LOGICAL FALLACIES: Repetitive Industry Talking Points Analyzed by ChatGPT

I took this post made just yesterday (1/17/24), and copied it into ChatGPT. The purpose was to get quick analysis on the subject of Logical Fallacies. For those unfamiliar, there are numerous sites that give an overview of what these are, and examples of how they are used in debate.

Here's one I use frequently: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Logical Fallacies typically hurt rather than help the party that is using them in a debate.

Now, the purpose of using ChatGPT (AI, or Artificial Intelligence) is not to turn over HOAs to AI. Although I jokingly say that Artificial Intelligence is better than no Intelligence at all, which is what some of us feel like we experience. Joking aside, the purpose is to get a rapid response that can then be reviewed. For me to go through this 3-paragraph excerpt, it would take me 30-60 minute at least. With ChatGPT, it took about 30 seconds.

Here is what ChatGPT returned as a result of the prompt - "Can you identify the logical fallacies in this post about HOAs? ":

"The post about HOAs (Homeowners Associations) and the Task Force Meeting contains several logical fallacies. Here are a few that can be identified:

False Dilemma/False Dichotomy: The author suggests that the group must decide if it is "for or against rules and mandates," implying that these are the only two options. This simplifies the situation into a binary choice, ignoring the possibility of a more nuanced approach where some rules might be necessary while others are not.

Straw Man Fallacy: The author misrepresents the position of those who want to implement new rules by stating, "It amuses me that folks who are against rules are bound and determined to create more rules!" This suggests that the people proposing new rules are entirely against rules, which is likely an oversimplification or misrepresentation of their actual stance.

Hasty Generalization: The author quickly concludes that because the Task Force is considering new rules, they are inherently contradictory or hypocritical. This generalization is made without considering the specific context or rationale behind each proposed rule.

Slippery Slope: The author implies that creating any new rules or mandates will inevitably lead to a proliferation of excessive rules, without providing evidence for this inevitable progression.

Oversimplification: Throughout the post, complex issues regarding the management of HOAs and the implementation of rules are simplified into a binary of being either for or against rules. This ignores the complexities and nuances involved in such governance issues.

Appeal to Common Sense: The author seems to imply that their view is common sense ("In my estimation, you can't have it both ways"), suggesting that the opposing view is nonsensical or illogical without providing a substantive argument to support this claim.

These fallacies detract from the logical coherence of the argument and can lead to a misunderstanding of the complexities involved in the governance and regulation of Homeowners Associations."

This is the thing: How can we reach consensus when those defending the Industry (including those on HOA Boards who are influenced by their propaganda) are constantly repeating logical fallacies?

I'll take one of the topics mentioned above off the top, which I wrote about on this site just yesterday - Deterrence. Those of us who passed HB22-1137 (and I was one of the members of CHHA that worked directly on the bill), did not in any sense say that homeowners need not follow the rules.

The issue was proportionality combined with due process. Watching someone who has a grease stain on their driveway LOSE THEIR HOME because of a process that failed to give basic notice, escalates legal fees infinitely over a SHORT duration, and allowed HOA Attorneys, CAM Managers, or even Board Members with INSIDE INFORMATION to buy a foreclosed home for the remaining mortgage plus the debt (effectively stealing the equity after flipping the home in a hot real estate market) is just outrageous.

We aren't saying people should be allowed to have grease stains on their driveways. But, having time to fix it BEFORE a fine is applied AND to have PROPORTIONAL fines relative to the infraction are better than all-or-none situations where you can lose your home. It's just ridiculous to pretend such practices are fair and reasonable.

So, the fact that HOA DIRECTORS, who have the EXACT SAME OBLIGATION TO FOLLOW THE RULES, have ZERO deterrent to breaking them, and cannot be held strictly to the rules (because of the Business Judgement Rule and "substantial compliance" standards), or even held accountable AT ALL is just plain insulting.

The power imbalance is the issue. If you want all rules to be followed strictly with huge consequences, then Boards should be held to the same standards. Because, after all, they agreed to the rules the same as a homeowner because - THEY ARE ALSO HOMEOWNERS.

That is the key logical fallacy we deal with in stake holding. That Boards and Homeowners are separate and distinct groups, when Boards are actually a sub-set. It's just dumbfounding how those defending the Colorado HOA Industry cannot recognize such logical fallacies make their arguments disingenuous.

I encourage everyone to run posts here through ChatGPT to find these logical fallacies, even if you agree with them. It's enlightening and a time-saver.