Jimshaul.files.wordpress.com



Refractions (Bent Thinking) / FallaciesBy Jim ShaulToo Many Wrong Answers Error : When someone claims that because there are so many different answers or claims on a subject, therefore there is no right answer. (e.g. “There are so many different religions with different ideas, therefore none of them is correct.”) This error is very common. It is very acceptable. It is also very easily refuted. Refutation: The existence of a number of different answers does not prove that none of them are right. It only shows that there is a lot of ignorance out there. Example: I give an exam. I grade the exam. All thirty students answer a short essay on the difference between Eastern and Western Gods. All the answers are incorrect. Does it follow that there is not a right answer? Of course not, silly person. It just means all thirty students didn’t study well (or that I didn’t cover that in class!) Either way, there is a right answer. Psychogenetic Fallacy: Rejecting an argument just because you do not like the associations of the speaker or because you know their mindset on matters in general. (e.g. “I disagree with John Behner’s solution to the current debt crisis because he is a Republican and their solutions protect the rich.” Again, a common error. Refutation: You are equating the person and his reasoning when you reject someone because you know their basic mindset. People are not arguments and arguments are not people. Example: Just because he is a Republican and Republicans in general are characterized as protecting the rich, that does not mean that his proposed solution to the debt crisis is without merit. It is possible that he got it right this time!Straw Man Argument (Fallacy Of Extension/Caricature Fallacy) = Taking what someone thinks is a weakness in the other person’s argument and blowing it out of proportion, then acting like this “caricature” is the real position of the other person. Then they attack that created position (which the other person has never held). This can be used against individuals or groups. When used against groups, it often accompanied but the Fallacy of Division (which says that what is true of the whole of something must be true of each of its parts). I will bring this to y’all tomorrow. Refutation: 1) Make sure that you state your positions clearly so that it makes it less likely that others will be able to mis-state your position and make claims about your exact position that you simply do not hold and never stated by you anywhere. 2) If you are NOT being inconsistent, demonstrate why – show why your two positions are not contrary to one another. 2) If you are inconsistent, then thank the other side for pointing out your error … and commit yourself to using better critical reasoning next time. Real Example: “The religious, conservative, group which consistently reiterates the need for government to get out of people’s lives are, in a stroke of almost sheer irony, the ones who want to use the legal arm of the law to do the opposite [keep marriage only for opposite gender].” The weakness is perceived inconsistency of arguing for less government while also arguing for more government intrusion. Of course, if this is the case, it would be logically inconsistent and open to attack and ridicule. People who want less intrusion should be specific about what they do and don’t want. If you want less intrusion in business or tax regulation, state that. One the other hand, it is slightly disingenuous to label keeping existing laws as they are as wanting more government. Group Think Fallacy: Making a claim that a collective of people all think a certain way. This is one very big error that people make on a regular basis. Refutation: Communities or collectives of people cannot think. Organizations cannot think. A small group of people cannot think. Only individual people think. No two people think alike. No two people “think” together. All thoughts are individual. At best you can say that so and so person and so and so other person claimed the same thing – but only if you know that they have actually said that. Example: It is improper to say “Conservatives think so and so”, or “Liberals think such and such.” It would me more appropriate to say that, “Joe Blow said so and so.” When talking about communities or collectives, the safest thing to do is find a specific “official” stated position by the group’s mouthpiece or publication and argue against that. Even then, you can only make the claim that it is the official party line.Narrowed Consequence Fallacy: Promoting a position based on a single consequence and ignoring the others (both positive and negative consequences). Refutation: Most issues present changes that have several possible consequences. Focusing on and mentioning one only does not tell the whole story. Also, you can see if the other person’s solution fixes the consequence, and if it doesn’t, your position is no worse than theirs. Examples: 1) “Marijuana should be legalized because no one has ever died of a marijuana overdose.” While it may be that case that no one has died of marijuana overdose, there may be any number of other negative consequences to regular marijuana usage. The major consequences of drug usage may include overdose, but there are so many other negative effects of the drug use – destroyed health, family, jobs loss, criminal record, and etc. – all these can happen without someone overdosing and therefore making the drug use a bad option. 2) “The murderer should not be executed because doing so won’t bring the victim back to life.” This is true, however, no judicial process will do that, so it makes no difference. The question is, does capital punishment have any positive consequences, and if so, what are they and do they outweigh the negative consequences.Prestige Jargon: Using words to make the hearer feel dumb, and therefore keep them from critically examining the argument. Refutation: Recognize that the other person is trying to intellectually bully you and ignore comments/statements/words that are being used to bully and refocus on the argument at hand. Example: “It is obvious that your argument to have marijuana legalized has serious structural flaws, obfuscated terms, disjointed logical connections, and is replete with non-sequiturs.” Appeal To Pity: Attempting to stir up pity in the hearer, and having done so, ignores other, possibly more relevant considerations. Refutation: Recognize and acknowledge the value of compassion and empathy, then point out that it is important to look at the bigger picture. Example: “How can you force this pregnant teenage girl to have a baby knowing that both the mother and child will have the deck stacked against them in life?” If you have a position that does not allow for abortion, at least begin the discussion by acknowledging the reality of this girl’s struggle and admit that human suffering is occurring. It is important to have principles and to protect them, but it is also important to acknowledge human suffering and offer help if possible. It is also important NOT to let pity rather than sound judgments determine your actions.Intentional Obfuscation of Terms: Intentionally denying the possibility of defining terms or consciously using unclear, misleading, or biased definitions. Refutation: Any term can be defined and has a definition if it has usage within the language of that culture, so it is simply incorrect to say that we cannot define a term. What is more likely that case is that the parties cannot come up with a definition with which they both agree. Example: There is no universally accepted definition of the word “life” so we cannot discuss this notion in our debate on abortion. Side Note: I have had many student position papers make the claim that abortion is murder. Without weighing in on the debate, I always point out to them that the “common” definition for murder requires that for an act to be considered murder, it has to be illegal. Therefore, It would be incorrect to call abortion murder within any jurisdiction that has legalized it. You can argue that it should be murder, but not that it is murder.False Refutation of The General Rule: Asserting that a General Rule is false by bringing in a single or a few contradictory examples. Refutation: A general rule is just that – generally true, not necessarily in every case. Counter examples do not disprove the rule. Be careful when making sweeping generalizations – you open yourself up to being found making false claims. Example: Bob: Abby, people , in general, do not critically examine their own religious beliefs. Abbey: Bob, that is not true. I do all the time.Equivocation: Using one term in two different ways (with two different meanings) in the same argument. Refutation: Logic rules require that within a single argument, terms must have consistency of meaning. Changing the meanings of words within that argument renders the argument invalid. Example: Adam: Betty, the constitution guarantees freedom of choice. Dudley's girlfriend can't afford an abortion; therefore she does not have the freedom of choice to have one. Therefore the constitution mandates that the government must pay for it.Selective Causal Credit: Picking and choosing which causes and effects to link together based on what advances your position. Refutation: a cause and effect relationship has to be established by factual evidence alone, not rhetoric. Example: A politician taking credit for a single uptick in employment rates as supporting his policies, but then blaming the following downturn on some other factors. Causal Reductionism: Asserting that a complex effect is a result of only one of its factors. Refutation: A complex effect, by definition, need several factors to work together to bring it about. Referring to only one of the factors is oversimplification and denies the reality of the true cause and effect relationship. Example: “The widespread epidemic of STD's in our nation can be solely traced to the removing of the 10 Commandments from our schools.” his is NOT to say that there is not a possible causal relationship between the abandonment of objective moral standards in a society and a subsequent decay in moral behavior; it is just important that we understand that there is a nexus of contributing factors that work together to bring about social change.Argument to The Man (Argumentum Ad Hominem): Attacking the other person instead of the argument. Refutation: Arguments are like math problems. It makes no difference who presents them – they stand or fall on their own merit. Example: Adam: Betty, I know that what you are saying about contraceptive use sounds right to you, but you have to remember that you are dumb blonde. Side Note: Of course this has happened to all of us… and all of us have used it. The best response if someone uses this on you is to deflect it away and say that you would like to discuss the matter at hand rather than each other.False Cause (Post Hoc): Asserting a causal relationship between two specific events without any evidence for such a relationship. Refutation: Anyone can claim that one event in the past caused a later event. To claim a cause and effect relationship between past events, you need hard evidence, not rhetoric. Example: Adam: Betty, the widespread problem of rape today must be a result of contraceptive use because the sharp rise in the number of rapes occurred right after the pill was introduced. Side Note: ?A recent example would be the claiming of changes in unemployment rates were caused by previous policy enactments without any evidence (such as statements my employers asserting their reasons for hiring/not hiring).Changing the Subject (Henothesis): Attempting to move the opponent onto a different topic so his argument won’t be presented. Refutation: It is very difficult to juggle more than one argument at a time. It is much more productive to resolve one specific issue and then move on to the next. Example: Bob: Abby, I see your point concerning contraceptive use, but the real issue here is the skyrocketing cost of health care in general. Don't you think physicians make far too much money? Side Note: The best response if someone uses this on you is to deflect it away and say that you would like to discuss the matter at hand rather than each other. Realize that often the reason the other person is changing the subject is because he/she does not have any real defense for their position.Different Answer/Don’t Care Fallacy: The position that if person B does not agree with Person A’s answer to a problem, then Person B must not care about the problem. Refutation: People can care – even care deeply about a problem, but have a different solution to the problem. This is a subtle form of intellectual bullying. Example: The Republican Party doesn’t care about people's health needs because they don’t want to put health care under government control. Argument to The Future (Argumentum Ad Futurum): Basing a conclusion on a predictive statement (claiming a certain future event will happen). Refutation: No one knows for sure that a certain even will happen in the future at a specific time; therefore no conclusion can logically be drawn from the reality of the claim. Example: Adam: Betty, Obamacare will bankrupt our medical deliver service industry, therefore it must be overturned. Side Note: There is nothing wrong with making predictive statements. Anyone can do so at any time. The problem lies in the attempt in the present to draw a conclusion from that future certain event.Appeal to The People (Argumentum Ad Populum): Asserting that something is right or true because a large number of people say it is. Refutation: A large number of people agreeing on something does NOT make it right. Example: Adam: Betty, contraceptive use can't be morally wrong. A recent survey showed that 87% of the American people are in favor of its use. Side Note: In the year 1000, likely 99.9% of humans believed the world was flat. Numbers of believers do not equate to truth. Also, remember that although in a democracy, numbers determine policy, this is not the case in a constitutional republic, which is the form of government we have in the United States. In the current resurgence of talk about gun control, the most important question is, “what right does the constitution protect in the Bill of Rights? The question shouldn’t be, “what weapons do most people consider that citizens need to protect themselves? The answer to that question goes up and down based on current sentiment and recent tragedies. Emotive Language: Attempting to stir up any emotions rather than presenting a good argument in a situation where emotions are not appropriate or necessary. Refutation: arguments are worthy nor not based on their internal structure, soundness, and well supported statements of fact – just like in mathematics. There are times when emotional language can be used to get the other person to see the depth or gravity of the situation, but the actual attempt to convince should be based on good logic. Example - Adam: Betty, you should remember that what is being prevented from conception in the womb is an innocent child, who would otherwise develop ten of those cute little fingers that will wrap gently around its mother's finger, and ten little toes that will wiggle and turn as its coos with excitement when it hears it's mother voice. Side Note: The current debate on gun control includes much rhetoric that relies on stirred up emotions. Even though emotions run high, the questions still remain: 1) do we want the government to solve the problem, 2) does the proposed solution violate anyone’s constitutional rights, and 3) if the proposed solution had been in place earlier, would it have prevented the event? Chronological Snobbery: Asserting that something is bad or good because it is either old or new. Refutation: Whether something is old or new does not, in and of itself make something bad or good. This has to be determined by other criteria. Example: Abby: Bob, the notion that contraceptive use is wrong comes from antiquated beliefs held by Puritanical, outmoded, and passe’ notions. Side Note: Many people look down on religions as well as the constitution because they are rooted in texts written long ago. They also look down on moral standards because they have been around for millennia. Some of this is rooted in a simple rejection of the standards of truth and behavior. Some is rooted in a common misconception that humans in the past were not intelligent. I used to think that myself until I read Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, written in 1776. Then when I read some original works of Aristotle, my eyes were truly opened. There have been truly intelligent people throughout history. We have more information that people had in the past, but we definitely not more intelligent, on average!Fallacy of Division: Asserting that what is true of the whole of a complex thing is also equally true of one of its parts. Refutation: What is true of whole of a complex thing cannot be true of each of the parts. I dog can weigh 8 pound, but each of its limbs do not weigh 8 pounds. The U.S. is a constitutional republic, but each citizen is not a constitutional republic. Example: Adam: Betty, our city is known for its progressive view of accepting contraceptive use. You are a citizen of our city, therefore, deep down, you also must be for it. Side Note: Just because in general liberals believe X, that doesn’t mean that any particular liberal believes X. Please try hard not to jump to these type of conclusions and pre-judge someone’s positions.Slippery Slope Argument: Basing a conclusion on a certain coming chain or series of events. Refutation: Just as stated in Refraction #17, Appeal to the Future, no one knows for sure that a certain even will happen, therefore no one can know for sure that a chain of events will happen in the future over a time period; thus, no conclusion can logically be drawn from the reality of the claim. Example: Abby: Bob, if we allow unrestricted contraceptive use, soon we will see rampant sex selection, and surely that will be followed by aborting children because we don't like their eye color.Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum Ad Ignoratum): Asserting that something is the case because we don’t know that it is not the case. Refutation: Lack of knowledge does NOT prove anything. It just demonstrates a need for new information. Example: Betty, I don't know of anyone who has died from marijuana use, therefore it is not fatal. Sidenote: While there are no confirmed cases of marijuana overdose death, there are cases involving marijuana use in which the used resulted in deaths. Fallacy of The General Rule: Asserting that because something is generally true, it must be true in the specific case. Refutation: A general rule is just that – generally true. There is no reason to think that it is true in any given case. Example: Bob, Republicans are generally in favor of smaller government, so my next door neighbor Betty, who is a Republican, must be for smaller government. Sidenote: While it is true, generally that Republicans are for smaller government, it is not always the size that is the problem. The problem is often 1) the larger the government, the more fiscal irresponsibility, 2) the larger the government, the smaller the amount of freedom individuals have, and 3) the constitution delineates the scope and reach of the federal government, and Republicans want to limit it to it constitutional prerogatives only.Straw and Camel’s Back Defense: Attempting to minimize a series of past problems and claiming that the other party is being petty by ignoring the past series and focusing one only the last event. Refutation: The last straw did not break the camel’s back; the weight of the entire load of straw broke it. Example: A man with a long history of alcohol abuse comes home 30 minutes late and only had two beers. When his wife throws in the towel and says she if leaving him, he tells her she is being petty and selfish and divorcing him over 30 minutes and 2 beers, attempting to focus ONLY on the last event. She of course is looking at the whole series of events and sees the last one merely as proof that he is never going to change. Sidenote: this is a very subtle emotional manipulation, working on getting the injuries party to look like they are the one in the wrong.Poisoning The Wells: Attempting to completely destroy someone’s credibility so that whatever they say will not be believed. Refutation: An argument stands or falls based on its internal structure and the truth value of it claims. Example: Adam: Betty, I can't believe a word that Dudley says concerning contraceptive use or anything else. He's from Crete, and all Cretans are liars. Side Note: The reputation of the person bringing the argument is not relevant to the argument itself, only to whether or not someone will listen to it. A liar and a cheat can still do sound math and can still present sound arguments. You simply have to be very careful to separate the person from the argument.False Appeal to Authority: Claiming something is true by appealing to a statement from someone who is either 1) not a bona fide authority, or 2) not an authority in the area under discussion. Refutation: People who are recognized authorities in the field under discussion should be cited if you want others to be convinced by their statments. Examples: 1) The Bible needs to be rewritten because Piers Morgan said it is out of date and full of errors. Piers Morgan is not a Biblical scholar, nor any kind of scholar for that matter, 2) The Bible needs to be rewritten because it is full of errors as noted by Stephen W. Hawking. While Hawking is a bona fide authority in the field of theoretical physics and pretty darned smart, he is not an authority in Biblical Studies. Side Note: For a person to be a bona fide authority in a field, they must be recognized by their peers as having special knowledge, training, and/or experience in that field. The best way to demonstrate this is by having written articles in that field’s professional (peer reviewed) journals. The second best way is by having written books on the subject matter in their field and these books have been quoted by peers.Hasty Generalization: Basing a conclusion to an inductive argument on too small of a sample. Refutation: A generalization is just that – a statement about what is generally the case. If the sample used to draw the conclusion is relatively small compared to the larger set, then it is not a safe inference. Example: Abby: Bob, each of the three doctors in our town assured me that marijuana use is safe, therefore, the medical community in this country okays the use of marijuana. Side Note: Inductive arguments can never result in “truth”. By definition, the most they can return is possibility and probability. Safety of inference is determined by comparing the size of the entire set to the size of the sample.Reductive Fallacy: Asserting that a complex thing is nothing more than one of its parts. Refutation: By definition, a complex entity is composed of many interconnected parts. It is illogical to claim that only one of the parts of the complex thing is, in fact, the entire thing. Example: Adam: Betty, I am against more taxes. Taxes are just a way for politicians to line their own pockets and the pockets of their special interests. Side Note: This fallacy is often exposed by the use of the following terms: just, only, nothing more than. When you see these terms, beware. While is it true that bills for new taxes often include pork, that does not mean that there are no legitimate tax purposes included in the bill.False Identity: Using two different terms as if they meant the same thing within the same argument . Refutation: It is rare (as with forms of words like “a” / “an”) that two different words in the same language have the same exact meaning. Example: Abby: Bob, our country is a democracy, which says the citizens decide what is “right”, so if the citizens in this country decide that fetuses are not human, then it is “true”. Side Note: Although the words “right” and “true” both can be with a meaning like correct, the denotation (precise meaning) of the terms are very different and cannot be be used interchangeably. Careful thinking and speaking requires using the precise words that convey what we are thinking. For more on using good definitions and being aware of semantic range, go to Misuse of Etymology: Asserting that a word has to mean what it meant at some earlier time or base the meaning of a word solely on what its constituent parts originally meant. Refutation: the meanings of words change over time, sometimes means opposite of what they meant centuries earlier. Example: Adam: Betty , if you are in favor of contraceptive use, you must want the human race to come to an end. The word contra-ception means against the fertilization of eggs. If you don't want any more human eggs to be fertilized, you don't want any more human beings to be born.Misuse of Analogy: Basing a conclusion on an analogy. Refutation: Analogies are meant to teaching or illustrate by means of comparison. The analogy doesn’t prove anything. Example: Abby: Bob, choosing to use contraceptives to prevent pregnancy is like choosing to go on a diet to prevent weight gain. You and I can choose when and what we want to eat, so we should be able to choose when and if we want to have children. Side Note: Raising children is like raising dogs (there are the common elements of providing for/protecting/shaping behavior) but there are major differences also. We do not put them outside in the yard if they poop on the carpet. One element of compared likeness does not mean all elements are alike.Circular Reasoning (Petitio Principi): Having the truth of the conclusion already apparent in one of the premises. Refutation: You cannot prove something by stating it twice. Example: Abby: Bob, contraceptive use must be ethically acceptable because the prevention of pregnancy does not violate any moral codes. Side Note: In the example, the clause after the “because” (the reason) says the essentially the same thing as the clause before the “because” (the conclusion). Hypothesis Contrary To Fact: Beginning an argument with a hypothetical statement in which the antecedent (the historically possible situation) is generally known to be false (it never happened). Refutation: From a logical perspective, you cannot negate the “if” portion of hypothetical sentence and draw a conclusion from it. (see the section on arguments on my Critical Reasoning site). Example: Adam: Betty, if contraceptives had not been made readily available to our generation, we would not be seeing the epidemic of STD's that we have today. Side Note: The best response back is to say, “It did not happen that way…period. It is a complete waste of time to argue how things would be different today if the past were different. It is all speculation.Irrelevant Information: Bringing in information that has no direct bearing on the subject in an attempt to confuse the opponent’s argumentation. Refutation: Stay focused on the subject and the facts that are relevant to the argument. Example - Betty: Adam, I see your point concerning contraceptive use, but in the lunch room today, the six other people in the office who hold your view were all watching soap operas. Side Note: One of the most difficult, yet most important tasks in defending positions is to stay on point and not let seemingly relevant information confuse the issues.Special Pleading: Consciously leaving relevant information out of an argument because including it would weaken the argument. Refutation: All relevant information needs to brought to table. Example - Bob: Abby, The use of abortion as a birth control is safe and necessary, as shown by the recent information published by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (which is a division of Planned Parenthood). Side Note: Consciously leaving out relevant information is almost always done because it is feared that the argument is weak and vulnerable. If you believe this about your argument, reassess your argument and your position.Ultimate Fallacy (Pigheadedness): Refusal to listen to an argument or discuss any further. Refutation: There are none. Example - Bob: Abby, don't even begin to give me your reasons for your position on contraceptive use. I've made up my mind and don't want to confuse things with facts. Don’t bring this up to me anymore. Side Note: There are times when it is a good idea not to discuss right then, especially when emotions are very high and therefore it is likely that harsh hurtful words may be spoken. Temporarily putting the discussion on hold would be a better choice here. If, on the other hand, someone refuses to listen or discuss for intellectual reasons, your only option is to keep loving and respecting them despite your differences. Appeal to Force (Argumentum Ad Baculum): Threatening some type of harm. Refutation: Threats or coercion do not truly make anyone right. Example - Adam: Bob, if I can't convince you of my position on marijuana use with logic, I guess I'll just have to pound it into your head with my fists. Side Note: Many threats are given with no intent to be carried out. They only serve as an emotional manipulation tool. Consider carefully two things: 1) can they really carry out the threat and 2) will they really carry out the threat? Once the threatened action occurs, they often have no leverage and are back to square one, so often the action is not desirable to the threatening party either.Fallacy of Composition: Asserting that what is true of one of the parts of a complex thing is also equally true of the whole of the complex thing. Refutation: A quality of a part of a complex thing may be a quality of the entire thing, but it also may not be. Example - Abby: Bob if it is true that the citizens of this country want to have children, then our country, which is made up of its citizens, must want to have children. Therefore we should work towards starting up new democratic countries. Side Note: The whole of a complex thing may have similar qualities as individual parts of a thing, but, by definition, there will also be different qualities. Your leg has some of the same qualities as your whole body, but there are definite differences also.Genetic Fallacy: Asserting that something is nothing more than what it was when it was first made or created. Refutation: Things are defined by what they are currently. Example - Abby: Bob, contraceptive use does not prevent babies. What is in the womb is just a little blob of undifferentiated tissue, not babies. Side Note: This is very similar to the Reductive Fallacy, which says that a thing is nothing more than one of its parts. This one focuses not on the parts but on the history of the item.Fallacy of The General Rule: Asserting that because something is generally true, it must be true in the specific. Refutation: General rules are just that - generally true of most of the cases. They do not claim absolute truth over all cases. Example - Bob: Abby, women, in general, are more tough minded than men, so your sister must be more tough minded than her spineless husband. Side Note: Make sure that you say exactly what you mean, and read carefully to see that others are doing the same. Contradictory Assumptions: Having the first two premises of an argument stating contradictory assertions . Refutation: By definition, contradictory claims cannot be true at the same time. One have to be wrong. Example - Abby: Adam, I believe that each individual citizen has the inalienable right to choose and live out his/her moral code, but I also believe that the state has a compelling interest (and therefore inalienable right) to preserve order through exacting punishments on individual citizens for violating social moral standards. Side Note: If someone said 1) All zoinks are zithered and 2) No zoinks are zithered , there can be no conclusion drawn from these claims. In real life, however, most contradictory claims (like the example above) are written in language that makes it hard to see the contradiction clearlyNon Sequitur: Having no obvious connection between the premise and the conclusion. Refutation: In logic, arguments are required to follow specific forms to be valid, including the requirement that terms in the conclusion also have to be found in the premises (reasons). There has to an obvious connection between the reason and the conclusion. Example - Adam: Betty, man is the most intelligent creature on earth, so therefore contraceptive use is okay. Side Note: Learning the basic structure of arguments is imperative if you want to expose weaknesses in arguments – yours and others.Cliché Thinking: Basing a conclusion on a cliché. Refutation: Cliché’s are sometimes generally true, but are never always true. Example - Adam: Betty, you know the old saying "it's better to be safe than sorry". Well that proves that contraceptive use is wise. Side Note: clichés are generalizations, and generalizations are just that – generally true, but not always. Therefore you cannot draw a conclusion from them.Argument of The Beard: Asserting that because one cannot make fine distinctions along a continuum, one cannot tell one end from the other. Refutation: Difficulties in making fine distinctions is a perception problem. It does not bar us from assigning definitions or otherwise making judgments based on the definitions. Example - Betty: Adam, we cannot tell the difference between each day of the development of a fetus, so you really cannot tell when life begins. Therefore we can't really say that when it should be protected. Side Note: The fine distinction problem is an epistemological issue. The inability to form judgments is a semantic issue. While they are related, they are very different. Broken Window Fallacy: Disregarding lost opportunity costs (typically non-obvious, difficult to determine or otherwise hidden) associated with destroying property of others, or other ways of externalizing costs onto others. Refutation: If one brings into the argument one consequence, one must bring in all relevant consequences. Example - Bob: Abby, I admit that I broke your window, but that act generates income for a window fitter, so it is a good thing. Don’t be such a whiner. Side Note: In this fallacy, Bob disregards the fact that the money spent on the new window cannot now be spent on new shoes or groceries by Abby. This is the fallacy used by Ben Bernake in arguing for raising the debt limit. Too Long Ago to Matter: Asserting that because an event occurred so far in the past that it is not relevant today. Refutation: The emotional impact of events diminishes over time, but analyzing for purposes of justice and/or learning from past mistakes does not diminish over time. Example: Abby: Bob, we discovered that the office was broken into five years ago. Don’t make a big deal about it. What difference does that make now? Side Note: This fallacy is especially heinous when the part using the fallacy has been instrumental in not dealing with the event for the extended amount of time. Faulty Dilemma: Giving someone only two options to choose from (with the goal of them choosing the lesser of two evils) when, in reality, there are more options available. Refutation: Except when the choices are a set of contradictions, there are many times more options that are presented. Example - Abby: Bob, either you are in favor of contraceptive use or you believe that human beings do not have free wills. Which is it? Side Note: This is a very common… and very effective fallacy and often gets people to be tricked. Any time…ANY time someone gives you tow choices to pick from, ask yourself if there are, in fact, other choices available.Burden of Proof (onus probandi): Requiring the hearer to disprove the speaker’s claim rather than requiring the speaker to support her/his claim. Refutation: The burden of proof to demonstrate the truth of a claim is on the person making the claim. It is not required that any other person disprove the claim. Example – Bob: Abby, I have stated that guns produce violence. If you do not prove me wrong, then my claim stands. Side Note: There is nothing wrong, in and of itself for Abby to attempt to prove Bob wrong, but whether she does or not, the onus is on Bob to defend and support his claim if he wants others to accept it. Argument to Moderation?(false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean) – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct. Refutation: Although finding middle or common ground for practical purposes of working together has value, this does not mean that middle position is logical or sound…it just works for now. Example - Adam: Betty, you believe that abortion is wrong in all cases, while many believe it is right in all cases, so why can’t you compromise and support candidate Smith who promotes legislation to allow for abortion but only for rape and incest and the life of the mother in the first trimester. Side Note: For most who have deeply held convictions, social approval or political expediency are of little or no value. Reductio ad Hitlerum?(playing the Nazi card) – comparing an opponent or their argument to Hitler or Nazism in an attempt to associate a position with one that is universally reviled. Refutation: This is just a specific type of Argument to the Man. Arguments are like math problems. It makes no difference who presents them – they stand or fall on their own merit. Example - Obama is taking away our liberties. He is no different than Hitler when he took liberties away from those who opposed him. His next step will be concentration camps. Side Note: Comparing someone to Hitler is about the worst thing one can do. Its purpose is to irrationally stir up emotions. Guilt by Association: ?(guilt by association) – arguing that because two things share a property they are the same. Refutation: Although two things may share one property, that does not mean they share any more properties than the one. Example – Adam: Betty, how can you support your pro-life position? You are a protestant and the pro-life position is closely associated with Catholics! Side Note: Good people and good things often share a property with bad people and bad things. All humans share several traits with both Hitler and Jesus, but that does not mean we all share their proclivities. Roman Catholics and Protestants share many traits and beliefs, and yet have many different beliefs.Correlation Proves Causation?(cum hoc ergo propter hoc) : a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other. Refutation: statistical correlation is not causation. The only way to prove causation is to repeat the event and remove all other possible causes. If the effect still follows, there is causation. Example: Ann: Bob, in this last recession, there have been six new churches start in our city. During the same time period, there have been 5 new taverns opened up. Therefore, religion drives people to drink! Side Note: Statistical correlation as proof or even suggesting proof is one of the more insidious and common fallacies in science and public policy. Always demand proof of causation! Proof by Verbosity (argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation) – submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. Refutation: Respond to one claim at a time and stay on point until that issue has been dealt with thoroughly. Example: Adam: Betty, due to human resource allocative demands, ever changing political enforcement personalities, ever stretched budgets, and the need for comprehensive and sustainable services for truly needy humans, reforming immigration is simply too complex to accomplish…we need to let things stay status quo. Side Note: Emotionally, we can be overwhelmed with the complexity of some issues, especially when dealing with national policy. This however should not dissuade us from confronting the issues head on. Parse out the individual problems, deal with them separately, determine the appropriate measures, allocate prioritized resources and implement… one step at a time, one day at a time.Cherry Picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. Refutation: This is similar to Special Pleading, although it does not necessarily require ignoring contrary evidence, only carefully selecting and highlighting the evidence most favorable to one’s position and lessening the value of any evidence damaging to one’s position. Example: Anne: Bob, research done by the leading scientists at American universities A, B, and C all demonstrate that marijuana use is completely safe. Although other minor studies have been done, they are not as important and were done in Australia. Side Note: It is the rare, but honest and transparent person who risks putting all the evidence on the table, both supportive and contrary. The thing to remember is, if you do not bring all evidence to bear on the argument and others hear later about your “selectivity”, your credibility will take a nose dive. If there is solid contrary evidence, make it known, and then report why you do not think that it destroys your position. That will make you look honest and trustworthy…and professional. Fallacy of Quoting Out of Context (contextomy) – refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning. Refutation: Words have context – sentences. Sentences have context - paragraphs. It is the paragraph that determines the meaning of the sentence. It is the sentence that determines the meaning of the words. Excerpting or in any way changing or removing words or phrases makes it impossible to know the original meaning. Example: Adam: Betty, yes, the exact words “you brother is a jerk” came out of my mouth yesterday, but the full sentence was, “Yesterday, Mr. Johnson, our next door neighbor said, “your brother is a jerk” and I challenged him and ordered him off our property. Side Note: ALWAYS quote exactly and give the context. The whole purpose of citing sources is to make is possible for others to check the exact statement.Moving the Goalposts (raising the bar) – an argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim, but then is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. Refutation: if someone demand a specific piece of refuting evidence and it is produced, then the matter is closed. Example: Anita: Ben, I know I said I wanted proof that someone ever died from someone using marijuana… and you showed me a case where a stoned train conductor got some people killed, but now I want you to show me that someone died as a result of overdose. Side Note: if someone demands evidence, ask them to give you assurance that the production of the evidence will end their claim. If they do not, it is a waste of your time.Reification: (hypostatization) – a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. Refutation: Ideas are not entities. They don’t take up space, have edges, or exist in a specific time and space. Example: Allen: Barbara, Justice died in our country under the Warren Court. It is a waste of time to try to revive it. It is dead and gone, so we just need to move on. Side Note: This is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea. It is a subtle word play and mind game. Shotgun Argumentation - the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent cannot possibly respond to all of them. Refutation: The sheer number of arguments for a position does not make the position sound. One may present 50 different arguments to support a position and each and every one of them could be worthless. Example - Andrea: Bubba, I have presented you a paper that I wrote defending my position on gun control. There are 37 separate arguments that support it. Side Note: This is not a logical problem, per se, but a practical one. It wears the other person down by sheer weight. It only takes one solid argument to prove a position. The presence of multiple arguments may actually signal that none of them are strong enough alone to prove the point; therefore take each one singly and one its own merit and analyze for separate validity. Misleading Vividness: involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem. Refutation: Vivid descriptions only serve to excite emotions. They do nothing to advance or support the logic of the position. Examples: This fallacy was used by gun control advocates in continuing to refer to the dead children in Sandy Hook Connecticut as well as pro-life advocates who present graphic images of dismembered fetuses from late term abortions. Side Note: Emotions are a powerful force to energize people to action, but logic is the only way to defend an argument. Pathetic Pallacy?– when an inanimate object is declared to have characteristics of animate objects. Refutation: Inanimate objects have no mind, will, or emotions. Example: Arthur: Beatrice, after the Obamacare is fully implemented, healthcare will have no heart and soul, and not care about people.Appeal to Ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous. Refutation: Ridicule is an emotional parry. Ignore the ridicule and focus on the logic of the argument and the support of the claims. Example: Anita: Bart, your claim that citizens need to arms to defend against government tyranny is ridiculous. The idea that our government might take away our basic liberties is madness. Side Note: No one knows the future; but we do have some knowledge of the past. The issue is simple: Is there currently a constitutionally protected right? If so, protect it. If you don’t like it, change the constitution.Appeal to Spite?– a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party. Refutation: Arguments stand on their own, based on their validity and support for their claims. Example: Read comments or blogs where people comment on current issues. There are almost always additional comments about how the opposing party is horrible. Side Note: It is easy to get someone to accept your argument when you stir them up against a common foe... even if you have a lousy argument! Wishful thinking?– a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason. Refutation: Arguments stand on their own, based on their validity and support for their claims. Any person’s wishes or desires about how things were different or might turn out do not change the facts or the argument. Example: Arthur: Babette, I know that you are in favor of abortion, but don’t you long for the days when men and women only have sex and get pregnant when both are ready to committed to raising a child together? Side Note: We live in reality and have to base our arguments on facts, not wishes.Appeal to Novelty (argumentum ad novitam) - where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern. Refutation: Solutions are proposed actions that affect the future in a way to produce a specific state. There is no way to know if a particular solution will work or if it is better or worse than another that is proposed. Example: Annette: Bart, the old solutions to poverty haven’t worked. The new proposal by the Progressives has to be better than the old failed attempts. Side Note: By definition, conservatism tends to value and hold to the standards, morals, systems of the past and propose solutions from that basis. Liberalism tends to not feel bound by and therefore held to old standards, morals, or systems, therefore will often use the Appeal to Novelty. In the political arena, one huge problem is, of course, that once a new program is put into place into society and a structure and support system is constructed and funded, it is hard to tear it down again if it fails. A helpful plan would be to build in automatic program removal after a specific probationary time period.Appeal to tradition?(argumentum ad antiquitam) – a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true. Refutation: Long standing traditions may have emotional value, but that doesn’t make for a logical reason why the tradition should continue. Example: Abernathy: Beulah, America has always been a Christian country, so we should be able to put a nativity on the courthouse lawn. Side Note: One of the more frustrating things for Christians in the United States is having to watch the country move to a place where Christianity is no longer protected nor respected in public policy. What might be helpful to remember is: 1) throughout history Christianity has more often than not played a limited role in public policy in the nations of the world. Those Christians had no special privilege or tradition to which they could appeal. Many of them have had just the opposite experience with their religion being scorned at best, and illegal at worst; and 2) a better solution to Christianity losing it grip and appeal in a nation is for Christians to be salty and full of light, such that others are drawn to them and want to know what it is inside them that make them constantly full of joy. Complaining about a lost tradition makes people look like sourpusses, and no one is drawn to that. Appeal to Poverty (argumentum ad Lazarum) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy). (Opposite of appeal to wealth.) Refutation: Arguments stand on their own, based on their validity and support for their claims. It should stand or fall no matter who is hearing it. Example: Amethyst: Burt, of course you are not in favor of raising taxes on the super-rich, because you are wealthy. Side Note: In my research writing class, I ask students to research and find out who has the higher income average, Democrats or Republicans, and they consistently discover that Democrats are wealthier than Republicans, contrary to much popular understanding. Having said that, one’s own financial status should not affect and argument any more than the financial status of those you are trying to convince.Naturalistic Fallacy?(is–ought fallacy, naturalistic fallacy) – claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is.?Refutation: This is not a fallacy if all the events in the universe have been absolutely predestined. If they have not, things do not have to be the way they are.??Example:?Albert: Bonnie, Democrats have been in the control of the Senate for decades. Just admit that this is what our country needs.?Two Wrongs Make a Right: trying to justify what we did by accusing someone else of doing the accuser has no relevance to the discussion. Refutation: Two wrongs are two wrongs. Example: Anna Marie: Bill, I don’t deny that I opened a new charge card at Kitchen Art without your knowledge, but you surprised me by coming home with that new drillpress. Side Note: If someone retorts to your accusation by accusing you of something similar, tell them that you would be happy to discuss your behavior, but unlinked and separate from the discussion about their behavior. ?Appeal to Nature - wherein a judgment is based solely on whether the subject of the judgment is 'natural' or 'unnatural'. Refutation: “What is” not the same as “what should be”. Example - Albrecht: "Bunny, cannabis is healthy and good for you because it is natural." Side Note: There are many things in life and the universe that, on the surface are distasteful and disagreeable. There is no logical reason conclude that because something exists in nature, therefore humans can use these things any way they choose and without harm.Meaningless / Self Defeating Questions: Questions that are semantically vague, logically self-defeating, or would require a committing a category error to answer. Refutation: These questions do not need to be answered. They need to be re-asked or ignored. Examples: "How high is up?" "What was there before time?” Side Note: A very common question that is asked when discussing ethics and a moral position is, “Well, who gets to decide what is morally right?” When asked that, respond by asking them what authority they use and why. If they refuse to acknowledge any moral authority, there is no reason for them to ask questions about morality authority.Black Swan Blindness?– the argument that ignores low probability, high impact events, thus down playing the role of chance and under-representing known risks. Refutation: Unless you are speaking of generalizations, all probabilities need to be a part of the discussion. Example: Annabelle: “Boromir, the odds against Canada ever attacking the U.S. is so small that we don’t even need to discuss strengthening our northern borders.” Tu quoque ("you too", appeal to hypocrisy) – the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position. Refutation: Valid arguments are valid no matter who presents them. Example: Aloysius: “Betsy, you claim that marijuana is not safe, yet you smoked it at a party last weekend.” Side Note: Not acting consistently does not negate the logic of your argument, it makes it such that the hearer does not listen or take it seriously… therefore the sound logic is lost anyway. Proof of Love Fallacy: asserting that if the other person doesn’t do a certain activity, that person must not truly love them. Refutation: Love is a commitment to do what is best for the other person, not what the other person wants. Example: you do not need an example; you already have several in your head, likely because you have used them. Side Note: This is just one of many types of emotional manipulation techniques that people use to get their way. End Note: I am almost finished with writing a long list of emotional manipulation techniques employed by abusive people and will post it on my blog.Proving Non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist. Refutation: the burden of proof is one the one making the claim of existence. Examples: asking to prove God doesn't exist or to prove UFO's haven't visited earth, and etc.). Side Note: Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations (e.g. by definition or demonstration within a small set), one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. It is very difficult to prove that something does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims. For more on this, go to the “Purple Spotted Ground Squirrel” link at the bottom of Relativist Fallacy: when a person rejects a claim by asserting that the claim might be true for others but is not for him/her. Refutation: truth is truth. Claiming something is true for one but not another is what one would do when claiming 2+2is 4 for others but not for me. Example: Agatha: “Babar, I cannot find fault with your argument that the thing growing inside the womb is human. That, however, is your truth and not mine.” Side Note: for more on the different views of truth, go to the “Truth and Systems of Thought” link at the bottom of a Common Cause: when one concludes that one thing causes another simply because they are regularly associated. Refutation: Causation needs to be established by proof, not by association. Example - Aaron: “Bethany, the rate of theft in Iraq is low because the standards of punishment are so high. Side Note: Without statistical evidence, there is a better explanation: both the low theft rates and the high standards of punishment are results of a moral standard in the country that values property and despises theft. Argument from adverse consequences: because a negative event occurred, therefore specific person or group must be responsible and they must be punished. Refutation: the severity of negative events does not reduce the need to prove the cause(s) of the event. Example: Amethyst: “Barry, we should judge Freddy guilty, otherwise others will commit similar crimes.” Side Note: Just because a repugnant crimes or events occur, this does not necessarily mean that a specific defendant committed the crime or that we should judge him guilty. There are those that claim disasters occur because God is punishing non-believers and they use the events to encourage people to fear God. These people are implying that they know, without doubt, what God is doing and why. Our response should be ask them how they know event A was caused because God was judging X. Also, our response should be to show compassion to humans beings who are suffering.The Lottery Fallacy – Because the odds are against something happening, therefore it will not happen. Refutation: Seemingly improbable events do happen. Examples: People win the lottery twice, have three children years apart with the same birth date, or bump into old acquaintances on the other side of the world. To the people involved, such occurrences may seem providential, but it is worth remembering that with seven billion people in the world, the same thing could happen to a lot of people. The probability of a seemingly surprising coincidence, like winning the lottery twice, 'is actually quite high, if you mean anyone, anytime' winning for a second time…."Definist Fallacy?(circular definition)– involves the confusion between two notions by defining one in terms of the other. Refutation: definitions must be clear and objective; circular definitions are neither. Example: Diving Being = a being with godlike qualities. God = a being with divine qualities. Side Note: a good definition has two parts. The first puts the thing into a category of like things. The second then distinguishes that thing from other things within the category. Example - a truck is 1) a vehicle and 2) has a bed. See the link “Thinking Symbols Definitions at to Wealth (argumentum ad crumenam) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is wealthy (or refuting because the arguer is poor).?(Sometimes taken together with the?appeal to poverty?as a general appeal to the arguer's financial situation.) Refutation: Arguments stand on their own, based on their validity and support for their claims. An argument should stand or fall no matter who is hearing it. Example: Adonis: Brittany, we should really listen to concerns presented by Mr. Snodgrass. He is the richest man in the county. Texas sharpshooter fallacy?– improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data. Refutation: The cluster may well be the result of chance, in which case it was not caused by anything. Example: The number of cases of disease?cancer in Metropolis?is greater than would be expected by chance. Metropolis?has a factory which has released amounts of chemical agent?X?into the environment. Therefore, agent?X?causes cancer.Overwhelming Exception - a generalization that comes with qualifications that eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume. Refutation: The generalization is better stated to generalize the case with the exceptions already included in the generalization. Example - Annette: Brock, besides charities, comfort, community cohesion, rehabilitation, and helping children learn values, religion poisons everything. Side Note: In this example, the claimed generalization with the exceptions applied, becomes almost meaningless. It would be better to actually list out the things that she is claiming that religion actually poisons. This, however, would take away the punch of the claim.Wrong Direction - cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa. Refutation: To claim a cause and effect relationship between past events, you need hard evidence, not rhetoric. Example: Removing the 10 Commandments from the walls in schools has resulted in moral decay in the country. Side Note: it could also be argued that Moral decay in the country has resulted in people wanting to take the 10 Commandments off the walls in schools. Judgmental language – insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment. Refutation: Arguments stand or fall on their internal structure and supports for their claims. Example: Almost every argument you see in a political campaign… or arguments about the Federal Budget! The Appeal to Common Practice - concluding that an action or behavior is common, therefore the action or behavior is correct, justified, moral, or reasonable. Refutation: “what is” is not necessarily “what should be”. Examples?– Adan: “Bailee, in the banking industry, men get paid more than men, so you should not expect a raise so your pay matches Chuck’s.” ?Aileen: Butch, the Democrats should keep controlling the Senate because that is the way things are."Common Ground - assuming that the middle position between two extremes must be correct simply because it is the middle position. Refutation: Both extreme positions might be wrong, as well as the middle position. Example - Addison: “Barrett, you allow for no exemptions for abortions, while Carl thinks that all exemptions are ok. How about you both compromise on holding that the exemptions for the life and health of the mother, rape, incest, and child deformity? Side Note: For purposes of political expediency, some politicians are put into a position of having to choose to vote on positions of compromise because only those positions have a chance of passing into law. If the politician votes on principle and not political expediency, she will hold true to her values and not compromise. It is so clear right now that liberals are trying to appeal to Republicans to dump the Tea Party and other conservative voices form the party in order to regain political effectiveness. While this sounds good, there are two HUGE problems. Number one, there is no reason in the world to listen to this fallacy from the left. Do you really think that they are looking out for the Republican Party’s best interest? Do they really want the Republicans to regain power? Not likely. This logic is a Trojan horse, nad it effective would likely render the party even less effective. Secondly, many, many conservatives are simply not interested in political expediency. They are concerned about protecting and promoting deeply held convictions about right and wrong, both moral and political. Spotlight Fallacy – committed when a person uncritically assumes that all members or cases of a certain class or type are like those that receive the most attention or coverage in the media. Refutation: The media, to be profitable, has to expose the most alarming and shocking stories. The choice of these stories does not reflect the stories of millions of others. Example - Adrian: “Bambi, two Christian preachers were exposed as money hungry frauds last month. As I said last week, all Christians are hypocrites and frauds.” Side Note: It is interesting that the media joins in attacks on big business and big profits, but they give themselves a pass as profit-making entities. Somehow, their zeal for profit is moral, and for others, it is not. How is that for hypocrisy?Gambler’s Fallacy - when a person assumes that a departure from what occurs on average or in the long term will be corrected in the short term. Refutation: Statistics have no power. Odds cannot make anything happen. They can only predict… and they do not promise when they predict. Example - Adeline: “Bennett, the doctor said there is only a 5% chance of Carrie living through the procedure, so let’s not risk it. Side Note: While doctors based their projections on past procedures and results, it is still possible that Carrie will come through fine. Biased Sample - when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is biased or prejudiced in some manner. Refutation: without scientific objectivity and the ability to recreate the results in a double blind study, samples simply cannot be trusted to be representative of the whole. Example - Alec: “Becky a recent poll says that Americans think Republicans are racist.” Side Note: while there are some rare exceptions, it is, despite loud objections to the contrary, irrefutable that the media outlets are biased and typically ask their questions in ways that shape the results to fit their worldview. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Real Life Argument Analysis #1: “It's sad that the Republican party doesn't care what the American people want, but merely want to carry out their own agenda. And they wonder why they lost the election? What happened to "We the People" and the constitution they swore to uphold? Only when the day comes that they start representing the wishes of the people will they finally get it. The old elephant it heading for the graveyard.”Analysis: Sentence 1: a) Group Think Fallacy – Parties don’t care, people do. b) The statement is patently false is referring to individual Republicans. Most do care about what people want. They may not agree with the writer about what “most” want, but they care about it; they may not agree that people should get what they want, however. c) This is true - everyone wants their own agenda because they think their own agenda is reasonable and right. I suspect the person who wrote this wants his own agenda. Sentence 2: This is true. Many individual Republicans, including politicians wonder why they lost many races in the election. Sentence 3: a) This is a rhetorical question that implies that individual Republicans, including politicians don’t care about “We the People” and the constitution. This is also patently false. Most do, in fact care; they simply see the means to that differently than the writer, I suspect. This is a common narrow Different Answer / Don’t Care Fallacy that implies this if someone doesn’t have the same answer to a question as you, then they must not care about the problem. Most Republicans, including politicians care about the problems in our nation, they simply have some different values and therefore different answers to the problem than many non-Republicans. b) Most Republicans care deeply about upholding the constitution, and in many cases far more than many non-Republicans. Sentence 3) This sentence basically implies that he gets it and Republicans don’t. It is not clear in the sentence what they don’t get, but the implication is that they don’t agree with this person’s view on the American political system and that they only will when they think like they do (it is also implied that this person thinks like the rest of the American people). What is fascinating here is that this person implies that all the rest of the American people think like him except Republicans… and his view is that as soon as that changes, things will be better. All of this can be boiled down to one statement: he thinks that he is right and that everyone who thinks differently is wrong. THIS is not a problem, per se; most of us think that too. Sentence 4) This is simply a prediction. The sad thing is, he could be right if Republicans do not begin to stand firm and stand clearly for their beliefs and values and articulate them lovingly and powerfully to their fellow citizens. 12/14/12: Concerning today's shooting, I suspect that a quick perusal of the internet will produce many calls for tighter gun control. I call that response “Diving Board Thinking”- someone has an issue that they carry with them at all times and it is almost as if they are standing on the diving board waiting for an event to happen so they can use the event as a way to jump into the water with their same old arguments to passionate defend a position. The real question that should be asked is, “why are more and more people seemingly willing to take their own and other’s lives?” I propose that a full generation of teaching people that 1) they as individuals and people in general are nothing more than accidents of nature and 2) as we have been classified as animals, there is really nothing all that special about mankind. Humans are not significant and not special. When you tie that together with a growing absence of any objective moral standards, then the real question is why doesn’t it happen more often?I grieve for these families and that community because I think that they are significant beings, with immeasurable value as humans.Being judgmental means thinking less of another human being on the basis of their beliefs and/or actions. It is often based on the error of equating the person and their arguments. Real Life Argument Analysis #1: Tens of thousands of people have signed a petition calling for British CNN host Piers Morgan to be deported from the U.S. over his gun control views.Morgan has taken an aggressive stand for tighter U.S. gun laws in the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut, school shooting. Last week, he called a gun advocate appearing on his "Piers Morgan Tonight" show an "unbelievably stupid man.Read more:? article indicates that these people want to have Morgan deported because of the view that he holds, equating holding the view with not upholding the constitution. These people are also equating holding their view of gun control as upholding the constitution, and any view that promotes gun control is attacking the constitution. This is close to the Different Answer=Don’t Care Fallacy, but is different. This is simply a Different Answer = Wrong Answer position. Sidenote: I know of nothing that Morgan is violating here besides possibly his own conscience or a previous oath to neutral, fair journalism. He has thrown off all pretense of objective journalism, but that is not a deportable offence, to my knowledge. If people think he is a poor journalist, they can contact his employer and complain and they can not listen to him. “If I do get deported from America for wanting fewer gun murders, are there any other countries that will have me?"[Piers Morgan] wrote.Here, Morgan is guilty of Intentional Obfuscation as he is saying that if he gets deported, it will be because he wants fewer gun murders. This is intentionally blurring the truth, knowing that people are not against him because he wants to reduce gun murders. Everyone wants to reduce gun murders. We just have different ideas how to bring that about. Fiscal?CliffooleryPosted on?January 2, 2013by? HYPERLINK "" \o "View all posts by jshaul" jshaulI read statements by some politicians that they would not be in favor of any budget deal without tax increases. ?Raising income without corresponding ?deep structural changes in spending limits is folly. Any other institution in society operates by the rule that if they are broke from having overspent, the solution has to be a long term reduction in expenses and control of spending such that outgo is not more than income. ?It is not complicated. The U.S. debt to GDP ratio is the highest in history having gone up from 70% to 102% (a 31% increase) in just the last 4 years and the raw debt has gone from 10 billion to 16 billion (a 37% increase) in the same amount of time. ?If you had a son or daughter come to you and tell you that their debt had increased 37% in the last 4 years (personal or small business, it makes no difference), what would you tell them? Certainly you would be open to having them find increased employment or sales to boost income, but would you not sit them down and have them come up with some deep structural changes, including reducing spending to UNDER income and establishing ?hard fast budgetary rules that require, without exception, keeping expenses under income? No exceptions?The deal just hammered out does not fix anything. ?The reason we had a fiscal cliff is that congress didn’t have the guts to deal with it in the past and put the real work off into the future. ? Now, they have done the same thing. ?Would you allow your child to do this? ?Does this sound adult at all?There seems to be no political party and very few politicians that are willing to be this % this sensible.Real Life Arguments #3. Likening Congress to a family arguing that it can improve its credit rating by deciding not to pay its credit card bill, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said yesterday that raising the legal borrowing limit was not the same as authorizing new government spending. Bernake used an analogy (which is a fine way to illustrate things) but he completely ignored referring to the obvious consequence to raising the debt limit by a credit card company to a family who has reached the limit and has increased its debt by 37% in its last 4 years. The question is, if the debt limit is raised, what is the likelihood that the family will go ahead and debt-spend its way to that limit also, unless there is some budget restraint and demonstration of fiscal responsibility? Of course the debt company wants to have increased debt to those clients that the company thinks are pretty certain to repay. Credit companies are for-profit and exist by making money off of their clients’ debt. Many Politicians are for-power persons who attain more power when they get more money from the citizens, therefore more spending, more power.Bernake’s argument could be used year after year after year without end and implementing it could be one more piece of a larger policy that utterly destroys our country financially. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download