Is This Argument An Example Of A Logical Fallacy

What are some examples of circular argument fallacies?

A circular argument fallacy is a type of tautology.Tautology: a statement that is true by virtue of logic alone, but is useless as argument (such statements can be useful in mathematics, for example, reducing expressions to simpler forms for various purposes.)Example:The red bicycle is red.This is also known as affirming the antecedent, or more commonly: begging the question. (See note below).Common forms:A is true because B is true.B is true because A is true.Or:A implies A.Or:Any form of argument where the conclusion occurs as one of the premises.Examples:Opium is sleep inducing because it has a soporific* quality.(*soporific; definition: sleep inducing)Killing people is wrong, so the death penalty is wrong.God is real because the Bible says so and the Bible is infallible—because it’s the word of God.Note: sometimes in modern usage, people use the phrase “begging the question” as another way of saying “elicits the question”. However, from the latin, “petitio principii” translated as “begs the question” as a fallacy, is a type of tautology, as described above. Usually the reader can tell from context which meaning to apply.Info in this answer was paraphrased from rationalwiki and wikipedia.Tautology - RationalWikiCircular reasoningBegging the question - Wikipedia

What are some real life examples of logical fallacies?

Three that come to mind are:The Appeal to Nature. We hear all the time “that’s not natural” or “it is good for you because it’s natural.” There is no inherent good in nature. For exampleThese flowers can kill you, but…These synthetic pills can cure you.So when someone says I love this food or that thing because it comes from nature, just remember that not all things from nature are right or good.2. What aboutism: This is not a traditional fallacy that is taught in philosophy courses but it is super popular today. For example:Person X: The politician you like just committed a crime.Person Y: Yeah, but WHAT ABOUT the politician you liked. They did like four crimes. Therefore, my person is better than yours and everything is fine.The problem is that the first politician did do something wrong, but person Y tries to distract the real issue at hand with older, worse stories of a different person.3. Slippery Slope: This one is everywhere in America right now. For example, if we let in one immigrant family then we have to let the entire world come to America! Or, if we give healthcare to everyone then we will have to start giving them housing, food, and everything else. You see how these escalate quickly. A valid idea such as maybe giving healthcare to people goes down a slippery slope into giving away everything in society.

What are some good examples of informal logical fallacies?

I am new to Quora and have been following threads on logical fallacies. This topic fascinates me and has practical implications as we navigate our way through our political discourses. As I am also new to the concepts about logical fallacies, I am requesting feedback from any Quarons on what i am about to write.Taking the topic of gun control versus unlimited gun ownership rights, I think there is a fallacy in the pro gun camp that states, “guns don't kill people, people kill people therefore owning guns should be ok.” it seems to me that this argument is specious because it puts everything made by people into one giant basket without regard to utility or intent of a made item.Specifically, a gun’s utility is to stop someone, some group or some animal from carrying out an action. The gun's purpose is to be used to stop an intruder or stop an army or stop a deer either directly through its use or indirectly as a threat. In all instances, gun use is a violent application of force against another. No other vommonly available instrument made by people has at its primary use killing and maiming.Although any object can be used as a weapon, their major intents are not stopping others through deadly force. For example, bladed tools from knives to axes were originally designed as tools to help make things or in cooking. Guns don't fall into that category. (I know some people will say what about bows and arrows or spears and swords? Yes these are precursors of guns.) But a gun is so confined to one sole purpose. People will also say that guns are used as sport in target shooting. But this activity at its core is set up to make people better at using guns to more effectively stop other people.First principles of use and utility might ought to be considered as opposed to lumping all things, from guns to garden hoes, into one class and saying people use every tool, therefore everything should be ok for people to have and use as they see fit including guns.This to me is really about finding out if I am effectively arguing against the perceived fallacy of guns don't kill, people kill. I just don't know which fallacy this falls under or even if my argument of first principle of use is another fallacy.Your feedback would be helpful and appreciated.

What are common logical fallacies in gun control arguments?

EE…You need to know something about guns before you can form an intelligent opinion about them.One prominent politician once said that the “Average Person couldn’t possibly learn to use a handgun well enough to defend themselves effectively with it.”This is blatant nonsense. Jeff Cooper used to turn out very competent journeyman pistoleros in a 5-day training program. Teaching yourself after reading the right instructions—it might take you a month or two.If you’re not gun literate, you have no idea what potent ally a gun can be.Second:Cooper said repeatedly that a man who can shoot well enough to hit a teacup at 25-yards will often empty a magazine at a large man who is close enough to spit on.What is lacking here is calmness and focus.Cooper said that the best way to develop the calmness necessary to effective combat pistol craft is to often ask yourself hypothetical tactical questions:“As I sit here eating waffles at McDonalds, what would I do if two shotgun armed robbers came in through THAT door.”These hypothetical musings can become quite involved if you take into account the possibility of your home being blitzed or surviving in scenarios “Without Rule of Law.”Then the ignorant ask questions like:“Why would anyone EVER need a magazine holding over 10-rounds?”OR“Why do you need an AK-47 to shoot deer?”And the question involves so many fallacies and erroneous assumptions along with complete ignorance that it is hard to even know where to attack the evil sophism.And then there is the MAJOR fallacy—that consideration of Pragmatic Considerations hold any weight when measured against Moral Precepts.People have the Right to go Armed as an Irreducible Primary.…..RVM45