Your image explicitly targets “ghouls” in the “Mainstream Media” and “the Dems,” with no attempt to qualify or quantify. Given the wording and your prior commentary, it is likely aimed at people who oppose or question the legality, ethics, or scope of the administration’s alleged strikes on boats justified as “narco-terrorism.”
Here are some of the fallacies:
Straw man: Opposition to potentially illegal or unethical state action is recast as “cheering for narco-terrorists.”
False dichotomy: You either support the administration’s actions wholesale, or you are on the side of the bad guys. No room is left for lawful enforcement, skepticism, or restraint.
Hasty generalization: Even if isolated examples of literal cheering existed, treating them as representative would be no more valid than claiming (based on actual comments that appear on this blog) that all ERJ readers are racists.
Appeal to emotion: Invoking Len Bias is meant to provoke moral outrage, not establish relevance. Citing heuristics does not justify exploiting them, it only explains how the manipulation works.
It's a bundle of rhetorical shortcuts that sacrifices sincerity under the guise of efficiency. Which is par for the course here, just funny to see so many of them distilled into a single image.
So many logical fallacies wrapped into one pictures - well done. You build straw men and attack them, it's pathetic.
ReplyDeleteYears from now, when you inevitably try to distance yourself from this conflict and this administration as a whole, you will not be allowed to forget.
Please list the logical fallacies.
DeleteThe heuristics I am referencing can be found here: https://people.umass.edu/biep540w/pdf/Tversky%20article%20JudgementUncertainty.pdf
Specifically "Biases due to the retrievabitity of in-
stances" and "Biases of irnaginnbility",
Your image explicitly targets “ghouls” in the “Mainstream Media” and “the Dems,” with no attempt to qualify or quantify. Given the wording and your prior commentary, it is likely aimed at people who oppose or question the legality, ethics, or scope of the administration’s alleged strikes on boats justified as “narco-terrorism.”
DeleteHere are some of the fallacies:
Straw man: Opposition to potentially illegal or unethical state action is recast as “cheering for narco-terrorists.”
False dichotomy: You either support the administration’s actions wholesale, or you are on the side of the bad guys. No room is left for lawful enforcement, skepticism, or restraint.
Hasty generalization: Even if isolated examples of literal cheering existed, treating them as representative would be no more valid than claiming (based on actual comments that appear on this blog) that all ERJ readers are racists.
Appeal to emotion: Invoking Len Bias is meant to provoke moral outrage, not establish relevance. Citing heuristics does not justify exploiting them, it only explains how the manipulation works.
It's a bundle of rhetorical shortcuts that sacrifices sincerity under the guise of efficiency.
Which is par for the course here, just funny to see so many of them distilled into a single image.
Are you making it a personal mission, Gary?
ReplyDeleteMore of a natural result of sticking to principles.
Delete