All the fallacies I found come from the article I talked about in my previous post .
First, in this comment, the author writes: “If the “responsibility to protect” is a sacred principle, shouldn’t it be applied everywhere?” and concludes that the intervention in Libya is not justified because it has not been done in the rest of the Middle East.
- According to my incomplete notes, it seems to me that this can be qualified as a “red herring“, as it is a rhetorical strategy that totally distracts the reader from the real problem.
She also writes,”What’s certain is that, as despotic as he is, Moammar Gadhafi wouldn’t have stayed in power for more than 40 years if he hadn’t been able to forge strong alliances with at least a good part of the country.” Which seems to be a double one :
- because Kadhafi has been in power for 40 years he must be supported by a majority. This seems to be the logical fallacy, “affirming the consequent“. (But I wait for the slides to confirm my diagnosis because my notes are not very explanatory)
- because Kadhafi is supported by a majority he is legitimate be in power and the west should not intervene.This seems to be the “Ad populum” rhetorical fallacy: advancing a logical claim through an appeal to popular opinion.