Her agenda was to prove that airlines are randomly inconsiderate. I said perhaps that is true but this case does not support that. She just got mad at me for defending the airlines. I said I'm not defending the airline but rather protecting your integrity by denying this argument as insufficient. She got even madder !
I don't know if this was denying the antecedent or denying a womans right to be offended. As it turned out my friend who is a airline attendent said
the plane probably took off because there would be no reason to disrupt the further scheduled passengers of the plane that took off for the sake of her planes
delay. Her plane could not land because the terminal was already backed up due to the lightning. She just needed more data but that might defer her desired outcome.
I find the whole gun control debate just about as shallow. The shooters all exhibit major psychological disorders and yet are reffered to as cowards as if they have character issues. Its like calling a rabid dog a behavioral problem.
I was thinking also of arguments that avoid what seems to be a next logical assumption because that assumption is not useful to support the assumption that was hoped for. The argument that looks for assumptions that support the agenda and ignores the possibility of evidence that could explain the argument. I find these in political discourse to the point that it is maddening.
I had a discourse with my brothers wife today about her contempt for airline procedure. I tried to be rational and explain that perhaps there is more to it than what seemed like a lack of consideration for the passenger. I said I understand that some airlines have displayed a percieved lack of consideration but that should not be construed to all other perceptions. Her argument was her plane was not allowed to land timely enough because of lighting yet her connecting flight was allowed to take off thus making her miss her connection and having to wait for another flight. Her assumption was if a plane can't land because of lighting then it can't takeoff. Her agenda was to prove that airlines are randomly inconsiderate. I said perhaps that is true but this case does not support that. She just got mad at me for defending the airlines. I said I'm not defending the airline but rather protecting your integrity by denying this argument as insufficient. She got even madder !
I don't know if this was denying the antecedent or denying a womans right to be offended. As it turned out my friend who is a airline attendent said
the plane probably took off because there would be no reason to disrupt the further scheduled passengers of the plane that took off for the sake of her planes
delay. Her plane could not land because the terminal was already backed up due to the lightning. She just needed more data but that might defer her desired outcome.
I find the whole gun control debate just about as shallow. The shooters all exhibit major psychological disorders and yet are reffered to as cowards as if they have character issues. Its like calling a rabid dog a behavioral problem.
