Politics and Fallacy

Slippery slope my friends. Slippery slope. Politicians are the bomb at slippery slopes. One second they make a valid point and then out of nowhere they convince you of something is completely unrelated. Gosh I am doing a horrible job at explaining it soooo.... I am going to let the book do it. This is what it says, "It occurs when you argue that one event will inevitably lead through a series of related events resulting in disaster."
Can we see how this relates to the politics thing? I feel like election candidates are guilty of this. Like that one time that the governor of somewhere said she was "not a witch" and then bing bam boom..... she "was a witch." What is that? Slippery slope. Maybe? Or like when the President makes a not so great decision and then all of a sudden the opposite party thinks "Oh no! The country is going to crumble because he made that decision." Ummm... I am sorry, false.
I would like to say that I have never been fooled by this, but in fact, I have. And I am guilty of doing it myself. Sadly... Anyways this is the fallacy I have chosen so yeah. Good one.

The Ironic Ignorance of the Arrogant

Ad hominem is an often-used rhetorical fallacy. It is an attempt by one side to negate the validity of the opposing side by attacking the individual instead of the topic of discussion. I feel like this is one of the easiest fallacies to recognize. It seems to be a safety net to fall back upon for those that don’t really understand the argument or can’t continue on with it. Even children use this fallacy to a certain extent. Arguments amongst children often end in name-calling and the original problem is forgotten. Sadly, for many, this type of behavior didn’t end with childhood. It may take a more sophisticated form but it is the same. “You’re a stupid-head” and “You are just ignorant.” Are the meanings or purposes behind these phrases all that different? In both instances one side chooses to ignore the actual argument and attack the person instead. I have personally experienced this type of rhetorical fallacy in religious discussions in particular. As I talk about religion with friends that aren’t of our faith, particularly those that have left, the discussion often times shifts to personal attacks. I start to hear phrases such as “You’ve grown up a Mormon in your Utah bubble. You’re closed minded and naïve.” Or maybe they’ll claim “religion is for the weak minded, used as a crutch for those that can’t understand the world.” They are free to believe as they choose, however, these personal attacks are not only generalized and inaccurate, but they are meaningless in the context of one’s personal beliefs.

Begging the question: ugh. I hate definitions. But begging te question is basically setting up a controversial/unresolved issue without expressing the solution, thereby causing the reader to question the matter without ever even having to necessarily phrase the issue as a question.

I'm sure all of you are ridiculously tired of hearing about my article. But come on! An article with the best sources, logistic evidence, and twinges of guilty pathos just SHOULDN'T be deemed "ineffective" from one silly rhetorical fallacy. But it is. And it drives me nuts.

This rhetorical fallacy is begging the question. Throughout the entirety of the piece, the author claims that economic globalization leads to the globalization of poverty. She uses excellent, current sources such as the CIA, United Nations, economic professionals, world leaders, and even current pro-globalization companies to support her opinion. She provides outrageous poverty and wealthy/poor ratios and differences to logistically prove her argument. She uses the President of southern Africa, a man well acquainted with poverty and the effects of globalization, to send guilty twinges down the readers spines. But she never answers the stupid, basic question, "How??" "How does economic globalization cause globalized poverty and increased income gaps?" This lak of information discredits her entire argument. A few sparse sentences could have taken her from sadly unbelievable to epically credible had she only taken the time to clarify this basic question.
Begging the question isn't always bad. In some cases, the author may create a sense of suspense regarding a certain, unresolved issue to get the readers mind turning before a sassy ending reveals the previously withheld information. In these cases, begging te question is very effective, and not only helps the reader to reach similar conclusions as the author, but also keep the reader hooked and entertained throughout the piece.

Fallacy

The fallacy I chose for this blog post is complex questions or maybe a little better know as loaded questions. These questions are "loaded" to where whatever the person answers it is either self-incriminating or meant to provoke some unwanted response from the person. I feel like you would definitely see this in a courtroom amongst lawyers trying to manipulate their witnesses into admitting something they don't want to admit. However, I also feel like to an extent, sometimes missionaries also use these types of questions. There is a big difference between conversion and convincing and that applies to everything, not just the Gospel. Sometimes as  missionaries, we become very good at talking and saying the right things and convincing people of the Gospel instead of helping them become converted. Loaded or complex questions are one of the greatest tools in the convincing process and it is seen not only in courtrooms, but in the mission field, at home from our parents, and everywhere. I think loaded questions can be a good thing, but as discussed in class, it just depends on the intentions of the person using them.

In the political arena

As we were discussing rhetorical fallacies in class I couldn't help reflect on politicians and elections.  I think many politicians could write a complete book on the subject! This last election had some pretty dirty campaigns. I will mention just one although there are many to pick from. John Swallows who was running for Utah's Attorney General resorted to the tactic of "poisoning the well." Swallows campaign ran adds attacking his opponents character and integrity. In the add he plays a short tape of a statement Sean Reyes made. The statement makes Reyes look bad but what is dirty about the add is that it is only a short piece of what was said was played and if the whole tape was played it would not shed him in a bad light.
For me, when someone is intentionally discrediting another persons character, "Poisoning the Well," I want to look a little closer to see what it is that they are weak in or hiding because if they have good things going for them they could stand on their own and not have to tear the other guy down in effort to look better. I would like to vote for the guy that is telling me about who he or she is  rather than someone who spends all their time "Poisoning the Well."

Hasty Generalization

     Hasty generalization is when you make an assumption about the larger entire group just from a few things that happened to perhaps the small group only once or twice. The assumption is made with inadequate evidence, demeaning the claim that was made. It happens in everyday life all the time even though we may not know it. Most commonly, stereotypes. Saying that “Asians are smart” is the first one that I think of. All throughout High School I heard this so often. If an Asian aced a test it was nothing because it was expected of them just because there has been a hasty generalization made that all Asians are smart. Another common one is when people say “American Heritage is hard”. This definitely started out as a hasty generalization. Maybe a group of friends did poorly in the class, didn't like their teacher, and then told everyone it was the hardest class at BYU. Just because of these few people, now everyone attending BYU comes scared and cautious of American Heritage. Then, the first thing that they tell you is to not worry because people have built up its difficulty way too much. I wasn't necessarily fooled by this fallacy, but I sure did use it to help me not care about getting a C in the class. After finishing the class, I realized that the reason I got a C wasn't because it was the hardest class in the world, it was because I never did the reading and I hate history. One we can all relate to is the funny Old Spice commercial with the rather attractive man. He says, “Anything is possible when your man smells like Old Spice.” I’m pretty sure “anything” is not possible just because your man smells like Old Spice. But it’s a nice thought. 

Slippery Slope

The "slippery slope" fallacy is an argument that says that after a small step, a chain of events will occur and lead to a major event. For example, in my Opinion Editorial, I said that when people use their cell phones while on a date, couples break up.  In saying that just the rude use of cell phones will eventually lead to a breakup is an example of a slippery slope because it disregards the other circumstances and events that have to happen that leads to the breakup and just blames the separation on cell phones. Don't worry, I fixed this problem in my final draft. Some other examples of slippery slopes can be found in those humorous DIRECTV commercials that are on TV today.  You know the ones that start out by saying "When your cable company keeps you on hold you get angry. When you get angry, you go blow off steam..." then the commercial progresses in consequence severity and eventually ends with "When people want to see how tough (you are), you wake up in a road side ditch. Don't wake up in a roadside ditch and switch to DIRECTV." ( It is kind of hard to explain so here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIv3m2gMgUU ) This commercial is the perfect example of a slippery slope because it is saying that if you have a different cable provider, a chain of events will happen just from your cable company putting you on hold and you will end up in a ditch. The slippery slope fallacy is everywhere in the world today.

Fallacy!!

Guilt by association is a common fallacy that is used in several scenarios. Guilt by association is when you attack someone on the precepts of people they associate themselves with. This happens with politicians and all the time in movies. There can be times when it isn't actually a fallacy and possibly a good resource. For example, someone is charged with killing someone in a gang and it is brought up that the killer associated himself with a rival gang. This information can be very useful but it is commonly misused and it is fallen for. If I pay close attention to debates, I will probably catch a lot of fallacies including guilt by association. This might not be the best example but Romney was commonly attacked since he aligned himself with the LDS religion. People thought he was gonna be some crazy president who would force religion but obviously that was just the media using fallacies to scare people away from voting for him. i just feel like guilt by association is everywhere because it works so well with uneducated audiences and even with educated audiences. What if a politician aligned himself with the Westboro Baptist Church at one time in his life? There would be so much disgust by voters that they wouldn't even pay attention to his politics. Its a useful strategy if it is used correctly but can cause the source to lose credibility if used in the wrong way. So, that is my blog!

Red Herring

One of the rhetorical fallacy's is a red herring. So my question is what is a herring? Well I looked it up on my nifty dictionary app on my iPod. I discovered that a herring is a fish that we eat. It is of the Clupeidae family and any fish who is in that family or resembles the herring is called a herring. Honestly I have no idea how this has anything to do with what a red herring is but if nothing else you know what a herring is. See when we say red herring we are referring to something that is meant to distract us from the truth. This misleading cue can be almost anything. Is could be a action from someone that diverts attention or a item that causes people to look somewhere else for the truth. So how could someone recognize a red herring and not be fooled. Well we can always make sure we keep or mind on the matter at hand. If we do that then if we see anything that does not fit the situation that is begging us to move our thoughts else where, then we have most likely stumbled upon a red herring. But honestly if a red herring is done good enough then it will trick almost anyone. A time when most of America witnesses a red herring is during the presidential debate. The people will ask a question about economics and then one of the candidate will talk about how important education is for the children of America. The candidate trys to force people to think about how education is important and how they are good for caring. While others may catch the red herring and wonder why they never answered the question.

Blog Post #7

Rhetorical Fallacy: False Authority

There are many fallacies when it comes to writing and rhetoric. One that I see quite often and am probably guilty of is False Authority. Many times we read articles with lots of information in them but we have no record of where the facts or statistics came from. This is a huge fallacy in writing because it can give people false impressions of a certain issue being discussed. I know we read an example article in class and it was written by Michelle Gates who is Bill Gates wife. We knew that her article was credible because it spoke of her personal experiences traveling to third world countries and being involved in different charities.  Because she has a “big name” to back her up, we know that her charity is legitimate and her sources are most likely reliable. I have encountered many fallacies with false authority. Especially when reading opinions you need to know where it is coming from. I like to compare this to rumors. If you hear something strange about something from someone else you know which ones of your friends are reliable and which are not. I am not likely to believe anything I hear from someone who doesn’t have a direct connection or relationship with the person they are talking about. It is the same thing with reading research papers and facts. They have got to know where the information is coming from and they need to be reliable sources. I can avoid being tricked in the future by always checking the sources and authors. If I want to be extra safe I can research the authors previous opinions to check for bias. 

BLOG POST #7.

Rhetorical Fallacy: Poisoning the Well

Definition: Poisoning the well is device used to discredit another's argument simply by giving unfavorable (and perhaps false) information about the person. This is in the attempts to leave the reader with a bitter taste in their mouth towards the person, biasing the way they read the statement. 

I believe we use Poisoning the well a lot more often than we think. I'm sure most of us as concerned academic BYU students have heard of the website Ratemyprofessor.com. At the beginning of every semester when signing up for classes, we jump onto this website to know which professor would be the easiest/most entertaining professor to take a course from. Often times, professors are given reviews based on personal circumstances or perhaps another student's display of lazy habits coming back to haunt them when they see the grade they received. These opinions about the professors we take courses from taints our outlook we have towards how the class will turn out. In psychology we even discussed a study performed where they created two separate fake accounts for the same professor and either gave them really good or really bad reviews. By the end of the course, the class that received the good reviews for the professor had significantly better grades even though the teaching, assignments, and exams were exactly the same. Tainted opinions and biased views can truly affect how we look at things.

Blog Post #7

As I was looking through different fallacies in the book to choose which one to talk about I saw that I have a hard time seeing them in real life. This made me think if maybe I'm getting fooled more than I think by these fallacies. I think I'm a fairly smart person who would be able to see through these fallacies but now I'm not so sure. But the one I'm choosing for this post is false dilemma because it's one I use a ton in my job. False dilemma is when you present two options so they don't even think of any others. I use this at my job at LDS Philanthropies. I'm supposed to call BYU Alumni and ask for donations. They push us hard to get the donations on a credit or debit card rather than sending out a pledge form because it's instant money instead of waiting for them to send in the donation. So usually after they say they'll give $100 or whatever I say "I can take any major credit or debit card. What would you prefer to use?" I realized that this is false dilemma because I'm not even giving them the option to send it in through a check. But it works well! And hopefully since I've been doing it I'll be able to see if people are doing it to me in the future. I can't think of a time when I've been fooled or not fooled by false dilemma. My parents have probably done that to me, similar to the example in the book. "Do you want to do homework or practice the piano first?" It's a really good trick that I'm probably gonna use on my kids.

Ad Hommini? Hominimum?

Ad Hominem. That's how you say it... or at least spell it, I'm doubting I could really verbally say the words without figuratively falling into the mud. But hey, at least I now know the meaning of the word and if ever I wish to use it in a sentence I can just explain the word I'm meaning to my friends who are English buffs. For those who may have zoned out during class when we were presenting literary fallacies Ad Hominem is when someone addresses the background of the subject and not the main subject. I find myself an expert at finding this *cough* *cough* through my many  years of watching crime and law television shows. Lawyers use this quite often when they are faced with a situation that they cannot face head-on if they wish to win the trial. If you take away all of the pretty words and judicial playacting, that lawyer bringing up an expert witness's past three DUI's to deem their evidence deffective is the same as a little kid retorting to some hurtful comment with "your mom!" Wouldn't it be interesting to see a lawyer yell to a key witness "That doesn't matter! Because your Mom's so big anytime she's on a boat the whales start singing we are family!" Seeing it this way for some reason makes it easier for me to see it happen around me. Maybe that's just Kayla's mind, I've begun to realize it isn't wired the same as others. =D