Thinking Errors in Modern Political Rhetoric

I've been reviewing a lot of philosophy lately. A Facebook "conversation" in which I was engaged with a Facebook friend inspired me to review the basic rules of logic. There are some fundamental logical fallacies that I've found, one of which I wrote an extensive piece on not long ago.

As I listen to modern political discourse, I hear conservatives and liberals making the exact same logical errors. The difference is in the conclusions that are drawn from the logical errors. I've decided to list some here in this blog post, with examples, so that hopefully you can identify these logical fallacies when they are used.

This is important.

This is very important.

These logical fallacies are fundamental to critical thinking. Without understanding these, we become people who accept things at face value. Not knowing them, we become sheep who simply chant the slogans of political ideologues on the right or left. Without them, we make foolish choices in our government leaders, because we have not stopped to think for ourselves about whether the content of their campaign messages have merit.

So here are some basic thinking errors:

Argumentum ad hominem: I've written about this one already, as I noted in the first paragraph. Basically, this is when someone responds to an argument with a personal attack against the person who is making the argument. When talking to liberals, I've been called a racist, a mysogynist, a homophobe, an "angry, religious, white man," and any other number of names. The conservatives are as guilty of this as the liberals. Anne Coulter has written books that insinuate that liberals are akin to terrorists. People accuse liberalism of being a "mental illness," which is a very subtle attack against the person who espouses liberal ideals. These are all personal attacks that do not address the problem. I've decided from now on that if I get into a conversation with someone, and their response is that I'm racist or anything else, I will not become defensive. That is a distraction to the point of the argument. From now on, if the response is an argumentum ad hominem, my response is going to be, "Ok, assuming that what you say about me personally is true, what does that have to do with the point I just made?"

Fallacy of False Alternatives: This one is used A LOT in modern political rhetoric. Some of the liberal uses are: "If we defund Planned Parenthood, women will not have access to needed medical care and will die." That's not true, there are multiple, multiple resources out there for women of low income to access medical care. Forcing PP to survive off of private donations will not result in the death of women due to lack of medical care. Another liberal use we hear in the gun debate today: "Allowing assault weapons will result in the deaths of many innocent people." A quick look at crime statistics will tell you that this is not the case. I've written about this before, too. The number of so-called "assault weapons" used in crimes is actually quite low. You have more of a chance to be stabbed by a kitchen butcher knife in a crime than of being shot with an "assault weapon." Conservatives use this: "Any regulation results in a socialistic style government, and goes against the intentions of our founding fathers." This is not true. The fact is that the federal government is charged in the constitution with regulating interstate and international commerce. The founding fathers saw the need for this type of regulation from the federal government. So the question is not whether there should be regulations, but what should be the scope of the regulations.

Ambiguity Fallacy: This fallacy, and its close cousin, The Fallacy of Equivocation, occurs when a word that is used is not clearly defined. The best example of this that I've come across in modern political discourse is the liberal left's cry that, "The rich should pay their fair share." There are two sets of ambiguous terms in this sentence. First, the word "rich." Who are the rich? What income level or tax bracket should be considered rich? President Obama has said on occasion that the "rich" are those making more than $250,000 per year. Of course, on other occasions, he has said that the "rich" are those who make more than $200,000 per year. Then on other occasions, he has defined it as those making more than $150,000 per year. Even the President's varying definitions demonstrate that "rich" is a highly subjective term. For example, a child whose parents bring home a collective $35,000 per year may think that a family that brings home $75,000 per year are rich. This word is too ambiguous to mean anything. Even more hard to define are the words, "fair share." What is a "fair share"? Should that be defined as an amount of money that "the rich" are allowed to keep out of their own annual income? What percentage of their annual income should they be forced to pay in order to be considered "fair"? Or should "fair share" be defined as a percentage of the total of tax revenue the government receives? For how much of the total tax revenue that goes to the government should the "rich" be responsible before it is considered to be their "fair share"? Another example is in the gun control argument, when people toss around the term "assault weapon." What is an "assault weapon"? Under Senator Feinstein's proposed legislation, the adding of a plastic pistol grip to certain guns would make that gun an "assault weapon", and therefore illegal. The fact that this very same gun is legal without the pistol grip, which is a cosmentic feature that has no effect on the functionality or lethality of the weapon, is irrelevant. Ambiguous terms are tossed around all too often.

Straw Man Argument: This occurs when someone tells you what you believe, and then proceeds to tell you why what you believe is wrong. Usually, in my experience when this happens to me, the person has no concept at all of what I actually believe. They have constructed arguments against an opponent that they have also constructed. Liberals and conservatives do this regularly. The most famous recent example is Clint Eastwood's "empty chair" speech that he gave at the Republican convention. Straw man arguments are easy to recognize. They usually begin with the words, "Well, you believe that..." or "The only reason you think that is because..."

Poisoned Well Argument: This is closely related to both the Argumentum ad Hominem and Straw Man Argument. The poisoned well argument states that there is something wrong with the source of information one uses to back up the points of an argument. This is what happens when people discount entirely a news organization, like the mainstream media, MSNBC, or FOX NEWS. If it came from MSNBC, it must be just more liberal jargon. If it came from FOX NEWS, it must be just more conservative crap. This argument does not address the issue or information, but rather states that because of the source of the information or issue, the information or issue has no merit.

"No True Scotsman" Argument: This argument, again, is closely related to others. This argument comes from the old statement, "Angus eats quiche. No true Scotsman eats quiche. Therefore, Angus (despite the fact that he is born and raised in Scotland) cannot be a true Scotsman." You set up the argument in such a way that any exception to your statement is dismissed automatically. Certain Christian denominations use this logical fallacy when they discuss their concept of salvation. "Once you have accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you have gained salvation. A true believer cannot lose salvation. Person A professed his faith, but is no longer a Christian. Therefore, Person A was never a true believer." This argument is used by people trying to desparage the Christian Conservative movement. "One of Christianity's mandates is to help the poor. The Christian Conservative movement opposes government assistance to the poor. Therefore, those who oppose government assistance to the poor are not true Christians." This argument depends on the fallacy of false alternatives. The person has stated that the only alternatives are government assistance to the poor or no assistance to the poor. The person does not recognize that there are multiple private charities who provide assistance to the poor. The person making this argument also conveniently overlooks the fact that the majority of Christian Conservatives donate more time, talent and treasure to charitable organizations privately than any other sector, and significantly more than members of the liberal left who make this argument criticizing the Christian Conservative movement. There are multiple ways to help the poor without government mandating it through the tax funded entitlement programs. This means that someone could be a true Christian and still oppose the government entitlement programs, because the person uses personal time, talent and treasure to support private charities.

Appeal to Popularity: This logical fallacy is exactly what it sounds like. In an argument, it occurs when someone states, "Well, the majority now support (proposition A). Therefore, (proposition A) should be our course of action." Whether or not the majority support a proposition or stance is irrelevant to the merit of that proposition or stance. Remember, the majority of Americans once supported slavery. This was used when Bush invaded Iraq. Public support was garnered to help justify the war in Iraq. This is also being used in the gay marriage debate. It is irrelevant whether the majority either support or reject gay marriage. The merits or demerits of allowing homosexuals to marry stand independent of public sentiment.

Lastly, the Appeal to Authority Fallacy: The person whom I mentioned at the beginning of this post told me in one of our conversations that, "If Warren Buffet, one of the richest men in America, believes the rich should pay more in taxes, I listen, and you should too." That's an appeal to authority, plain and simple. "This authoritative or famous person said it, therefore it must be true." Conservatives do this just as often with their frequent appeals to Ronald Reagan. As a conservative, I'm about to commit heresy. It is possible that Ronald Reagan was wrong. The facts and soung logic of an argument have to hold the argument together, not the arguer or the authority who first advanced the argument.

And there's the crux. There is too much rhetoric these days that is based on emotion, not on fact and sound, philosophical reasoning. It's really irritating to me. I mean really irritating. It's so irritating that I've made a personal decision not to engage in political conversations with people who demonstrate basic thinking errors in their conversations. Conservative or liberal, doesn't matter to me. At the point I realize you are just spouting the mantras of your political side, I will not talk to you about politics anymore.

In my opinion, these basic, fundamental rules of logic should be taught in schools, starting at an early age. This type of knowledge helps people be prepared to vote. This is information that can help us hold our politicians accountable for their actions and words.

Don't be a sheep. Learn to think for yourself. Learn the basic rules of logic. Then we, as a people, might be able to think our way out of the mess our politicians, held unaccountable and unquestioned, have led us into for too long.