Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 09/29/2003 1:59:43 PM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last
To: Howlin; Ed_NYC; MonroeDNA; widgysoft; Springman; Timesink; dubyaismypresident; Grani; coug97; ...
Just damn.

If you want on the new list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...

[As i mentioned, the B/C & JD! lists are going to float into and out of whack over the forseeable future, while I try to cobble a rig back together for myself. My apologies for any incovenience or misunderstandings in this time frame. New signups/removals may be flaky in this time-frame as well; please bear with me, and keep in mind you may have to FReepmail me more than once for me to get it done. Thanks again!]

2 posted on 09/29/2003 2:00:13 PM PDT by mhking (Anyone who disagrees with me is mentally ill and should be shot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
LOL! Good post.

The one he missed is the time-tested "Emotional Appeal" tactic. (OTOH, maybe this fits under the "mean, mean, mean" heading....)

I've seen this one a lot in debates over same-sex blessings in the Episcopal Church. The pro-sodomites simply cannot win on logic, and certainly not on Scripture.

So they appeal to pity (ours) and rage (theirs). For example, "the church is telling us we cannot have sex -- just you try going without sex." This seems like an effective argument untul you recognize it as simply an appeal to pity. There are lots of things the church says "don't do."

4 posted on 09/29/2003 2:07:36 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
This was excellent.... and fun!

I debate a Greenie all the time who posts to my community association board. It's a constant barrage of "Bush made 9/11 happen on purpose" and that type of garbage. He uses every tactic listed here... and then some ;-)

Thank you!
5 posted on 09/29/2003 2:08:33 PM PDT by Tamzee ("Big government sounds too much like sluggish socialism."......Arnold Schwarzenegger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
Don't forget the most-often used tactic:

Don't stop talking. When the host turns to the right-wing guest, the left-wing guest will keep talking, or interrupt the right-wing speaker with sentence fragments like "But... but..." or "not true... not true...". It is meant to distract the speaker or drown out the point that the speaker is trying to make. Usually the conservative is respectful of the liberal's time on the air, but the liberal is almost always rude when the conservative is speaking.

-PJ

6 posted on 09/29/2003 2:11:04 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's not safe yet to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
That listing (and example) is very apt. The only thing not included are the infamous "stat" wars: "Her" vs. "His" type stat wars. "I have here a study done by (insert dubious or even prestigiousname-of-institute) purporting that global warming reduces testicle size"...
7 posted on 09/29/2003 2:11:38 PM PDT by Alia (California -- It's Groovy! Baby!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
It doesn't matter if it is a left-winger or a yellowdog RAT, they all mean the same thing: Don't try and confuse me with facts.
9 posted on 09/29/2003 2:19:40 PM PDT by sticker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
Great find. I add:
-the "you against the world" approach, where the leftist claims that "the American people" want us to move on, or "the world community" hates the US. This is rarely backed up with objective fact, and yet is rarely challenged.

bttt
10 posted on 09/29/2003 2:21:56 PM PDT by ellery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PatrickHenry; VadeRetro; Piltdown_Woman
Any of these sound familiar?
12 posted on 09/29/2003 2:27:53 PM PDT by Junior (Killed a six pack ... just to watch it die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
This is fitting, I got this in another board today after listing the countries and how they have helped out durring "Iraqi Freedom"

http://www.vcorps.army.mil/www/cjtf7/forces.htm



"""So we had 33 out of 192 countries, paid off the good majority of the 33, and you are proud? This is freaking just plain sad.

I wonder if Dubya wakes up every morning 'knowing' his sorry butt is going back to that pitiful hole for a state he spawned from?

Look out black, poor people and queers, Dubya comming home...

The price of freedom is that people like you can't be hung in town square anymore for being an idiot and threatening the gene pool. I bet you have some really---really stupid kids don't you?"""




Nice guy, Huh?
13 posted on 09/29/2003 2:32:18 PM PDT by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
#10 Distract your opponent with your breasts

14 posted on 09/29/2003 2:35:32 PM PDT by evets (Warning: graphic images.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
Did A List of My Own Once. It adds what you might call "refusal to infer" (abuse of "Just because ... doesn't mean ..."), begging the question, appeal to authority, and everyone's favorite: ad hominem.
15 posted on 09/29/2003 2:37:59 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking; *puff_list; CSM; Flurry; Texan5; Just another Joe; SheLion; metesky; Madame Dufarge
Sure desribes a lot of folks we seem to tangle with on a regular basis, doesn't it!!!
19 posted on 09/29/2003 2:43:34 PM PDT by Gabz (Smoke-gnatzies - small minds buzzing in your business - SWAT'EM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
Another tried and true method:

DEMAND OF PROOF: When presented with an unpleasant fact, dmand proof of said fact, then declare any proffered proof to be insufficient and/or biased.
21 posted on 09/29/2003 2:53:37 PM PDT by The Clemson Tiger (Hold that Tiger!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
Fallacies:

Peter A. Angeles Dictionary of Philosophy-- published by Barnes and Noble, copyright 1981.

Fallacy, classification of informal. Informal fallacies may be classified in a variety of ways. Three general categories: (a) Material fallacies have to do with the facts (the matter, the content) of the argument in question. Two subcategories of material fallacies are: (1) fallacies of evidence, which refer to arguments that do not provide the required factual support (ground, evidence) for their conclusions, and (2) fallacies of irrelevance (or relevance) which refer to arguments that have supporting statements that are irrelevant to the conclusion being asserted and therefore cannot establish the truth of that conclusion. (b) Linguistic fallacies have to do with defects in arguments such as ambiguity (in which careless shifts of meanings or linguistic imprecision's lead to erroneous conclusions), vagueness, incorrect use of words, lack of clarity, linguistic inconsistencies, circularities. (c) Fallacies of irrelevant emotional appeal have to do with affecting behavior (responses, attitudes). That is, arguments are presented in such a way as to appeal to one's prejudices, biases, loyalty, dedication, fear, guilt, and so on. They persuade, cajole, threaten, or confuse in order to win assent to an argument.

Fallacy, types of informal. Sometimes semi-formal or quasi-formal fallacies. The following is a list of 40 informal fallacies which is by no means exhaustive. No attempt has been made to subsume them under general categories such as Fallacies, Classification of Informal [which I will also include].

1. Black-and-white fallacy. Arguing (a) with the use of sharp ("black-and-white") distinctions despite any factual or theoretical support for them, or (b) by classifying any middle point between the extremes ("black-and-white") as one of the extremes. Examples: "If he is an atheist then he is a decent person." "He is either a conservative or a liberal." "He must not be peace-loving, since he participated in picketing the American embassy."

2. Fallacy of argumentum ad baculum (argument from power or force.) The Latin means "an argument according to the stick." "argument by means of the rod," "argument using force." Arguing to support the acceptance of an argument by a threat, or use of force. Reasoning is replaced by force, which results in the termination of logical argumentation, and elicits other kinds of behavior (such as fear, anger, reciprocal use of force, etc.).

3. Fallacy of argumentum ad hominem (argument against the man) [a personal favorite of mine]. The Latin means "argument to the man." (a) Arguing against, or rejecting a person's views by attacking or abusing his personality, character, motives, intentions, qualifications, etc. as opposed to providing evidence why the views are incorrect. Example: "What John said should not be believed because he was a Nazi sympathizer." [Well, there goes Heidegger.]

4. Fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance). The Latin means "argument to ignorance." (a) Arguing that something is true because no one has proved it to be false, or (b) arguing that something is false because no one has proved it to be true. Examples: (a) Spirits exist since no one has as yet proved that there are not any. (b) Spirits do not exist since no one has as yet proved their existence. Also called the appeal to ignorance: the lack of evidence (proof) for something is used to support its truth.

5. Fallacy of argumentum ad misericordiam (argument to pity). Arguing by appeal to pity in order to have some point accepted. Example: "I've got to have at least a B in this course, Professor Angeles. If I don't I won't stand a chance for medical school, and this is my last semester at the university." Also called the appeal to pity.

6. Fallacy of argumentum ad personam (appeal to personal interest). Arguing by appealing to the personal likes (preferences, prejudices, predispositions, etc.) of others in order to have an argument accepted.

7. Fallacy of argumentum as populum (argument to the people). Also the appeal to the gallery, appeal to the majority, appeal to what is popular, appeal to popular prejudice, appeal to the multitude, appeal to the mob instinct [appeal to the stupid, stinking masses]. Arguing in order to arouse an emotional, popular acceptance of an idea without resorting to logical justification of the idea. An appeal is made to such things as biases, prejudices, feelings, enthusiasms, attitudes of the multitude in order to evoke assent rather than to rationally support the idea.

8. Fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam (argument to authority or to veneration) [another of my personal favorites]. (a) appealing to authority (including customs, traditions, institutions, etc.) in order to gain acceptance of a point at issue and/or (b) appealing to the feelings of reverence or respect we have of those in authority, or who are famous. Example: "I believe that the statement 'YOu cannot legislate morality' is true, because President Eisenhower said it."

9. Fallacy of accent. Sometimes clasified as ambiguity of accent. Arguing to conclusions from undue emphasis (accent, tone) upon certain words or statements. Classified as a fallacy of ambiguity whenever this anphasis creates an ambiguity or AMPHIBOLY in the words or statements used in an argument. Example: "The queen cannot but be praised." [also "We are free iff we could have done otherwise."-- as this statement is used by incompatibilists about free-will and determinism.]

10. Fallacy of accident. Also called by its Latin name a dicto simpliciter asd dictum secundum quid. (a) Applying a general rule or principle to a particular instance whose circumstances by "accident" do not allow the proper application of that generalization. Example: "It is a general truth that no one should lie. Therefore, no one should lie if a murderer at the point of a knife asks you for information you know would lead to a further murder." (b) The error in arumentation of applying a general statement to a situation to which it cannot, and was not necessarily intended to, be applied.

11. Fallacy of ambiguity. An argument that has at least one ambiguous word or statement from which a misleading or wrong conclusion is drawn.

12. Fallacy of amphiboly. Arguing to conclusions from statements that themselves are amphibolous-- ambiguous because of their syntax (grammatical construction). Sometimes classified as a fallacy of ambiguity.

13. Fallacy of begging the question. (a) Arriving at a conclusion from statements that themselves are questionable and hae to be proved but are assumed true. Example: The universe has a beginning. Every thing that has a beginning has a beginner. Therefore, the universe has a beginner called God. This assumes (begs the question) that the universe does indeed have a beginning and also that all things that have a beginning have a beginner. (b) Assuming the conclusion ar part of the conclusion in the premises of an argument. Sometimes called circular reasoning, vicious circularity, vicious circle fallacy [Continental Philosophy-- sorry, I just couldn't resist]. Example: "Everything has a cause. The universe is a thing. Therefore, the universe is a thing that has a cause." (c) Arguing in a circle. One statement is supported by reference to another statement which is itself supported by reference to the first statement [such as a coherentist account of knowledge/truth]. Example: "Aristocracy is the best form of government because the best form of government if that which has strong aristocratic leadership."

14. Fallacy of complex question (or loaded question). (a) Asking questions for which either a yes or no answer will incriminate the respondent. The desired answer is already tacitly assumed in the question and no qualification of the simple answer is allowed. Example: "Have you discontinued the use of opiates?" (b) Asking questions that are based on unstated attitudes or questionable (or unjustified) assumptions. These questions are often asked rhetorically of the respondent in such a way as to elicit an agreement with those attitudes or assumptions from others. Example: "How long are you going to put up with this brutality?"

15. Fallacy of composition. Arguing (a) that what is true of each part of a whole is also (necessarily) true of the whole itself, or (b) what is true of some parts is also (necessarily) true of the whole itself. Example: "Each member (or some members) of the team is married, therefore the team also has (must have) a wife." [A less silly example-- you promise me that you will come to Portland tomorrow, you also promise someone else that you will go to Detroit tomorrow. Now, you ought to be in Portland tomorrow, and you ought to be in Detroit tomorrow (because you ought to keep your promises). However, it does not follow that you ought to be in both Portland and Detroit tomorrow (because ought implies can).] Inferring that a collection has a certain characteristic merely on the basis that its parts have them erroneously proceeds from regarding the collection DISTRIBUTIVELY to regarding it COLLECTIVELY.

16. Fallacy of consensus gentium. Arguing that an idea is true on the basis (a) that the majority of people believe it and/or (b) that it has been universally held by all men at all times. Example: "God exists because all cultures hae had some concept of a God."

17. Fallacy of converse accident. Sometimes converse fallcy of accident. Also called by its Latin name a dicto secumdum quid ad dictum simpliciter. The error of generalizing from atypical or exceptional instances. Example: "A shot of warm brandy each night helps older people relax and sleep better. People in general ought to drink warm brandy to relieve their tension and sleep better."

18. Fallacy of division. Arguing that what is true of a whole is (a) also (necessarily) true of its parts and/or (b) also true of some of its parts. Example: "The community of Pacific Palisades is extremely wealthy. Therefore, every person living there is (must be) extremely wealthy (or therefor Adma, who lives there, must be extremely wealthy." Inferring that the parts of a collection have certain characteristic merely on the basis that their collection has them erroneously proceeds from regarding the collection collectively to regarding it distributively.

19. Fallacy of equivocation. An argument in which a word is used with one meaning in one part of the argument and with another meaning in another part. A common example: "The end of a thing is its perfection; death is the end of life; hence, death is the perfection of life." 20. Fallacy of non causa pro causa. the LAtin may be translated as "there is no cause of the sort that has been given as the cause." (a) Believing that something is the cause of an effect when in reality it is not. Example: "My incantations caused it to rain." (b) Arguing so that a statement appears unacceptable because it implies another statement that is false (but in reality does not).

21. Fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. The Latin means "after this therefore the consequence (effect) of this," or "after this therefore because of this." Sometimes simply fallacy of false cause. Concluding that one thing is the cause of another thing because it precedes it in time. A confusion between the concept of succession and that of causation. Example: "A black cat ran across my path. Ten minutes mater I was hit by a truck. Therefore, the cat's running across my path was the cause of my being hit by a truck."

22. Fallacy of hasty generalization. Sometimes fallacy of hasty induction. An error of reasoning whereby a general statement is asserted (inferred) based on (a) limited information or (b) inadequate evidence, or (c) an unrepresentative sampling.

23. Fallacy of ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion). An argument that is irrelevant; that argues for something other than that which is to be proved and thereby in no way refutes (or supports) the points at issue. Example: A lawyer in defending his alcoholic client who has murdered three people in a drunken spree argues that alcoholism is a terrible disease and attempts should be made to eliminate it. IGNORATIO ELENCHI is sometimes used as a general name for all fallacies that are based on irrelevancy (such as ad baculum, ad hominem, as misericordiam, as populum, ad verecundiam, consensus gentium, etc.)

24. Fallacy of inconsistency. Arguing from inconsistent statements, or to conclusions that are inconsistent with the premises. See fallacy of tu quoque below.

25. Fallacy of irrelevant purpose. Arguing against something on the basis that it has not fulfilled its purpose (although in fact that was not its intended purpose).

26 Fallacy of 'is' to 'ought.' Arguing from premises that have only descriptive statements (is) to a conclusion that contains an ought, or a should.

27. Fallacy of limited (or false) alternatives. The error of insisting without full inquiry or evidence that the alternatives to a course of action have been exhausted and/or are mutually exclusive.

28. Fallacy of many questions. Sometimes fallact of the false question. Asking a question for which a single and simple answer is demanded yet the question (a) requires a series of answers, and/or (b) requires answers to a host of other questions, each of which have to be answered separately. Example: "Have you left school?"

29. Fallacy of misleading context. Arguing by misrepresenting, distorting, omitting or quoting something out of context.

30. Fallacy of prejudice. Arguing from a bias or emotional identification or involvement with an idea (argument, doctrine, institution, etc.).

31. Fallacy of red herring. Ignoring criticism of an argument by changing attention to another subject. Examples: "You believe in abortion, yet you don't believe in the right-to-die-with-dignity bill before the legislature."

32. Fallacy of slanting. Deliberately omitting, deemphasizing, or overemphasizing certain points to the exclusion of others in order to hide evidence that is important and relevant to the conclusion of the argument and that should be taken into accoun of in an argument.

33. Fallacy of special pleading. (a) Accepting an idea or criticism when applied to an opponent's argument but rejecting it when applied to one's own argument. (b) rejecting an idea or criticism when applied to an opponent's argument but accepting it when applied to one's own.

34. Fallacy of the straw man. Presenting an opponent's position in as weak or misrepresented a version as possible so that it can be easily refuted. Example: "Darwinism is in error. It claims that we are all descendents from an apelike creature, from which we evolved according to natural selection. No evidence of such a creature has been found. No adequate and consistent explanation of natural selection has been given. Therefore, evolution according to Darwinism has not taken place."

35. Fallacy of the beard. Arguin (a) that small or minor differences do not (or cannot) make a difference, or are not (or cannot be) significant, or (b) arguing so as to find a definite point at which something can be named. For example, insisting that a few hairs lost here and there do not indicate anything about my impending baldness; or trying to determine how many hairs a person must have before he can be called bald (or not bald).

36. Fallacy of tu quoque (you also). (a) Presenting evidence that a person's actions are not consistent with that for which he is arguing. Example: "John preaches that we should be kind and loving. He doesn't practice it. I've seen him beat up his kids." (b) Showing that a person's views are inconsistent with what he previously believed and therefore (1) he is not to be trusted, and/or (2) his new view is to be rejected. Example: "Judge Egener was against marijuana legislation four years ago when he was running for office. Now he is for it. How can you trust a man who can change his mind on such an important issue? His present position is inconsistent with his earlier view and therefore it should not be accepted." (c) Sometimes related to the Fallacy of two wrongs make a right. Example: The Democrats for years used illegal wiretapping; therefore the Republicans should not be condemned for their use of illegal wiretapping.

37. Fallacy of unqualified source. Using as support in an argument a source of authority that is not qualified to provide evidence.

38. Gambler's fallacy. (a) Arguing that since, for example, a penny has fallen tails ten times in a row then it will fall heads the eleventh time or (b) arguing that since, for example, an airline has not had an accident for the past ten years, it is then soon due for an accident. The gambler's fallacy rejects the assumption in probability theory that each event is independent of its previous happening. the chances of an event happening are always the same no matter how many times that event has taken place in the past. Given those events happening over a long enough period of time then their frequency would average out to 1/2. Sometimes referred to as the Monte Carlo fallacy (a generalized form of the gambler's fallacy): The error of assuming that because something has happened less frequently than expected in the past, there is an increased chance that it will happen soon.

39. Genetic fallacy. Arguing that the origin of something is identical with that thing with that from which it originates. Example: 'Consciousness orinates in neural processes. Therefore, consciousness is (nothing but) neural processes. Sometimes referred to as the nothing-but fallacy, or the REDUCTIVE FALLACY. (b) Appraising or explaining something in terms of its origin, or source, or beginnings. (c) Arguing that something is to be rejected because its origins are [unknown] and/or suspicious.

40. Pragmatic fallacy. Arguing that something is true because it has practical effects upon people: it makes them happier, easier to deal with, more moral, loyal, stable. Example: "An immortal life exists because without such a concept men would have nothing to live for. There would be no meaning or purpose in life and everyone would be immoral."

41. Pathetic fallacy. Incorrectly projecting (attributing) human emotions, feeling, intentions, thoughts, traits upon events or ojects which do not possess the capacity for such qualities.

42. Naturalist fallacy (ethics). 1. The fallacy of reducing ethical statements to factual statements, to statements about natural events. 2. The fallacy of deriving (deducing) ethical statements from nonethical statements. [is/ought fallacy]. 3. The fallacy of defining ethical terms in nonethical (descriptive, naturalistic, or factual) terms [ought/is fallacy].

25 posted on 09/29/2003 3:02:08 PM PDT by Psycho_Bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
I gotta read this.
It is tedious and frustrating to be discussing or debating with the clueless.
In the future I can just respond "#6, have a nice day" and not feel so bad...
26 posted on 09/29/2003 3:06:59 PM PDT by Publius6961 (californians are as dumb as a sack of rocks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
I hate to burst your bubble but those techniques are not limited to liberals. Conservatives routinely use them. It's called human nature (pride) and having a preference to remain blissfully ignorant.
27 posted on 09/29/2003 3:46:56 PM PDT by nmh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
P.S. I did enjoy your post. Thanks for taking the time to do it.
28 posted on 09/29/2003 3:47:54 PM PDT by nmh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
Awesome Article !!!! LOL

For example, you could probably put together a bill that called for nuclear waste to be dumped in every Walmart in America and as long as you called it the, "Feed The Children For A New Tomorrow Bill"

Totally true. And a lot of freepers would vote in favor of it even if it didn't have Feed the Children attached to it LOL

29 posted on 09/29/2003 4:20:31 PM PDT by BSunday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
"4) Enter The Strawman: Tremendously exaggerating your opponent's position and then claiming to fight against a position they don't hold is always a great way to dodge the issues. In all fairness, this is a technique often used by the left & right. But still, the right can't hold a candle to the left in this area. I mean how many times have you heard, "Republicans are going to take your Social Security away," "The GOP wants to poison the water and the air," "Republicans want to take away your Civil Rights" etc, etc?

This whole concept has gotten so out of hand on the left that we now even have some people on the left comparing the Israelis to Nazis. Look, when you're claiming that a bunch a Jews defending themselves from people who want to kill them are like Nazis, you've gone so far past irony that you almost need a new word to describe it like -- "Idiorony" or "outofyourmindony". But that's what happens when people wink at all these strawmen that are tossed out in debates. Eventually some people start to take them seriously and build on them."

This is also done in reverse. I've had a few debates where my opponent tried to claim that what he said in plain english, still proudly displayed further up on the message board, didn't mean what it clearly meant. For example, I once had someone claim that "In and RPG, it's character skill that matters. Period" didn't mean that only character skill mattered.
30 posted on 09/29/2003 4:46:53 PM PDT by Sofa King (-I am Sofa King- tired of liberal BS! http://www.angelfire.com/art2/sofaking/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES & FALLACIES
35 posted on 09/29/2003 5:23:50 PM PDT by Fraulein (TCB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson