The Counterexample Comparison Confusion
There's a frustratingly common pattern in discussions that manages to bug me: In a specific context someone makes a statement, someone else provides a counterexample to the statement, and then the first person says that the counterexample is disanalogous to what was being discussed. Let’s call it the Counterexample Comparison Confusion (CCC).
E.G.
While talking about some specific military conflict between nations (like the Russo-Ukrainian War or the Israeli–Palestinian conflict).
Person A: “One should never militarily intervene in a conflict between other countries”.
Person B: “ What if military experts believe that the invading country is doing so to be in a better position to wage war against your country in the future? ”
Person A: “But that is not the case for the conflict we were discussing”.
Except that person B is not making a comparison with the conflict under discussion, he is providing a counterexample to the statement “One should never militarily intervene in a conflict between other countries”. If the counterexample is correct the statement is wrong and should be changed. Person A may either explain why the counterexample does not work or amend his statement. Person A should not pretend that a comparison was made and then go on and on explaining why the two situations are different and incomparable without amending his initial statement.
The CCC is pervasive, permeating a wide range of discussions, from casual family dinner table discussions to deep political and philosophical debates. Let’s look at another, perhaps clearer, example to drive the point home (repetita iuvant).
E.G.
When questioning the usefulness of some ancient ritual of a foreign country
Person A: “One should always respect the culture of other countries”
Person B: “What about the cultural practice of female genital mutilation”
Person A: “But that is different from the ancient ritual we were discussing”
Person A will then go on to explain why female genital mutilation is different from the ancient ritual under discussion (implying that his interlocutor is unaware). This process could lead to questions like “So one should always respect the culture of other countries except if it concerns cutting off body appendices? What about circumcision or cutting your nails?” and then person A will say that cutting nails is way different than female genital mutilation, initiating another cycle. Person A should simply amend their initial statement with great honor.1
Hopefully naming this phenomenon may stop it from occurring so often.
For those wondering the correct statement is that one should respect cultural practices that help increase the overall well-being of a society.
Am I stupid or does that image not portray what is being described in the post?