Well, I'm searching a post shared by someone in Facebook and I'm looking for it in order to give my own comments. I can't find it but here is what I remember.
It is making a conclusion that women who use sexy and seductive modes of clothing do not value their bodies. The conclusion is formed from the premises shown through a dialogue. I just want to explain how that conclusion is indeed the result of a fallacious reasoning. Regardless of whether or not that post is shared by someone who is trying to introduce a conservative or religious point of view, my intention is not to throw judgment to any religious belief. I just want to tell that not all arguments that may appear valid are in fact valid.
I'll begin by citing the logical fallacy of FALSE EQUIVALENCE.
Below is Wikipedia's definition of this kind of fallacy:
"False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. [1]
Characteristics
A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude , when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: "If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal". d is not required to exist in both sets; only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be able to be used. "
This definition states that the fallacy of false equivalence is done when two subjects share the same quality but due to oversimplification and complete disregard of important factors, the equivalence that is being established by the arguer is a FALSE EQUIVALENCE.
Here are the premises and the conclusion in that post.
Premise 1 - An IPAD is valuable and precious.
Premise 2- Something that is valuable and precious should be protected.
Premise 3- Putting a cover on something valuable and precious means protecting it.
Premise 4.Screen Protector and Case cover an IPAD.
Premise 5-A body of a woman is much precious than an IPAD.
Premise 6. Clothing is a way to cover and protect a woman's body.
Premise 7-Some women use a sexy outfit, clothing and dress therefore exposing some of their body part.
Conclusion: Women described in Premise 7 do not value or protect their bodies. Women who use a sexy clothing do not value or protect their bodies.
How did the arguer become guilty of constructing an argument that falls under the fallacy of false equivalence?
The arguer oversimplified the phrase"covering and protecting something that is precious and valuable."
It implies that women who dress in a sexy outfit are just partially covering their bodies so that means they don't value and protect their bodies.
This is a very funny and ridiculous argument. Premise 3 and Premise 6 give the equivalence but Premise 6 commits the following errors:
1. The term clothing in Premise 6 functions as something that you wear to protect your body. It didn't tell us that clothing has several functions other than protecting the body.
Wikipedia will also tell us the other functions of clothing .
"Clothing performs a range of social and cultural functions, such as individual, occupational and sexual differentiation, and social status. [6] In many societies, norms about clothing reflect standards of modesty , religion ,
gender , and social status . Clothing may also function as a form of adornment and an expression of personal taste or style."
Clothing is not just something that women wear to protect their bodies but it also functions as an EXPRESSION OF PERSONAL TASTE OR STYLE. If a woman dresses in a sexy outfit,does that mean she doesn't use that type of clothing to cover and protect her body? She protects and covers her body that is why she's using a sexy outfit!
It is nonsense to think that a woman have to wear clothes that cover her entire body exposing just her hands, toes and head for us to say that she is covering and protecting her body.
But then again whether or not the clothing exposes or not some of a woman's body parts, when a clothing is worn as a result of a preference to a certain fashion, style and personal taste,premise 6 therefore destroys the entire conclusion since the clothing in the conclusion functions as a both a body protector and a personal expression.But what completely destroys the conclusion is this.
Premise 5 is indeed true. A body of a woman is much precious than an IPAD but the term "body" is again oversimplified.It treats the body as something like the tangible body of an IPAD, no emotions, no personality , no mind , just a body!
So, how could a woman who dresses in a sexy outfit do not value and protect her body as something precious and valuable if that BODY IS NOT JUST SKIN, MUSCLES, BONES, BODY PARTS BUT RATHER A BODY THAT KEEPS HER MIND,HEART AND PERSONALITY.If a women dresses in a sexy outfit means she values and protect her body because inside that body is a personality that was developed out of web of choices and the gifts of freedom.
The arguer might say that wearing a sexy outfit takes in the risk of being a victim of sexually-motivated crimes but the arguer in order to substantiate that claim has to adjust his/her own premises to accommodate the idea that clothing has social consequences. The arguer then in an attempt to escape from being falling into the fallacy of equivalence while retaining the same conclusion that women with sexy clothing don't value and protect their bodies(because of high risk to sexually-motivated crimes) has to form and prove the premise that sexy clothing is the only or the primary cause why sex crimes are commited ! Thus, the arguer falls into a new type of fallacy which is the FALLACY OF DENYING THE ANTECEDENT.
How?
Premise: IPAD is precious. It needs to be covered and protected.
Premise:A woman's body is precious.It needs to be covered and protected
Premise: Sexy clothing has high risk of provoking sexually-motivated crimes
Conclusion: Women with sexy outfit don't value and protect their bodies.
If there are other reasons why sex crimes are perpetuated other than a sexy clothing, the third premise being false destroys the conclusion.
