Ambiguous sentence logic

[fuzzymillipede]

I am in a rather strange debate where someone made a statement and others interpreted it in such a way that the statement became absurd (as opposed to the obvious interpretation) and attacked him.

So, is it some kind of logical fallacy to claim a statement is false based on an "incorrect" interpretation, while ignoring the obvious interpretation?

EX:

That's a lie! You can't use your dog to eat food.

I eat dinner with my dog.

[Kuroneko]

This is a fallacy of ambiguity. It has several subtypes--e.g., if the ambiguity is due to structure of the sentence (i.e., an ambiguity in how the words should be grouped together, such as a modifier), it's also called fallacy of amphibole. This particular instance seems to be an equivocation.

[fuzzymillipede]

To give a more precise analogy, the statement read like this:

When on guard duty, always wear a bullet-proof vest and you can be unharmed if you get shot.

The statement was (mis)interpreted as:

When on guard duty, always wear a bullet-proof vest and you will never be harmed if you get shot.

The person who made the statement was then ridiculed for claiming that bullet-proof vests provided the wearer with "god-mode", when that is obviously not what his statement implied.

[Hawkwings]

I believe this is appropriate.

[Hawkwings]

Edit: wait, I seem to have failed at reading comprehension. Disregard previous post, unless you want to see the funnies.

[bilateralrope]

All the fault there seems to lie with the first guy because he produced a statement that doesn't make any sense.

At the other extreme where the statement is understandable, but misinterpreted your probably talking a strawman fallacy.

[Surlethe]

To give a more precise analogy, the statement read like this:

When on guard duty, always wear a bullet-proof vest and you can be unharmed if you get shot.

The statement was (mis)interpreted as:

When on guard duty, always wear a bullet-proof vest and you will never be harmed if you get shot.

The person who made the statement was then ridiculed for claiming that bullet-proof vests provided the wearer with "god-mode", when that is obviously not what his statement implied.

That's not a question of interpretation; that's a simple inability to read English. More technically, it's confusing existential and universal quantifiers. "You can be unharmed if you get shot" is the same as "there exists a(t least one) case where you will not be harmed if you get shot" -- which is certainly not the same as "in every case you will not be harmed if you get shot."

[ArmorPierce]

Well that has happened to me here once. I was arguing about how there is still sexism in society today and someone took that as me saying there is sexism in society, hence that's reason why women should be subjugated. I'm not exactly sure where they got the second part from which was totally opposite of what I was saying.

[fuzzymillipede]

The problem with their interpretation was that they saw "can be not harmed" and turned it into "can not be harmed", and thus "will never be harmed."

It does seem that "can not" means the same as "will never", i.e. "I can not die" to "I will never die."

But I could say "I can not die if I shoot myself", which would indicate that there is at least one case where I can shoot myself and survive. It doesn't mean the same as "I will never die if I shoot myself."

It seems to be a question of whether the "not" is associated with the "can", and thus turns the phrase into "can never die", or is associated with the "die", which turns the phrase into "might not die."

[Oni Koneko Damien]

I can be unharmed if I'm shot while wearing a bulletproof vest =/= I *will* be unharmed if I'm shot while wearing a bulletproof vest.

...in the same way as....

There are people named Bob =/= People are all named Bob.