Most Outlandish Interpretation Fallacy

Lately I’ve noticed an increase in appeals to a particular fallacy which I’m dubbing the ‘most outlandish interpretation fallacy.’ It’s similar to the ‘strawman’ with a bit of ‘no true scotsman’ thrown in for good measure.

Here are a couple examples:

“I don’t support capitalism because capitalists support kidnapping children and locking them in sweatshops just because they stole a candy bar.”

“I don’t support private property because propertarians support using land mines to kill children who chase their ball into a neighbor’s yard.”

These scenarios are outlandish interpretations of the concepts linked to them and do not represent what defenders of capitalism and property rights actually advocate or support.

Have you encountered similar nonsense arguments recently? I’m interested to hear your examples.

Save as PDFPrint

Written by 

Parrish Miller has worked as a web designer, policy analyst, blogger, journalist, digital media manager, and social media marketing consultant. Having been largely cured of his political inclinations, he now finds philosophy more interesting than politics and is focused particularly on alternative ideas such as counter-economics, agorism, voluntaryism, and unschooling.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments