View Single Post


May 21st, 2013, 20:47
Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
Depressions cause mass killings.
Depressions also cause the use of anti-depressant medications.
Connecting anti-depressant medication with mass killings is equivalent of connecting seat-belts with car crashes. It's stupidity of a level that is hard to take in.
I'm sorry JemyM, but this is an incredibly poorly conceived argument. There is no syllogism (logical or not) in your statement. According to what you have said,

A)Depressions cause mass killings.
B) Depressions cause the use of anti-depressants.

Nowhere from those two statements can someone make the logical leap that anti-depressants cause mass killings. The only logical conclusion that can possibly be drawn is

C)Depressions cause mass killings and the use of anti-depressants.

Based on your logic, equating it to seat belts causing car crashes makes absolutely no sense because A+B =/= C)People on anti-depressants cause mass killings, or anything close to that.

The syllogism you are trying to compare it to could look something like this:

A)People responsible for mass killings are depressed.
B)Depressed people are on anti-depressants.
C)People responsible for mass killings are on anti-depressants.

If you were to use that as the basis for your argument (which you did not), then what you are saying is that such a conclusion is illogical for other reasons. In this case, because it makes too many false assumptions (that all people responsible for mass killings are on anti-depressants). Even so, you have provided no example of how you draw the conclusion that this equals seat belts causing car crashes. My assumption would be something along these lines:

A)People wear seat belts.
B)People get in car crashes.
C)Seat belts cause car crashes.

However, this still isn't an accurate comparison because they are illogical for completely different reasons. The above syllogism could be illogical because it makes false assumptions. However, the bottom syllogism is illogical because it is improperly constructed. The only conclusion that can successfully be drawn is that C)People wear seat belts and get in car crashes.

I guess that's where you draw your comparison from; you have two improperly constructed syllogisms that both arrive at illogical conclusions 1. Because depression causes mass killings and people to use anti-depressants, anti-depressants are responsible for mass killings and 2. Because people get in car crashes and wear seat belts, seat belts are responsible for car crashes. Really, what should be compared is that 1. Depressed people are responsible for mass killings and are on anti-depressants, and 2. People wear seat belts and get in car crashes. However, because you drew an illogical conclusion to begin with, the entire argument is incredibly weak. Normally I wouldn't care, if not for the insulting kicker that you finished it off with, "It's stupidity of a level that is hard to take in."
rossrjensen is offline


Keeper of the Watch


Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 609