Either/or; There's no in-between

Fallacies are such a big part of our world; not only in advertising or politics, but also heavily present in writing. A fallacy that sticks out to me is False Dilemma, also known as the "either/or" fallacy. The purpose of this writing technique is to get readers to choose only one of the given two options. This is also very common among salespeople and negotiators. The trick is simple, if you only present the options that you want them to choose, then they feel obligated to pick one or the other; there is no option for a different pick. I think this is very interesting to use because it subtly effects everyone.

The more I thought about this fallacy, I remembered a specific incident on a trip that I went on this past summer. While traveling through Venice, Italy I learned how obvious it was to the natives how foreign Americans looked. They used prada and other expensive things for bait, once they caught someone with the slightest bit of interest, even just an ounce caused them to pounce. At first I was so called "victimized". Casually, walking through the streets, my eyes would wander to the appealing items. Just going the slightest bit in their direction all of a sudden a sales person would appear from behind the stand. I would quickly back away and act like I wasn't interested, however as soon as that happened I now realize this is when they would start offering deals. They made it no option to leave without something in your hands from them. They would push and push, asking what I wanted, then once I cracked they wouldnt stop. It is so apparent now that all they wanted or needed was a sale. It did not matter what I walked away with, as long as it was something.

Luckily I quickly learned their ways, and would only approach if I was looking for something specific. Because let me tell you, those sales people were excellent at using the False Dilemma fallacy. They could make you decide between an either/or, with no exception. 

False Analogy

One logical fallacy is a false analogy; which is an analogy drawn between things that are more different from each other then they are similar. This is a popular method, creating an analogy of two things, mostly because it’s more memorable, and the audience is likely to remember the example later. The way to recognize this fallacy is to pay attention to times when analogies are used in situations, probably more often than not, in persuasive settings. A lot of the time, the speaker will probably want to use emotional comparisons, since their audience will be more likely to be drawn into the situation, and more than likely will answer the speakers call to action. That’s when it gets really hard to tell the difference between a real comparison and just a logical fallacy; when people’s emotions or when they get emotionally wrapped around a situation, it gets a lot harder to separate the difference between the false analogy. I think a good example would be like that commercial clip we watched in class of the new Nissan car, and how if we bought it and drove it, a polar bear would come and hug us in gratitude for saving its home. In reality, this probably isn’t the most likely of situations, since the polar bear wouldn’t walk all the way to the city, just to thank us for buying that particular car. But because the commercial introduced us to the polar bear, and we watched its sad eyes as it’s world was slowly being destroyed, we formed a connection with that polar bear all the way out in the arctic. And because we formed that emotional connection, we would want to help that polar bear in any way that we could. When we stop to think about the analogy that the author of that commercial was trying to draw however, it’s hard to separate our emotions for wanting to help that poor polar bear, and from the reality that us buying a certain brand and type of a car probably will not result in a polar bear hug. But it’s hard to get that mental picture out of your head of that polar bear suffering out there, while it’s home is slowly being destroyed. That tugs on your heart strings, and you want to help that poor polar bear in any way if you can, even if it’s just a small difference. That’s probably what the author of that commercial’s intent was, to draw a memorable comparison because it’s more likely that people will want to do something, and they’ll answer that call to action, which is exactly what that car company wants.      

Oversimplification

There are many different types of fallacies in the world of rhetoric, and since learning about their specific names, I have definitely started noticing them more and more in the world. One that I have found to be particularly prevalent in much of what I read is the logical fallacy called oversimplification. This is where a writer will take a whole issue, or question, or idea, and narrow it all down to just one point, or a couple of main points, that will usually summarize an issue nicely without addressing the details and facts of it. They can be difficult to identify overall sometimes, but they are generally wrapped up in short sentences or phrases that stick out to you, so other times they may be easy to see. Typically, when I am looking out for them is when I will see them the most, and once I have identified them, I can better judge whether or not I trust the argument as a whole after seeing their use of this fallacy.

The problem with oversimplification is that many issues that are even worth talking about or debating about are complex enough that you can’t honestly just boil them down to one thing and ignore the rest of the argument. I think this fallacy really gets to me because it doesn’t acknowledge the many details and exceptions involved in a problem, which are often abundant. It can be very difficult to make sure you don’t do this in your writing; I have done it myself without realizing it. The difficulty is in the fact that when we talk about things it is typically in an abstract, analytical, separate way from the actual happenings in the world having to do with them. When we examine the issue away from the action, and away from all of the emotional charge, and adrenaline, it is easier to see things simpler, and to reassure ourselves that there is just one tidy solution for the whole thing. We want to do that by nature because we want to fix the issue, and oversimplifying it makes it easier to talk about doing just that. However, it is usually not as simple as it is made out to be. The article we read in class yesterday on immigration is a prime example of this. Most issues really should be simplified in context to some extent so they are easier to work through, but immigration is definitely a complex issue, or we wouldn’t still be debating it after all these years of dealing with our dysfunctional system and trying to figure out what to do about it. But the fact that this strategy is still used demonstrates that it must be effective to some point, and it continues to be used, whether intentionally or not. It may be hard to detect if you are invested in an argument in an emotional way, and it is something you’d like to have wrapped up neatly into one box and kept there. Sometimes we would like to do that, but we are often forced to acknowledge that we just can’t over-simplify things to the point that the real issues at hand are hidden in the background, not being addressed. Ultimately, it is important to recognize the valid points from all angles of an issue, and to give a fair analysis to both sides. Because no matter what kind of rhetorical devices they use, the best policy is always just to seek the truth wherever it may be found. 

Excuse Me While I Drag This Fish Through Here

        Fallacies are often unavoidable and can be used to make your writing more interesting to the reader, but that doesn't mean you should purposefully use them. Fallacies like Card-Stacking or Word Choice are ones many of us use in our writing without noticing, but like the fallacy Ad Populum, just because everyone else is doing it doesn't mean you should.  Many times fallacies are unethical, bring up false information to make the argument seem more valid or lies about the opposing argument. Sometimes the fallacy can assume things of the reader, that they know about a certain topic or that they associate with a certain group.

        A fallacy I believe should be avoided at all cost is Red Herring. Red Herring is directing your audience's attention to a different topic that has little to no relation to the original topic. The original use of the word comes from the use of dragging a fish through the trail of an escaping prisoner to make their path untraceable, making it more likely they would get away. When an author uses Red Herring, they are doing exactly that. When I come across the use of Red Herring, I can't help but question the validity of the author. I find often that it is used when the author is not educated enough on the original matter or they do not really care to begin with. In the Matt Walsh blog post that we read, he used Red Herring. His article was on immigration, but all of a sudden he throws in references to abortion. This made me feel as if he didn't really know what he was talking about and ran out of better arguments to make.

        Fallacies can be hard to avoid, but it is important that we aren't turning to them because we don't have any better evidence to validate our stances.

Poisoning The Well: Fallacy

One Fallacy that was discussed with my group this past Tuesday was that of "Poisoning The Well". To "Poison The Well" is when one presents an argument with either a biased opinion or in a very strong emotional manner that's impossible for those listening to respond without appearing to be immoral/dishonest. This type of fallacy may also include personal attacks and is actually (more often than not) used as a distraction to draw away from the real point of an issue. One example, my group was able to come up with is that we as Latter-Day Saints have missionaries that serve for either 18-24 months all over the world. One way many sister and elder missionaries encounter the fallacy of "poisoning the well" is when they go proselyting and encounter people who have already established beliefs of what mormons are all about so by the time the missionaries teach them they are already very skeptical about what they are telling them. To be more specific, when teaching non-members about the church many have heard from others that because we don't believe in the trinity we are not Christian. When that is actually not true at all. The name of our church clearly states "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints". Christ is the foundation of our beliefs. The very act of accusing us of not believing in Christ in this case can represent the ignorance and biased opinion one may have due to the “poison” that has entered their well. 

I, myself, plan to serve as a sister missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints this coming April so being aware that this fallacy does indeed occur (and it occurs quite often) when serving a full time mission will help me be able to better prepare when the time comes. I know that this opinion that will be shared by non LDS members will be a mere reflection of how their biased opinion has been infected by those around them. 

Moreover, there has been a time when I have had to encounter a fallacy towards the Church. My freshman year of High School I was accused for being a bad mormon because I wore jeans and make-up. My classmate then went on to explain how I clearly was not going to go to Heaven since it was against my religion to wear pants and make-up yet there I was in class with both jeans and make-up. Shocked, I laughed and told him that whomever had told him that was wrong. I mean, I have been a member my entire life and I had never heard of such a thing begin against any of God’ commandments. It was clear to me that these dour years of high school were going to be rather interesting one since Kingsburg (the small town I’m from) is very anti-mormon. There were going to be many wells that had probably been poisoned by either church leaders or parents. Though, I did encounter some weird accusations it was very humbling to be able to take that “poison” out of my classmates minds and explain our true beliefs. 

A Fallacy of Ethos

            For me, the most distinct and memorable experiences with rhetorical fallacy have come in the form of ethos.  It seems that this world craves authority.  As part of the pride of the natural man instilled within each of us, we want to be the boss and the leader.  Admittedly, I have these very same tendencies.  However, this has helped me to better distinguish between authority and fallacy.

            I distinctly remember an experience early in my mission in Litchfield Park, Arizona.  I had been serving for six months, and my companion had just stepped off the airplane a few weeks prior.  We were both new to the ward, and our goal was to meet every member on the roster.  We stopped by the Jones’ home.  We knew that both Brother and Sister Jones were returned missionaries, but had wavered in testimony in recent years.  Brother Jones had previously served in a ward bishopric, and was an attorney by profession.  We shared a message with them, and offered a kneeling prayer with their family.  It was a simple and brief visit.

            Brother Jones walked us to the front door, and continued on to the driveway with us as we walked to our bikes.  He began asking us very probing questions about race and the Priesthood, Joseph Smith and the history of polygamy in the church.  With ethical fallacy and cunning devices, he began to divulge to us the extensive research he had done to unfold the details of each of these mysteries within the church.  As an attorney, Brother Jones was an effective orator of rhetoric.  His arguments were convincing.  Many of his main points were difficult to dispute with our seemingly minuscule knowledge and wisdom.

            We rode home that night feeling belittled and abused.  I remember the puzzled look on my companion’s face, and I could see his mind racing and searching for answers to this condescending conversation.  I asked him a simple question that yielded a simple reply.  “Did you feel the Spirit while we were talking to Brother Jones?”  He replied “no,” and we decided that this clearly meant that his points had no validity. 

            In this experience, we were able to discern between fact and fiction.  Although we may have been temporarily deceived by a fallacy of ethos, we were ultimately able to distinguish the unreliability of this man and his contradictory opinion. 

            The Book of Mormon prophet Moroni teaches, “the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge. . .”  What a tremendous blessing!  Not only can we utilize the Spirit to discern between right and wrong, but we can use this gift as a tool to separate rhetorical fallacy from actuality.

Matt Walsh

Matt Walsh is a very honest writer. He writes how he thinks, and he isn’t afraid to step on anyone’s toes. In fact, it seems that he tries to get a reaction out of all of his audience, whether it be good or bad. I enjoy his style of writing because it is entertaining and makes me really think about the specific issue he is writing about, but there are times when many people could take offense at what he says. In his blog post titled, “Good news, fellas! Only women are required to be modest, apparently,” Walsh is trying to get across the point that while he believes women should dress modestly, he thinks men aren’t without blame, and that there are many different types of modesty other than that pertaining to the body. The rhetorical devices he uses to address these claims are evidence, metaphor, imagery, and connotation, among many others.

            One of his reasons for why he thinks women should dress modestly is because they will feel better about themselves. He uses the example that so many women complain of being objectified by men, and yes that’s party the fault of the men, but some of the blame is on the women. This example does make sense, but it could also get a rise out of many people. The evidence he uses always seems to appeal to a certain type of people, usually Christians. He also uses some metaphor to get this point across, when he says, “We are modest for the sake of our dignity, so as to avoid making of ourselves a shell, a construction, a label, a category; a phantom of someone else’s desires.” This creates vivid imagery in the minds of his readers, and is an effective way to help them to visualize what he’s saying.

            His validity for why men should be held accountable for immodesty as well is that they are being immodest by looking at these women. He uses metaphor to describe this phenomenon, beginning by saying that women are described as a “stumbling block” to men when they are being immodest, but going on and saying that men aren’t really trying to avoid stumbling whether a block exists or not.

            His last and main point is that bodily immodesty isn’t the only type of immodesty we should care about. He uses a connotation of the word modesty as a rhetorical device from the Catechism, “It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden… It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.”
           

            Through his use of well thought out rhetoric, Walsh effectively rallies his readers to care about different types of modesty and how we dress ourselves, while also infuriating those who are not fans of his writing methods. I don’t think he will ever please both sides of the issue, nor tries to, but if his intended audience is people who care about being modest, he successfully convincing them of his views by these methods.