Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Guccifer 2.0 Leak Reveals How DNC Rigged Primaries for Clinton [View all]emulatorloo
(45,789 posts)60. See this: "Loaded Question". It is a logical fallacy.
Squinch is implying this post of yours is a version of the loaded question fallacy:
"It's your prerogative to not care about corruption.
But don't think the rest of us are crazy for caring who the president owes a favor to."
This site lists and explains logical fallacies. It is a pretty good education site .
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html
Loaded Question
Form:
A question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition.
Exposition:
A "loaded question", like a loaded gun, is a dangerous thing. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.
Since this example is a yes/no question, there are only the following two direct answers:
"Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails "I was beating my wife."
"No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating my wife."
Thus, either direct answer entails that you have beaten your wife, which is, therefore, a presupposition of the question. So, a loaded question is one which you cannot answer directly without implying a falsehood or a statement that you deny. For this reason, the proper response to such a question is not to answer it directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject the question.
Some systems of parliamentary debate provide for "dividing the question", that is, splitting a complex question up into two or more simple questions. Such a move can be used to split the example as follows:
"Have you ever beaten your wife?"
"If so, are you still doing so?"
In this way, 1 can be answered directly by "no", and then the conditional question 2 does not arise.
Exposure:
Since a question is not an argument, simply asking a loaded question is not a fallacious argument. Rather, loaded questions are typically used to trick someone into implying something they did not intend. For instance, salespeople learn to ask such loaded questions as: "Will that be cash or charge?" This question gives only two alternatives, thus presuming that the potential buyer has already decided to make a purchase, which is similar to the Black-or-White Fallacy. If the potential buyer answers the question directly, he may suddenly find himself an actual buyer.
------------------
I agree with Squich that your post was a version of the Loaded Question fallacy.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
71 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

Plus I'd rather harp and belittle like you guys do, just to be an irritant like you guys are.
kayakjohnny
Jun 2016
#21
It does make me feel better, knowing I will be on the right side of history.
kayakjohnny
Jun 2016
#15
Yep, making history being the runner-up to the first woman nominee of the Dem party.
brush
Jun 2016
#28
Go ahead and ignore the well document election fraud. That doesn't change reality.
bjo59
Jun 2016
#57
Bernie will be long-forgotten, and already is forgotten by most Americans. What
BreakfastClub
Jun 2016
#51
Do you listen to yourselves? Ever? The documents are either fake or completely disproven!
randome
Jun 2016
#12
Your purity is dazzling. But, to use your argument tactic, when did you stop beating your wife?
Squinch
Jun 2016
#41
Any thing re: HRC that is said on this forum is severely attacked by those with H's and Arrows
bkkyosemite
Jun 2016
#27
I sent an alert on the OP because the heading that the DNC 'rigged' the Primary for HRC
politicaljunkie41910
Jun 2016
#35
This bullshit doesn't in fact "reveal" anything about primaries being "rigged."
Lord Magus
Jun 2016
#38
Guccifer 2.0 stuff is pretty obviously manipulated to me. Why is the name of the SENDER cut off?
emulatorloo
Jun 2016
#61
You know why Hillary won? Because more Democrats voted for her than for Sanders.
Beacool
Jun 2016
#52