The mediator in this example draws a false equivalence, saying that Person #2 (the abused) is equal to Person #1 (the abuser), with a slogan that they think sounds enlightened. The mediator, however, says: “There are three sides to this: Your story, her story, and the truth.” Person #2 complains to someone else about this, perhaps someone in a position to mediate or solve the problem. Person #1 outright abuses a second person.  The false equivalence is unjust, untrue, and a hazard to human thriving.Īnother version of the fallacy runs like this: The aggressors bear the guilt for the deaths, not the self-defenders. But in fact they aren’t remotely equivalent. The pundit, here, is drawing an false equivalence: that aggressors and people fighting in self defense are morally the same. Then, some pundit tells the world that, “Wrongs were done by both sides – many on each side are dead – we shouldn’t point fingers.” By the time it ends, 24 Decians and 51 Fractians are dead.  The Fractians, after coming to grips with what is happening, begin to hurl stones and to swing clubs right back at the Decians. And so they grab weapons and go through the town of the Fractians, burning buildings and beating the tar out of any Fractians they find. Here’s an example:Ī group of people called the Decians gather together and decide that their ancestors were done wrong by a group of people called Fractians. The user of this fallacy makes two things sound alike – usually like they’re both the same thing – while they really aren’t. The fallacy of false equivalence (also referred to as a fallacy of inconsistency) is an equivalence drawn between two subjects, using flawed or false reasoning.

Random melee weapon blueprints dead cells