Logical Fallacies 11/26/16

     As we have learned in class this week, logical fallacies are flawed reasoning that often undermines the logic of an argument. There are countless examples of logical fallacies, including Ad Hominem, Strawman, Slippery Slope and Bandwagon. Although these logical fallacies are technically 'flawed', they are easily disguised and thus can be very persuasive and manipulative; making them very effective. For this reason, logical fallacies can be practically seen anywhere in today's society. One example is Ad Hominem, where a person would directly attack their opponent rather than their opponent's position or argument. This is clearly seen throughout the 2016 presidential election where candidates such as Donald Trump used Ad Hominem to attack and cast doubt on others. To demonstrate, he constantly made sexist remarks about Hillary Clinton, called Bernie Sanders a "socialist whack job" and Ted Cruz a "maniac". All of which were attacks on his opponent's character or personal traits as opposed to their arguments. By doing so, Trump was able to undermine his opponent's case without having to directly engage with it. Even though this type of argument is considered a fallacy, Donald Trump, now President-elect has clearly showed us how successful it can be. Another example is Bandwagon, where a person appeals to popularity to seek validation. This is often seen in advertisements or commercials, which often takes the form "Number one in..." or "America's favorite..." By using the majority of the population, the argument becomes more appealing to the audience and makes the product seem more desired as nobody wants to be different or left out. Ultimately, it is clear that logical fallacies can be very persuasive and effective given the right circumstances and audience. Nevertheless, some logical fallacies are flawed and are simply not persuasive. Take Slippery Slope for example, which is an argument that says, if A happens then Z will too. However, there is often no connection between A and Z let alone proof that A causes Z. Despite this, Slippery Slope is still widely used. As my mother's personal favorite, I will often times hear things like "If you don't wear a hat during the winter, your head will hurt!" needless to say, this does not get rid of my hatred towards hats and I still don't wear them. My point is, logical fallacies can be found anywhere, and can be either persuasive or not.

Response to "Don't Fight Flames With Flames Social Media Arguments: Can't-Win Propositions"

     In the article, "Don't Fight Flames With Flames Social Media Arguments: Can't-Win Propositions" the author argues that social media arguments are impossible to win and thus they are useless and a waste of time. Starting the piece with an anecdote, he shares his own experience with social media and how he got into a Twitter argument about Trayvon Martin (the main news story at the time). Using imagery to support his claim, the author states, "My phone lit up like flashing Christmas lights as hate-filled messages were hurled at me." By showing how instantaneous social media is and how people always find faults in the opinions of others, the author essentially admits that he was foolish for engaging in the conversation in the first place. Specifically, the author says, "I know, how could I be so stupid? To think that I could have a constructive conversation about something on social media..." Ultimately, his sarcastic and humorous writing makes the piece more fun and allows the readers to make their own connections to social media. Nevertheless, the author leaves many questionable terms undefined. For example, what does it mean to win? Throughout the article the author constantly reminds us that we can't win an argument on social media, and that it is best to ignore the situation. But what does it really mean to win? Can learning something new be winning?
Additionally, the author never clearly defined an argument only ever comparing an argument to controversial topics such as "Gaza, Israel, Justin Bieber, the N.S.A., and President Obama". However, in reality anything can become an argument as long as one person disagrees. Still, the author uses diction to develop pathos more specifically, the fear people have of feeling rejected or proven wrong to discourage social media arguments. To demonstrate, he describes social media arguments using words such as "vicious" and "attacks" which have negative connotations that are associated with feelings of hate. Likewise, it is evident that the author is exaggerating the situation. For instance, the author says, "...offer even the slightest morsel of opinion on something. Then watch what happens... the digital mob is upon you." Although there will be people that disagree there will ALWAYS be others that will agree, no matter what the argument is. With so many people connected through social media it is impossible not to. For this reason, social media may not be as scary or as impossible to "win" as the author makes it seem.

Fear the Toaster (11/6/16)

     In the article, "Why You should Fear Your Toaster More Than Nuclear Power" author Taylor Pearson addresses the fear over nuclear energy and explains how it is much needed due to it being safe, clean and efficient. Starting with the recent nuclear disaster in Japan, evident in headlines such as "Japan Nuclear Disaster Tops Scale" Pearson immediately acknowledges his opponents. Stating that these claims have only reignited fear of nuclear energy and that it is nothing more than "media sensationalism" Pearson quickly dismisses his opponents and moves into his own argument. By using multiple opinions from experts in their field as well as renown organizations, the author was able to develop his credibility and strengthen his claim. For instance, Pearson quotes the World Heath Organization, the U.S. Department of Labor, officials from Tokyo Electric Power Company, a Professor at Stanford University and more; all of which creates his ethos. Additionally, by directly addressing the fears of the people over nuclear energy such as the death toll, radiation, and waste, Pearson was able to successfully defend his claim. To demonstrate, Pearson uses statistics such as "...in the United States, there have been zero deaths caused by nuclear power accidents" he compares this to oil drilling which is "responsible for approximately 125 deaths every year in the United States". By doing so, Pearson shifts the attention elsewhere and causes people to question other means of energy production. Similarly, the author also compares nuclear energy to common household appliances such as the toaster, which he claims is more damaging than nuclear energy as it kills more people. Essentially, this leaves an argument that everything could potentially be dangerous and thus, it is imperative to choose the best option that will benefit the most overall, in this case it is nuclear energy.