The Logical Fallacies of the American Right 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 right wing, known for such Messiahs as Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump, Trent Lot and the contract man himself, Newt Gingrich.
God love them, the conservative side of the American political spectrum says they believe in limited government, personal responsibility, strong defense and low taxes.
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 right…
…but let’s start calling out logical fallacies when we hear them.
No True Scotsman
This argument states that based on your understanding of what it means to be an American, there’s no way that someone who agrees with the opposing view can possibly be a real American.
Bill O’Reilly, is that you?
You know, September 11th is a sacred day in our country. Can you really vote for someone that was on a vacation on September 11th back in 2006? The wound was still fresh then. He’s no true American.
Opposing opinions are very rarely sinister in nature. Usually, they have the same desire encased in different method.
Tu Quoque
When you don’t have to answer a criticism because you have noticed a similar or applicable criticism that is true of the other side, which justifies and exonerates your side from being worthy of critique any longer.
I am looking at you, Sean Hannity.
Mr. Trump is firing off executive orders like some sort of dictator!
Yea, well did you see how many orders OBAMA signed in his time in office?
And what does that have to do with the real issue, presidential scope of power?
Anecdotal
This type occurs when you can completely ignore measurable facts because you had a personal experience, and now you announce it publicly to your supporters so they will repeat it as if it’s universal truth in order to silence the opposing beliefs.
This is only every congress person ever.
Look, Bill, I have been back home with my constituents in town halls across my state, and people are now aware that Obamacare has completely failed, they are angry and they are demanding that we repeal it before we destroy our economy.
You aren’t helping us at all when you disregard what is actually happening in our nation. And don’t tell me how many people agree with you. Tell me why your plan will be successful if implemented.
The Gambler’s Fallacy
This is the belief that success or failure comes purely by result of the virtue of the candidate you chose/didn’t choose and has nothing to do with statistical evidence of causality.
In my home state, ever since the GOP took control in 1999, we have had the highest GDP and export in the country.
But did you mention that an oil field was discovered that year that had nothing do you with your political party? We need truth in advertising to make accurate assessments of the success or failure or your policies.
Special Pleading
This happens when you change the criteria of success from one person to another because you aren’t currently meeting the standard you once held for the other guy.
You know, we are 100 days into the presidency of this “Community Organizer” and his inexperience is really starting to show. What has he accomplished?
Well, you have to remember that Mr. Trump is an outsider. He doesn’t have all that insider information. It’s gonna take him some time to get used to Washington. He’s only been there 100 days.
Well, is a man inexperienced and novice or is he inexperienced and a fresh perspective? Which is it?
Appeal to Nature
This happens when you point to something that would, without intervention, occur naturally and therefore conclude that it’s good and should be unhindered.
What these crazy environmentalists won’t tell you is that oil is a naturally occurring substance, and therefore, isn’t going to hurt anything in the long run if it spills. Nature takes care of nature.
Nature is not independent of logic. We live in a logical universe. If something should be, it will also have inherent reasons why it should be.
Loaded Question
This attack avoids the question at hand and establishes a condemnation on the person if they answer in opposition without any review of the reason for their answer.
Cough, Tucker Carlson, cough
Mr. So and So, are you telling me that you want terrorists coming here and murdering our children? Because why else wouldn’t you want to bomb villages with drone strikes?
Emotion and worst case aside, let’s find out the pros and cons of political decisions.
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.
