Logical Fallacies Part V
Hey hey! I want to talk to again you about logical fallacies! There are oh so many and I'd like to go over them. We are now on to part 5 of my series on Minds. In this series, we are only covering the actual fallacies and what they are, not the application of them or anything outside of the basics.
Remember for your argument to be logical, THOU MUST NOT COMMIT LOGICAL FALLACIES! Instead of just pointlessly copying and pasting, I will describe these in my own words for you, if that isn't your thing, check out the bottom for references. Otherwise, kindly read on...
https://media.giphy.com/media/Cz1it5S65QGuA/giphy.gifBlind Loyalty
This one should be fairly obvious. This is the notion that something is right or correct simply because it came from a respected or preferred source typically because you believe they are actually right. I remember when Kanye West made some insane claims that several influencers actually came out and said something similar to "We can't understand the genius of Kanye so we musn't question his actions."
That kind of thought process is dangerous. It's the same kind of thinking that has military units murdering children in foreign countries without questioning the motive. This could really be anything from siding with your parents, or the president or one's own side. This fallacy places loyalty above truth which is wrong because then people justify their actions using the big brain little brain fallacy we previously covered and say things claim to have just been following orders etc.
Blood Is Thicker Than Water (aka Favoritism)
This is very close to blind loyalty, however the difference here being that you may not actually value loyalty over truth, but you consciously choose to neglect the truth in order to side with that argument or action. So you may not actually believe that the side you are taking is the right or better side, but you choose it out of loyalty or tribalism. The blood is thicker than water term was coined from this being most closely related to nepotism. This is where you would almost always side with someone you are related to over someone you are not even at your own detriment. A good example could be that your family member doesn't like one of your workers so you fire them even though you never had any issues with their behavior, but you are automatically siding with the person you are related to.
Argumentum ad Baculum (aka Radicalization or Brainwashing)
This is translated to "beating an argument into." Essentially this means that they attempt to use drastic measures to force you into believing something. This is much less common amongst us debating, but more so used by larger groups with more influence. An obvious example of this is done by the government using sophisticated psychological manipulation to make you believe something is true. It's become so sophisticated that people may suffer from stockholm syndrome where they begin to side with their abuser as a means of survival. Brainwashing can also be accomplished by pleasure which is what we see a lot more happening to us as consumers and is covered in the next fallacy. This is interesting as it's used in two ways. Someone may claim that the "other" side is brainwashing you as a means to brainwash you into not seeing the truth from the other. The more obvious use case is where they use brainwashing tactics against you directly. An example of this could be subliminal messaging in TV shows and commercials to subconsciously convince you of something.
Bribery
This is a fairly obvious fallacy where you offer gifts of favors to convince someone to take your side. This is essentially the opposite of brainwashing, but operates under the same idea. Bribery typically comes in the form of someone paying you off to say or not say something that may hurt their argument. We also know that typically the effects of bribes do not last very long and must be continuous to be effective.
Calling Cards
This is a more modern fallacy that refers to dismissing an argument due to it's connection with a label. This is most commonly used to dismiss a very valid argument simply because it's overused when connected to the label. People may play a "card" connected to their side in order to win over others in that tribe. However this is most often used in the opposite sense where an argument is dismissed for having a connection to a card. So for example, in a situation where 2 people are being paid unfairly and the one making less money is a minority, they may bring up the fact that it's an issue, but because they mention that they believe it's because they are a minority, the opposition might say "don't play the minority card." Be careful with this fallacy because both sides abuse this. Someone who knows they can abuse the use of these privileges may do so and others who have valid reasoning may fall into this category because of those taking advantage of it. Today this is a very controversial fallacy and it's hard to know exactly who is in the right. We must very non-biasedly observe the argument to ensure which side is speaking from a point of logic.
https://media2.giphy.com/media/eLudircQfgGEU/giphy.gifCheck out these 2 resources I like to use and often refer to:
http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.htm
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
If you love philosophy as much as I do, feel free to give me a thumbs up and share your thoughts.
If you want to make sure people aren't committing logical fallacies be sure to REMIND them!
Check out part 4 in the logical fallacies series!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Check out my previous article <
🙌 You can also follow me on:
Twitter - https://twitter.com/Scottcbusiness
Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/ScottCBusiness
Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/scottcbusiness
LinkedIn - https://ca.linkedin.com/in//scottcbusiness
Steemit - https://steemit.com/@scottcbusiness
Minds - https://www.minds.com/scottcbusiness
Discord - ScottCBusiness#5242