The red herring is the actual second amendment argument. Simply put the goal is to make it as hard as possible for criminals and those with certain mental illnesses to obtain guns while infringing as little as possible on the rights of responsible citizens to obtain them.Įxample One: Don't take away my guns, I have a Second Amendment Right!
So what is the argument for gun control? It's twofold. For good examples read the comments section for any article on GMO, nuclear power, natural gas, gun control, health care (in the US), immigration policy, and public policy regarding religion.įallacy Fest! (It's not what you Think.The problem with liberals (present company included) is that we go barking after the red herring, not even realizing that it's what we're doing. Hotly debated topics are fertile ground for straw man arguments.
Most gun owners do in fact endorse some restrictions on gun ownership.įrom the point of view of critical thinking there are a few important points to notice: (a) The straw man gun control arguments on both sides distort the respective opponent's position such that its actual content isn't being addressed, (b) because the opposing argument is distorted it seems ridiculous and easy to refute, and (c) because the actual content isn't being addressed, the topic of the argument gets shifted away from the actual premises rendering difficult meaningful dialogue.
Conversely, proponents of gun-control legislation might make a straw man out of the legislation's opponents by arguing that pro-gun people don't want any restrictions at all on gun ownership and types of ownership. While there may be some truth in that the proposed legislation seeks to ban assault weapons, there is no part of any proposed bill that requires all gun owners to turn in every type of gun they own. Sentiments like "Obama's going to take all our gunz" is a straw man argument against proposed gun control legislation. The general purpose of a straw man argument is to present an opponents position in a way that makes it seems ridiculous, weak, and obviously wrong.Ī great source for straw man arguments is any heavily biased news source. A straw man argument often contains a grain of truth, but the opposing position is so blown out of proportion it is hardly recognizable. It differs in that a straw man doesn't address the opposing argument because it misrepresents or distorts it. The straw man argument is similar to the red herring in that it doesn't address the actual argument. When you use the Latin names you can really impress your friends.yay! Some of them you may have heard of: non- sequitur, ad hominem, and tu quoque. The red herring fallacy has many cousins and sub-species which we'll examine later in the course. That is to say, Glaucon's opinion of Rebecca as a person has no bearing on whether she's a good singer or not-regardless of what day of the week it is. In short, Socrates' premises are not relevant to the conclusion he's trying to support, that Rebecca Black is a great singer. Instead of replying to Glaucon's argument by addressing his premises or reasoning, Socrates brings up an issue irrelevant to the argument. Glaucon's argument is that Rebecca Black's voice isn't very good, and he provides reasons. Socrates: Why do you hate her? OMG, you're so mean! If it weren't or if she were singing live you'd hear that she's out of tune. Glaucon: Whatev, her voice is auto-tuned. Her voice is a combination of Jesus and Fergie. Socrates: Rebecca Black is such a great singer. Let's look at an example from Plato's Republic: Its premises are irrelevant to the conclusion it seeks to negate/oppose. Basically, a red herring is an objection to a position that doesn't address the actual issue being debated. Both fallacies can be either intentional or unintentional.Ī red herring is "an attempt to shift debate away from the issue that is the topic of an argument" (Groarke & Tindale p. They are the red herring and the straw man. There are many different types of fallacies but the two that we will look at here have to do with how premises relate to the context of an argument. Fallacies are intentional or unintentional (common) mistakes in argument. Now we're going to look at the dark side of arguments: fallacies. The concept of validity can be further sub-divided into two components: (i) premise relevance and (ii) premise sufficiency. In the last post we looked at the properties of a strong argument: (a) premise acceptability and (b) logical force (i.e., validity).
0 kommentar(er)
