However, by falsely implying that those who oppose Syrian refugee immigration are against widows and orphans, it’s much easier to argue against than their actual position. Almost nobody is claiming that Syrian widow and orphan refugees pose a threat it’s mostly the males of military service age that people have expressed concern over. A strawman argument first distorts the opponent’s actual position, making it easier to argue against. It’s typically used when the person making the attack has run out of valid arguments, and so they resort to name-calling. It’s not a rational argument it’s attacking the person, rather than their argument. An ad hominem attack is simply an insult or name-calling. There was a link on my newsfeed to a news report of President Obama making the following statement in regards to those who oppose Syrian refugee immigration: “Apparently they’re scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America.” Illogical arguments aren’t limited to social media memes. In a bifurcated argument, the possibility of alternative solutions is ignored. The fallacy is that in reality, we do not have to choose one or the other – we can do both. These memes present us with a choice: Either you support the American homeless, or you can support refugees. Look at that poor little child! Look at those homeless veterans! How could you be so cruel as to ignore them and help refugees? Tugging on people’s emotions is not a rational argument.Ī second fallacy is the either – or fallacy, also known as bifurcation or a false dilemma. There are a couple of logical fallacies embedded in these memes.įirst, like many memes, the pictures are selected for their appeal to emotion. The entire argument is shown as preposterous when one uses the same form to argue against other issues: It’s an attempt to distract from the actual issue being debated or discussed. It’s also an example of a red herring argument. Propaganda is defined by Webster as “the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person.” This argument is really nothing more than a weak attempt to exploit the legitimate issue of terrorism in order to discredit God. Just because someone has an anti-religious beliefs doesn’t make religion bad. It’s also an example of wishful thinking and manipulative propaganda. There is no factual basis for this argument. An emotional, arbitrary, and ill-informed opinion is substituted for an accurate and factual assessment of the issue. This one is an example of the fallacy of prejudicial conjecture. Still, unlike the M&Ms, it’s not random chance. Granted, these protocols aren’t foolproof, and extreme caution should be taken. Unlike the M&Ms, there are vetting procedures in place that can reliably identify some people as terrorists, and some people as non-threats.
Some – small children, for example – can be fairly easily determined to not be terrorists. Second, the analogy implies that it’s impossible to determine whether any of the M&Ms are poison – they are all identical. Whether or not we help refugees is a moral issue. The analogy breaks down for a couple of reasons. The argument is that since you would reject all of the M&Ms rather than risk eating a poison one, we should reject all Syrian refugees because there may be some terrorists embedded. Here are a sampling of them: The M&M Argument I took a random sampling from my Facebook newsfeed, and found numerous quotes and memes that are utter nonsense. The current discussion of the Paris terrorist attacks and debate over President Obama’s push to bring Syrian refugees to the United States is a case in point.
The irksome thing to me is that most of the people making these arguments have no idea just how irrational they are. It seems that the more emotional the discussion, the more ridiculous the arguments.
0 kommentar(er)
