Talk:Phantom distinction

Sometimes the phantom distinction can be more real than others: the non-logical example - rubbish (UK English) and trash (US English) mean the same - but 'to rubbish' (speak badly of) and 'to trash' (cause actual damage to a place) are different things. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

So what is the distinction between 'a ghost' and 'a spectre' a phantom distinction? Anna Livia (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Removing examples that don't belong here.

I think that at least 6 examples don't belong here and should be either moved to other articles or removed. If you think that I'm wrong for removing them, please provide counterarguments.

Removed entry: I'm opposed to gay marriage, but I think gay couples should be allowed civil unions that give them the same rights that heterosexual couples have.

Arguments for removal:

• If it's genuine expression of ones views about gay marriage, then the problem goes deeper than what is seen here as mere phantom distinction and the statement is just plain self-contradictory. In such case it belongs to Self-refuting idea article. Alternatively speaker is uneducated about outcomes of solutions that they propose and, so the problem lies somewhere else and labeling it as phantom distinction doesn't show whole picture at best and completely misses the point at worst.
• Alternatively (this situation unfortunately seems to be more common), this statement masks a stance that does deny some rights to homosexuals and "civil unions that give them the same rights that heterosexual couples have" functions as more socially acceptable way of proposing policies that wouldn't give gays same rights. In such case this statement is far from being a phantom distinction, because the underlying assumptions of that statement make proposed solution very different from actually legalizing gay marriage, as many people painfully found out in countries that applied this policy. In such case it belongs to "Homophobic dog whistles" section of Code word article.

Removed entry: I think about having same-gender sex, but I’m completely heterosexual because I never act on these thoughts (although that's more related to definitions).

Arguments for removal: Listing this sentence as a fallacy of any kind (even with definitions disclaimer) is wrong for several reasons:

• First and foremost it's just cruel for people suffering from HOCD. One google search could make it obvious, but just in case you don't have time for it: there is a whole group of people who have intrusive thoughts related to "having same-gender sex" (or sometimes intrusive responses to normal thoughts with similar content), despite being completely hetero or bisexual (yes, this works in both sides). In such cases not only the supposedly fallacious statement is often 100% true, but additionally attacking it is extremely invalidating for people with this mental illness and shows a blatant misunderstanding of how thoughts work.
• Additionally, there is obvious difference between having thoughts about something and being attracted to doing it. Just having thoughts about specific thing, by definition (ironically), does not say anything about ones orientation, if there is no attraction following them.
• Additionally, human sexuality is too complex to lump it into such one liner, based on so many assumptions. If you have a related take (one that actually makes any sense), consider making a separate article instead of sticking one sentence to a list.
• Additionally, given the context, there is a possibility that adding this example was based on meme that apparently all homophobes are gay. Now don't get me wrong, pissing off bigots is always fun, just not when all you do is using "gay" as an insult for people you don't like. This might seem ok 20 years ago, but not anymore.. Some straight homophobes think about gay sex more often than average gay, but this doesn't make them less straight, it makes them assholes.

Removed entry: I'm not disclaiming any revenue at all from my creative work, I just don't want to claim a copyright/patent on it for a certain philosophical reason.

Arguments for removal: Depending on underlying assumptions it can be a phantom distinction, but most often it isn't.

• Especially if done for philosophical reasons, person saying this probably doesn't believe that given copyright/patent right is legitimate or exists at all, so there is nothing to disclaim in the first place. Disclaiming would imply some legitimacy or existence of such "right", so in such case the distinction is real.
• Alternatively, the artist wouldn't get revenue from that work anyway, so the statement is not fallacious.
• Alternatively, the distinction is indeed phantom, but re-framing the stance in such way doesn't imply that profiting form intellectual property should be something "default", in such case it belongs to Exception section.

Removed entry: I'm for equal rights between men and women and for an end to sexism and discrimination, but I don't subscribe to feminism (or instead, egalitarianism).

Arguments for removal: Situation is similar to the first case.

• If it's genuine expression of ones views, then person saying this could still support support end-goals of feminism, but not feminism as means for this goal and could for example propose some alternative means. Obviously, we all know that that such means would not work, but this is lack-of-knowledge-problem, not logical-inconsistency one.
• Alternatively, "egalitarianism" could be used here as a dogwhistle for anti-feminism, making this distinction real and problem much deeper than this fallacy.

Removed entry: Admitting self or judging other or argument(s) thereof as "not wrong but right for the wrong reason(s)"/"not right but wrong for the right reason(s)".

This one is self-explanatory. The distinction is obviously real and it's just sad that someone thought it belongs here.

Removed entry: If-by-whiskey arguments mean "I don't have either position on X, but I have both rather than neither because I will flip from side to side depending on which connotation(s) you define it to have".

This one is also self-explanatory, it's a completely different fallacy that already has its own article. Would belong here if same words couldn't have different meaning in different contexts, but that's not the case.

Changed entry: From: I won't openly admit when my preferred alternative media are faking the news, but the mainstream media don't really report facts about what I'm emotionally attached to either, they just lie about that in their own way. To: I won't openly admit when my preferred alternative media are faking the news, but the mainstream media don't really report facts about what I'm emotionally attached to either, they just lie about that in their own way (applies only when stated without evidence, which is a case for most of such statements).

There may some exceptional situations when person saying this wouldn't be making any logical fallacy, even when they are emotionally attached, such as pointing out pro-American war propaganda, history of bending facts in favor of status quo or just blatant racism. It's however easy to verify such statements by asking for evidence – when side claiming fake news is not able to provide any, then it belongs here.

Disclaimer not needed: It is equally valid to count several forms of logical fallacy as either formal or informal, including the various forms of equivocation, of which this fallacy is one. Which it ultimately gets called just depends on how charitable one wants to be to an opponent who uses it in a debate.

This one is technically true, but it seems to work as an excuse for listing examples that are something completely different from this fallacy, so doesn't belong here either.