Slothful induction Fallacy consists of an unfair argument. Proof is presented, however the opposing side is denying all proof due to their own reasoning. However the reasoning is not accurate, and ignorant to the facts. A person who is arguing against all facts, can be manipulative in what they really want to focus the argument on. A sloth is referred to as a slow moving, lazy individual who lacks in motivation to do what is best. The induction increases the argument, makes you think as well as wonder how a person could come to that specific conclusion. The fallacy is the unwillingness to even try to understand the proof given. This would fall alongside with telling someone they are lying to you, although they are really telling the truth.
However the truth can vary based on the induvial. The sloth in this fallacy would ignore each and every person coming with proof, explanation, facts and evidence. The sloth would matter of fact come up with their own conclusion and reasoning. Even though it will not make sense the argument will still advance by the opposing side explaining why the sloth is wrong. Which would change the argument itself, into a new focus of who is right and who is wrong. The sloth doesn’t focus on the specific problems, instead creates another issue, and reasoning that makes no sense.
Trusting someone is hard to do. In any situation, as a person tells their side of the story it can be true to the extent they believe it. The fact could simply be the same problem is reoccurring, there for why deny it is happening? A coincidence would be a remarkable concurrence of circumstances or events with apparent connection. This would be the reason a person would go to instead of believing the proof given.
Being involved in the slothful induction also involves a game of goalposts. Regardless of what is being told to you, your response is always different from the information shown. For example, a female could be head over heels in love with a man. Even though this man cheats and does it often, she still loves him and will not leave. She is the sloth in this situation because the situation was reoccurring and still she chose to stay with the cheating man. Instead of understanding he may not love her the same way back, she figures he cheats when she makes him upset.
I think the slothful induction is often used so outsiders who may not understand your personal reasoning can mind their business. People often want to speak on what does not concern them, or introduce information to start conversation or evoke emotion. By playing the ignorant, “that’s not the only reason”, I need more examples brings an arguer annoyance. By doing that, the conversation may end sooner, and the sloth doesn’t have to engage with conversation that is demeaning to their common sense. Perception is different among all people, being blind to certain facts may be how some people choose to live their life.