News and Articles

Definition

The Free Speech Fallacy is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and scope of free speech rights, where individuals conflate the constitutional protection against government censorship with an unwarranted expectation of immunity from criticism, consequences, or accountability. This fallacy manifests when someone asserts that their right to free expression shields them from any form of disagreement, rebuttal, social repercussions, or the natural consequences of their speech.

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation where one person or group makes another doubt their own perceptions, memories, or understanding of reality.

It’s often subtle, beginning with small denials or distortions, but over time it can erode the victim’s confidence in their judgment and sanity.

In personal relationships, gaslighting might sound like:

• “You’re overreacting — that never happened.”
• “You’re too sensitive.”
• “You must be remembering it wrong.”

The goal is not necessarily to win an argument, but to destabilize the other person’s trust in their own mind, creating dependency and control.

Few ideas have had as profound-and dangerous-an impact on society as the fallacy of moral superiority. Also known as “self-righteousness” or “the moral high ground”, this ancient error in reasoning has stoked conflict, inspired cruelty, and undermined the very possibility of peace. It is worth understanding just how this fallacy works, where it comes from, and why it persists in our politics, schools, homes, and everyday interactions.

What Is the Moral Superiority Fallacy?

At its core, the moral superiority fallacy occurs when someone believes that their own standards of “good” or “righteousness” entitle them to ignore the rights, dignity, or even existence of those considered “evil” or unworthy. This is more than just believing that one’s moral code is best—it’s the deeper, more insidious conviction that only the “righteous” deserve respect, protection, or consideration, while the “wicked” may be dismissed, dehumanized, or destroyed.

Definition

The moralistic fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone asserts that what is moral or the way things should be is in fact how they naturally are, and that anything deemed “immoral” is “unnatural”. This fallacy can take several forms:

• Assuming Impossibility: It often manifests as the assumption that if something were true, it would lead to socially unpleasant consequences, thus concluding that the thing cannot be true. The typical form of this argument is “if X were true, then Z would happen! Thus, X is false”, where Z is a morally, socially, or politically undesirable outcome.
• Reverse Is/Ought Fallacy: It can also be seen as the reverse of the is/ought fallacy. While the is/ought fallacy reasons that because things are a certain way, they ought to be that way, the moralistic fallacy reasons that because something should or ought to be a particular way, it must naturally be that way.
• Moral Judgments vs Factual Judgments: The moralistic fallacy can also occur when someone asserts that moral judgments are of a different order from factual judgments. This fallacy may take two forms: one where ethical judgments are seen as separate from factual judgments, and another where they are not.
• Inverse of Naturalistic Fallacy: Some consider the moralistic fallacy to be the inverse of the naturalistic fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy is the belief that what is natural is morally right. For example, if it’s natural for animals to fight in the wild, some might argue that it’s morally acceptable for humans to do the same.

In essence, the moralistic fallacy involves making assumptions about morality and the way things exist, often leading to flawed reasoning and conclusions.

The “No True Scotsman” fallacy, is a form of informal logical fallacy that arises when one tries to defend a generalization by excluding counterexamples. This defense mechanism is enacted by redefining terms in order to make an argument valid, thus protecting sweeping generalizations from being proven false

The No True Scotsman logical fallacy, also known as the appeal to purity, is a form of informal fallacy that arises when someone tries to defend a universal claim by excluding counterexamples as not being “true” or “pure” enough. This defense mechanism is enacted by redefining terms in order to make an argument valid, rather than acknowledging and addressing the evidence that contradicts the generalization, thus protecting sweeping generalizations from being proven false.