The Logical Fallacies of the American Left Wing
One half of a list of grievances…
**Don’t forget the second half of this list of errors in debate and discourse by our friends on the other side of the aisle that I have posted in the link above.
No one is perfect, but they all sure strive to be, or at least to appear to be. In an age of 24 hour news full of 30 second sound bites, it isn’t the issues that matter; it’s how you frame it, rationally, logically or something more sinister.
In today’s conversation, we will take on the left wing, known for such Messiahs as Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer and the always amicable Nancy Pelosi.
God love them, the liberal side of the American political spectrum says they believe in equality, social justice, women’s rights and nationalized healthcare.
But all the world is a stage, and the audience is just along for the ride whether or not the arguments make any sense.
So, for your consideration, I present to you none of the arguments for or against the philosophy of the left…
…and all the logical fallacies they commit.
Strawman
This argument misrepresents what the opposing side means by their argument by insinuating malevolent intentions.
You know, Rachel, this attack by the right to vote down this bill is just a blatant attempt to send women back 200 years because they consider them subservient to men.
Sometimes you should play out an argument to its end because you’ll see that statistically the population is quite reasonable and most likely has either misguided, uninformed or accurate opposing policy. They probably don’t have ill will.
Bandwagon
Here we find a false sense of accuracy based on the commonality of the idea or the number of people that are currently in agreement with the idea, and we give no statistical evidence.
Did you see how many thousands of people were marching on Washington today? That means something. That means the current administration is Nazism at it’s worst, and the people are fighting back.
How many people that are lathered up into any march or show of force is no evidence on the credibility of the argument they make. Protest with fact and not emotion only.
Ad Hominem
This attack diminishes an argument by making a direct personal accusation against the opposition in order to invalidate their position by association.
Tonight on (Insert MSNBC primetime show), Can Mitt Romney really have any policy that’s good for minority Americans when he once hired a black butler? Does Mitt see the urban community as any more than servants?
The TV has a way of making mountains out of mole hills, and you’d be surprised what things from your past would look really bad with editorial spin.
The Texas Sharpshooter
A cleverly researched argument that highlights a specific but incomplete segment of data in order to make one argument appear to have the evidence needed to be considered accurate.
The data clearly states that 70% of Americans are against the Republican proposal to further the ability of parents to have school choice.
Yes, but this makes sense when the sampling is 85% Democrat to 15% Republican. Each person needs to study to show they hold complete and not partial understanding of the evidence available.
Appeal to Emotion
This argument circumvents any empirical evidence and instead substitutes emotional pulls with the intent of guilting the hearer into believing the proposition based soley on the perceived human virtue it has.
If the GOP won’t vote for this bill restricting the purchase of toy handguns that resemble real ones, they are saying they don’t care about the safety of our children. They refuse over and over to enact gun laws that promote peace and safety!
Every issue can’t be an emotional one. Every vote can’t be a vote on truth, justice and the American way. Sometimes bills just need to pass or fail on their merits.
Personal Incredulity
This happens when someone is so sure of their own beliefs that it becomes impossible for them to understand how a person could come to any other conclusion, thereby making them obviously wrong
How could you have that view on race relations in America? Can’t you see what’s really going on? You’re throwing out cold heartless facts. You clearly are blind, and can’t discuss this realistically.
The degree to which one is submerged in his own thinking, right or wrong, is no indication of the credibility of the opposing argument.
Genetic
This fallacy says that the right or the wrong is determined not by the measure of its supporting evidence but by the source from which it comes.
You heard that from Fox News? Oh, I’m sure that it’s wrong then. They are all backward racist theocrats.
Hey, that guy’s father once worked in the Bush Administration. Must be part of the family monarchy tied to oil crooks.
There once was a man that said we should judge each other on the content of our character and not on things like where we came from.
Thanks to yourlogicalfallacy is.com, you can download a full sized fallacy poster and fill the inboxes of your congressperson and local nightly editorial staff.
