by Hans Bluedorn, Copyright June 08, 1999, all rights reserved. 1005 views
I find it amusing that whenever I want to find a good fallacy to use on this loop, all that I have to do is go to the MSNBC website and click on one of their main stories for the day. There I will find an endless array of material for my choosing. Today's quote I am sure you have heard coming from many people. Here it is.
"What we need to do is plug the loopholes that are still allowing criminals and children to get guns. Sensible people agree that if you have to go through a background check to buy a gun in a gun store, you should have to do the same at a gun show," – Naomi Paiss, a spokeswoman for Handgun Control Inc. From an article entitled "FBI figures show drop in crime" on the MSNBC website.
This quote is a good example of what might otherwise be a logical argument except it is based upon a bad foundation. Remember, your arguments are only as good as your presuppositions. The false assumption that is made here is that we should have to go through a background check in the first place. Once you assume that it is proper to check gun buyers, then you could argue that this should be done all the time. This could be called a modification on the fallacy of complex question. We could call this the "camels nose" fallacy. A prior concession to a demand is used to prove a second demand. It's like saying, "if we already allow abortion, then what's wrong with euthanasia." Once you accept the first point (or the first point is currently status quo – legally or not) then the second point is soon to follow. In reality, two statements are tied into one: "We should have background checks." and "We should have them at gun shows." One statement leads to the other.
[The background check essentially assumes that a potential gun buyer is guilty of a crime until he is proven innocent (by the background check). So everyone is assumed to be a "criminal" when he wants to buy a gun.]
Did you notice the other fallacy in today's quote? Can anybody tell me what it is? (Hint: It tries to destroy your arguments before you say them.) If you can see where it is, but don't know what it is called, just describe it.
To help you, here are a few logical fallacies.
Fallacy of Hasty Generalization. This is an argument based upon an inadequate sampling of instances. This is also called "Jumping to Conclusions."
"I bought a Goodstone tire once and it went bad. I'll never buy another Goodstone tire."
"Homeschooling is bad. I knew a homeschool student who used poor grammar."
"Homeschooling is great. I knew a homeschool student who memorized Shakespeare."
Fallacy Of Precondemnation (sometimes called "Poisoning The Well"). This is where the opposition is discredited before they even speak a word. Something nasty is said about anyone who might disagree with you.
"Anyone who criticizes our school system must be an enemy of public education."
"People who find fault with our union leaders are sure to have anti-union feelings."
"Only those who are personally grossly obese would speak against mandatory dietary laws."
Argument to the Man (Abusive Argumentum ad Hominem). This is an argument which appeals to a man's personality, character, or features, instead of addressing the real issues.
Favorable: "We should elect Jack president because he seems so compassionate."
Unfavorable: "I'm taking you in young man because you look like someone who could have committed this crime." (You're under arrest because you look guilty.)
Fallacy of the False Dilemma. This is an argument which limits the question to only two possibilities, when in fact there are other possibilities. (This is also called "Either – Or Reasoning.")
"If you don't like the government's school, you'll have to send your children to a private school somewhere far away." (Ever hear of homeschooling?)
"Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou?" "Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?" (Matthew 2217) (There's another option"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." (Matthew 2221)
No comments yet.