botszuloo.blogg.se - Red herring fallacy examples

RED HERRING FALLACY EXAMPLES PLUS
RED HERRING FALLACY EXAMPLES FREE

I suggest that you come up with something like it, because if we Democrats are going to survive as a party, we have got to show that we are as tough-minded as the Republicans, since that is what the public wants. I've begun to think that there is some merit in the Republicans' tax cut plan.

Minor criminal offences aren't important because the police should be putting the same effort into catching burglars/rapists/murderers/real criminals (see also Straw Man).Īn example would be the following (theoretical) argument for a tax cut:.

Gamestop: "Why don't you tag Jim Sterling themself so they can ask these questions for you." This is to provoke the first person into getting angry, or defend the originality of his statement, or - if they're smart - point out that criticism cannot be repeated enough if there has been no change (but if they're really smart, they would just not bite, of course).

Someone expresses criticism towards Gamestop on Facebook that sounds like something Jim Sterling (a YouTuber) would say on one of their videos.

This forces person B to explain this to person A instead of discussing why or why not they think people shouldn't use that word.

RED HERRING FALLACY EXAMPLES FREE

Person A: "Freedom of speech! I have a right to state my opinion! This is censorship!" What is actually communicated is "I can say what I want", but person A has conflated that simple concept with the concept of free speech or worse yet: censorship. Person B criticises Person A's use of a slur.

Person A: " Nazis are marching on the streets, we need to stop them from spreading fascist ideas!" Person B: "Islamic extremism also spreads fascist ideas, why don't you criticize them?" The fitting response would be: "because they're not marching the streets at this moment, fighting for more acceptance.".

By eliminating sexual innuendo from the media, we can prevent its need."

RED HERRING FALLACY EXAMPLES PLUS

Logic chopping is essentially quibbling plus unnecessary philosophy. Logic chopping occurs when often-useful yet time-consuming and often-misunderstood tools of logic (such as converting arguments into syllogisms) are either (a) required of from the speaker, making them waste time rather than make their points, (b) used to disguise the true meaning of a statement, or (c) to turn a simple issue into a complex and difficult philosophical argument. Quibbling applies almost any time when there's more argument over what someone meant than over whether it's true, except when someone's completely incomprehensible. Quibbling occurs when a very small part of a person's argument, often the extremely precise meaning of a word, is focused on, rather than the argument as a whole. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A, even though topic B has no relevance to topic A.This "reasoning" takes the following form: Thus, a "red herring" argument is one which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy.

The name of this fallacy comes from the sport of fox hunting in which someone who wanted to spoil the hunt would drag a dried, smoked herring, which is red in color, across the trail of the fox to throw the hounds off the scent. ignoratio elenchi ("ignorance of refutation").avoiding/befogging/changing/clouding/evading/ignoring/missing the question/issue/subject/point.Because changing the topic is an extremely common debate tactic, this fallacy has innumerable (mostly boring) names: