Representing America - American Literature AP - Blog

Its Okay To Be Like Me Because I'm Making The World A Better Place

The rap superstar Lil' Wayne put out a 30 minute long PSA a couple days ago ,addressing the death of Steve Jobs reminiscing on how he should be remembered and how Wayne himself, would like to be remembered if he, a global icon like Steve Jobs were to die at a young age.  He also outed the media because of their portrayal on his effect on kids  being negatively influenced because of his actions. We all know Wayne as a pop culture icon. He represents hip-hop and his patent is known worldwide. But it seems that he's become more popular for his substance abuse than his records. When you see Wayne he is almost always carrying 2 white foam cups that may contain promethazine-codine, Sprite and a Jolly Rancher. This particular Southern beverage originated in Houston TX where rappers would drink this as an alternative way of getting high. In the beginning of the announcement, he makes sure to prove that he doesn’t drink syrup by showing that he is prescribed particular medication when he's sick and he claims not to be sick anymore.  He  passionately goes on and on in this announcement about originality and how people are afraid to say,"I do it because he does it" He says,"Whatever is the reason you're doing what you're doing, and if so that reason is because Lil Wayne does it, don't be afraid to say that."I'm passionate about it, so know why you doing it." To prove he's serious, he grabs a board and jumps onto his ramps on his rooftop. He skates a little bit, but he really doesn’t to anything noteworthy, admitting, "I'm in the process of learning, but I'm trying." He said that he saw a kid at the age of 9 doing various tricks on T.V and he wanted to do some of the tricks this kid did, so he went out and bought a board because of him.  He also added by saying, "your kid is watching me skate and he wants to play outside, I'm making the world a better place because I'm helping with childhood obesity". After these remarks he goes on about other various topics but these claims above stuck to me. I noticed that his faulty logic supported circular reasoning and I found a opposite parallel in which Ralph Waldo Emerson argues in "Self Reliance". He believes that insisting on yourself , never imitate. Your own gift can present every moment with the cumulative force of a whole life's cultivation; but of the adopted talent of another you have only an extemporaneous half possession...." Emerson argues to be your own individual and try not to imitate others. I just found it interesting that someone that has such a global impact would want his fan base not to believe in Transcendentalism like Emerson does but to follow the actions of other successful people in the world.

Prayer- Logical fallacy

One of the core practices of most religions is prayer. With Christianity, people pray to god, jesus, and saints. Everybody prays for different reasons, but they all are centered around either asking for guidence, of asking for help. They say that if you pray to god, then god will see fit that your want or need is satisfied to his liking. Prayer is an example of circular reasoning.

If you pray to god for ten thoasand dollars to be in ur mailbox the next day, there are only a couple of possible outcomes. Least likely scenario, you actually recieve then thoasand dollars in the mail and your faith in god increases dramatically. Another scenario is that you recieve a bonus chech from your work for two thoasand dollars. Christians would say that see god is looking out for you and even if you didn't get the ten thoasand, it is obviously god's doing that got you this two thoasand dollars.

Say you recieve no money at all and loan sharks come and break your legs, but you prayed to god, so why would he let this happen to you? The answer that any religious figure will tell you is that god has a plan and that he meant for that to happen to you. So are you suppossed to feel comforted by this? That really crappy stuff can happen to you even after you pray to god and the only supposedly logical explanation that religion gives you is that he meant for it to happen to you and it is all apart of his plan. You think that nobody would fall pray to that simple logical fallacy, however prayer has been around for centuries and has been falsely giving people faith in god. Prayer is pointless because no matter what the outcome is the answer is simply "god has a plan".

 

Sarah McLachlan Just Ruined My Day

 

Every single time this commercial comes on, I change the channel as soon as possible. Images of pitiful dogs and cats who apparently need my help accompanied by sad, sappy music has to be the best example of a sob story around.

A Sob Story, a logical fallacy in which the audience is bombarded by emotion-provoking ideas, could be among the most obnoxious logical fallacies of them all, especially if it interrupts my Sunday afternoon of football. How can I possibly be content with touchdowns and field goals while there are innocent animals out there dying all over the place?

This just so happens to lead to another fallacy: Either/Or. To quote Sarah McLachlan, the spokesperson of the SPCA, "This is your chance to say 'I won't sit by while an animal suffers.'" Either I donate money to this organization, or I am the reason some cat is being dismembered. While this may be an exaggeration, it is not the kind of situation I want to be thrown into. I guess I don't need to exaggerate because that's what Family Guy is for. Here is their take on the logical fallacies of the SPCA commercials:

Geico Gives You Chaos; Allstate Gives You Money

 

For a few years now the Allstate Insurance company has been showing commercials saying that the chaos guy will come destroy your house,car, and your valuables. At the end of every episode the chaos guy says that if you change to Allstate you will be better covered from chaos like him.

These commercials are a logical fallacy called Faulty Analogy. This means that you have an analogy but the logic is confusing so it might take the reader/listener a while to figure it out.

The chaos guy says:

If you got your home insurance from the same place you got your 15 minute car insurance, you should switch to Allstate. So you can be better pretected from chaos like me.

This is comparing a bad insurace company(Geico) to the great Allstate companyl. This can be confusing though because if you don't remember the Geico commercials you wouln't understand what company Allstate is saying not get or to get out of.

 

Either Destroy the Environment or Choose Our Car

 

Commercials in between your favorite television shows seem to only be trying to sell you their product.  In addition, they use different logical fallacies to persuade you to buy whatever they are selling.    

In this commercial for the Nissan LEAF the creators use an either/or fallacy.  In the beginning everyday life is shown with the seemingly simple replacement of electricity with gas.  The viewer before they know what the creator is trying to say already has the thought that everything running on gas in their head before the announcer even says anything.  Then once the announcer says "Then again what if everything didn't" run on gas the viewer is convinced that this product is the right thing to choose.  

The either/or statement usage in this commercial makes it seem like there are only to options destroying the environment by using gas to power everything or their new car.  Overall, the creators of this commercial use the either/or fallacy to make the viewer think that their car is the only logic option because the creators do not present all of the options.  

No, I Didn't Buy You a Falcon

Modern day media, more specifically television commercials, uses logical fallacies constantly to make an attempt at attracting customers.One example of a commercial using a logical fallacy is in a state Farm commercial were a man claims his insurance agent purchased a falcon for him, while it is obvious that the argument is completely untrue.

The basis of the character's argument is the fact that he saved tons of money switching insurance companies and he used the money he saved to buy a falcon ergo the insurance agent bought him a falcon. The fallacy the commercial incorporates is a Post Hoc ( the assumption that, because two things occur at the same time or in a sequence one is caused by the other). The flaw in the mans argument is the fact that it was his choice to buy the falcon. Just because he used money he saved to buy said falcon does not mean the insurance companyis responsible.

Though it is important to note that the insurance used the humor in how rediculous the argument was to attract customers, they were not trying to make a logical argument. Logical fallacies can be used to actually try to win an argument or to poke fun at how ridiculous arguments can be. Either way logical fallacies are used in modern day media to convey ideas and arguments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7ZpWFTUz34

20 Years Doesn't Make it Good

We've all seen commercials where the advertisers say something along the lines of "serving you for over 20 years" or something like that.  These advertisements are examples of the appeal to tradition logical fallacy.  What these commercials are saying is pretty much that their product is better because it is older.  They are not really selling their product with real reasons. 

One example is the Mercedes Benz commercial inserted at the bottom.  Even though it doesn't explicitly say that it is better because it is older, this commercial starts with a very old car and progressively gets newer.  It is trying to show that because the company has been around for a long time, it is obviously the best. What they are trying to say is that their car is the best one and that if a company hasn't been around as long, it is not as good.  This is the reason that the fallacy is a fallacy.  Older doesn't necessarily mean better, it just means older. 

 

Why Choose Pro-choice or Pro-life?

One of the most controversial arguments of the day is about abortion, but it really shouldn't be.  The problem is that the argument is set up as a logical fallacy.  The two sides, pro-choice and pro-life, create an either/or statement.

"Either you are for abortion, or you are for government control over women's personal decisions" or "Either you are against abortion or you are for killing babies."  There is absolutely no way to win.  For the most part, every American approves of women's rights and opposes murdering people, but the either/or  statement makes it seem like you have to choose.

The names of the two sides, "Pro-choice" and "Pro-life," completely avoid addressing each other.  To someone unfamiliar with American controvercies, it would appear to be two pro- sides to two different arguments because they have both decided to be in favor of something different.  The way I see it, it's the principle of having to choose between being for two very different things, not our basic beliefs that causes the problems.

In reality, everyone agrees.  It's just a matter of people's priorities,  so why can't we decide as a nation  that we want to stop unwanted pregnancies and focus on that instead?  In the mean time we can let people do what they believe.  That's what democracy is about anyway, right?

10 Items To Finish On Top

Watch this video before reading!

 

Superbowl ad's are always trying to outdo each other, trying to have the most comedic commercials of them all. This FedEx commercial tries to entertain their audience by listing out the top ten criteria to make a successful commercial. It starts off with "1.Celebrity", saying if you have a celebrity in your commercial everyone else will buy it because of them. Then it goes down a list, "2. Animal 3. Dancing Animal 4. Cute Kid" and so on. 

The fallacy used in this commercial Non Sequitur. The overall meaning to this ad is because you have all these things listed in our commercial, you will have a successful commercial. There are no others options to choose from in this commercial but the one's presented. Many other brands have presented good ads that include non of the following yet have became very popular and effective. 

This fallacy was used in a comedic way in order to capture the attention of millions of viewers watching the football game, yet it nonetheless is still a misconception. 

Cheese Run = Beer Run

 

Okay watching the SuperBowl is always fun, especially watching all of the funny commercials. Seeing this commercial still makes me laugh. The logical fallacy that it sends me right off the bat is that a wine and cheese tasting is so boring that men have to hide their beer and miniature tv just to get through the evening. This would be hasty generalization. This is not completely true because it you had paid attention to the beginning of the commercial, you would have seen at least two men having a good time. I even know some people that enjoy wine tastings so they can enjoy their food a little better when they go out to eat. Logical fallacy number 2: red herring. The men literally hide their secret stash of beer and things  inside these snazzy little containers not to bring attention to themselves. The only problem is that the cheese is way to big.  This is all to get  you to reason that 1) a football game is way better than a wine tasting, 2) a football game without beer. (I mean he goes to get more beer.), and 3) Beer is better than wine.

So AXE Can Get You Girls, Huh?

 

YES, YES, if you spray this on your body , billions of half-naked women will come groveling at your feet. This is the image that the creators of AXE like to show to advertise their must-have product. AXE specializes in grooming products such as, deodorant, body-wash, shampoo and hair stylers. Each product has their own specific scent that is uniqely pungant. The makers of AXE make it sure that you follow the step-by-step process of getting girls on the back of each spray bottle.

Yes, a "seductive fragrance with the effective deodorant protection" is supposed to get you "there" right? It seems like the creater's at AXE have their logic simply...distorted. Their making a hasty generalization that has no evidence to support the ultimate conclusion that you will attract women by using their product.

Logical Fallacies in the Republican Debate.

Overall the republican debate for presidency was rife with logical fallacies. This is not unique to the Republican party, but this form of debate seems to bring out appeals that are not to logic. Mitt Romney seemed to be using non-sequiturs when the first couple of questions were directed his way, he dodged questions by pulling out information that was not entirely related.

The moderator tried to use guilt by association against John Huntsman when he equated his plan with subsidies for natural gas companies with Obama’s attempts to provide subsidies for renewable energy.  This was damaging to him because the republican base will not support a candidate who is at all similar to Obama in political ideology.

Herman Cain was asked a question about his 999 Plan and how future presidents might use it to raise taxes and he used a non-sequitur to talk about the benefits of his plan without answering the question. Mitt Romney said the current economy was Obama’s economy and was using guilt by association by associating Obama with the current economic climate.

Rick Perry and Mitt Romney used Ad Hominem attacks against each other when Mitt Romney said he flip-flopped in his earlier position that pensions are unconstitutional, and Rick Perry responded that Mitt Romney had flip-flopped in his book over his health care plan in Massachusetts. Rick Perry, Michele Bachman, and Newt Gingrich all used the straw man argument when they contorted Obama’s positions to say that he is a socialist.

Newt Gingrich, and John Huntsman tried to create glory by association when they made references to Ronald Reagan who is largely admired within the Republican Party. 

 

To Judge, or Not to Judge?

That is the question. At least it is for "Judge" Danforth in Arthur Miller's The Crucible.

Why the quotations around Danforth's title? I think Danforth best explains it himself when he says, "I judge nothing" (91). And the truth is, he doesn't. While Danforth is supposed to hear evidence during the trials and make an unbiased decision on the innocence of the defendant, there's nothing unbiased about what he does. He accepts only the victim's evidence, since witchcraft is an "invisible crime." He uses illogical counter-arguments to disprove the defendant's innocent pleas. Danforth is not judging or deciding anything. He's just letting the whole situation play right into Abigail Williams's hands.

 And wait. If a person accused of witchcraft accuses someone else of witchcraft, she is saved? According to Salem's courts, the only way to avoid punishment by law is to lie and point fingers at others. A court is supposed to enforce the law and keep order in society, but the court in Salem has paved the way for chaos. Now everyone who wants to stay alive becomes part of a chain reaction in which anyone can be the next victim. And anyone who disagrees with the court is automatically a criminal. Apparently having an opinion is the equivalent of trying to overthrow the court, because as Danforth says, "a person is either with this court or he must be counted against it, there be no road in between" (94).

So can we call Danforth a judge, and his domain a court? Not at all.

Do We All Fall for Logical Fallacies?

After watching the movie with Robert DiNero about the McCarthyism Red Scare and reading McCarthy's speech, many logical fallacies can be pointed out. Even in today's society, many policiticians use logical fallacies to prove their point (a method of rhetoric). But do people really fall for these logical fallacies? Why do people fall for logical fallacies if they know it is one, or is it, that people can't distinguish logical fallacies? During the Red Scare, many logical fallacies were used, and also during the Witchcraft Trials. Why is it, that people couldn't see the ignorance and falsehood in some of the statements that were being made. Why is it that even today, logical fallacy can convince people to make that punch in that hole? If it's a logical fallacy, why then, do people continue to listen to them?

Let me know what you think!

Non-Sequitur in Axe Commercials

A non-sequitur is an argument where the conclusion has no relation to the premise. In many body spray commercials, it seems the same events take place each time. A guy takes out body spray, sprays it on himself, and girls come running up to him. This is a great example of a non sequitur. It is basically saying, if you buy this body spray, you will have girls all over you. Obviously this isn't true, and the conclusion (girls will be attracted to you) does not follow premise, which is buying the spray. Using Axe doesn't automatically guarantee that girls will want you. There are many commercials showing this example of a non-sequitur, but here is one that most of you have probably seen:

 

Fallacy Of Slippery Slope

Example: "We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!"

The person quoting this is trying to say that once they ban pornography, they are going to ban all other forms of literature. The fault is that they are assuming that they will ban all literature because they are only going to ban one type of genre. The fallacy being represented is slippery slope because the person is asserting that once action is going to lead to another without any argument.

Red Herring Fallacy = False Treasure Map

Red herring is a fallacy that means to mislead or to distract someone from the real argument or position. When I looked at the definition of this, it made me think of a childhood memory of mine that is a great and simple example of red herring. 

When I was about 8 I was doing a scavenger hunt with my class. All of the maps lead to the "treasure" but each one took different routes. One of my friends told me that there was a short cut down a little trail and that it lead to a better treasure and I decided to take it. When I went threw it I thought I would be at the treasure but I ended up right back where I had started. I was mislead by a wrong clue by my classmate which is red herring.

Governor Pat Quinn's Campaign Ads are Full of Logical Fallacies

In a recent campaign ad, Governor Pat Quinn accused his opponent in the gubernatorial race, Bill Brady, of not paying his income taxes. Quinn was telling the truth. Bill Brady hadn't payed any income taxes in 2008 and 2009, but this was because Bill Brady's business had suffered heavy losses in 2008 and 2009.  U.S. tax code allows business losses to be offset against your income taxes.  In this ad, Pat Quinn is trying to make Bill Brady sound like a crook because he didn't pay his taxes.  Quinn's campaign ad used the logical fallacy of slanting.  It's true that Bill Brady didn't pay income taxes in 2008 and 2009, but quinn's ad fails to mention that what Brady was doing was perfectly legal and in line with U.S. tax code.  However, many people don't know that what Bill Brady was doing was perfectly legal.  Therefore, Quinn's campaign ad is somewhat effective.  However, to those who know Bill Brady did everything legally, it just makes Pat Quinn sound like more of an idiot.  Click here to see Quinn's ad attacking Bill Brady for not paying income taxes

Another one of Pat Quinn's recent campaign ads uses the ad hominem logical fallacy to attack Bill Brady.  Ad hominem means "against the man."  An ad hominem logical fallacy is when a claim, argument, or position is rejected based on an irrelevant fact about the person making the claim.  The ad says, "Millionaire Senator Bill Brady wants to cut the minimum wage... And this from someone that drives a Porsche and owns a Florida condo?"  Quinn's ad doesn't identify any faults in Brady's actual plan to cut the minimum wage, or any faults in his economic polcies.  Rather, the ad is attacking Brady for being rich, and implying that he is out of touch with "hard working people in times in like these."  The ad gives no facts to support the claim that Bill Brady is out of touch, it is a personal attack, although a bad one at that.  The last time I checked, a lot of people strive to be millionaire's, drive nice cars, and own vacation homes.  Click here to see this ad

Politicians Abuse Popular Opinion

"What might happen down the road is not the subject today. The question is, do we want to raise taxes in the middle of a very, very tough economy? All the Republicans think that's a bad idea, and a substantial number of the Democrats think the same thing."

- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY)

Republican Senator Mitch McConnell, on the Sunday talk show This Week with Christiane Amanpour, discussed his outlook for the upcoming midterm elections and mentioned the soon to expire Bush tax cuts. Congress, at the urging of President Bush, lowered taxes for all Americans by about 2-3 percent with legislation in 2001 and 2003. These tax cuts are set to expire January 1st of next year, which would return taxes to the levels of the 1990s.

The Obama administration and most Democrats want Congress to extend permanently the tax cuts for Americans earning up to $250,000 per family or $200,000 as individuals. People earning more than these amounts would effectively have their taxes raised when the Bush tax cuts are removed. However, only 2 percent of American taxpayers fall into this category. Including this group in the new extended tax cuts would cost $700 billion over 10 years--that is an amount the nation simply cannot afford. Most Republicans in Congress, however, want to extend the Bush tax cuts for all American taxpayers. McConnell rhetorically asked on Sunday whether or not it is smart to "raise taxes" while we are in a time of economic hardship.

When he uses the phrase "raise taxes," McConnell is appealing to public opinion. He knows he has flipped a switch in the mind of the average American voter, who without question opposes any policy or policymaker wanting to "raise taxes." But McConnell is abusing his power, neglecting to mention that only 2 percent of Americans would be affected by the Obama administration's policy, and even then those people would hardly be affected. McConnell and other Republicans in Congress also realize that this issue will not be resolved before the November midterms, after which they hope to hold the majority of the seats in Congress. Wow, isn't the mind of a politician an interesting place?

 

Non Sequitur circa Mean Girls

When we started discussing logical fallacies this week, we found that the definition of a non sequitur fallacy can be identified as an illogical argument where the conclusion has no relation to the premises that were given. Fallacies such as this often appear in the context of an extreme exaggeration. With his in mind, an excellent example of a non sequitur fallacy can be found in the modern teen classic film; Mean Girls; when the Sex Ed teacher at this average American high school tries to convince the students to practice abstinence using an extremely blunt and simple exaggeration that is the perfect non sequitur.

Although participating in sexual intercourse may lead to the participating female becoming pregnant, it is an incredible fallacy to assume that if you have sex, you will ultimately die because of it, even if you do get pregnant. This ridiculous statement, although found in a fictional and comical context, is a simple example of a non sequitur.

Frosty's Post Hoc Fallacy

The Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy is one in which if circumstance B comes after circumstance A, then circumstance A caused circumstance B. This fallacy is often presented in a way that potentially makes sense, but doesn't have backing evidence.

An example is in an older version of the lovable children's cartoon Frosty the Snowman. He mistakes his wording, inadvertantly turning it into a Post Hoc fallacy! Frosty's error doesn't seem like much, but if we let even Frosty get away with it, pretty soon many people could be using possible happenings as hardcore facts.

Glenn Beck Commits Dramatic Fallacy

In this video of Glenn Beck weeping on national television, Beck is trying to convince Americans to support his "9/12" project which is supposed to rally the spirit and patriotism of Americans, somewhat like the day after 9/11.  In the first three minutes of this video clip, Beck provides nothing but logical fallacies to progress his argument.  The first fallacy used by Beck is the red herring fallacy.  Beck cries on camera (or at least pretends to), and his tears are used as a diversion from his message.  By crying, Beck is trying to get the viewer emotionally attached to him due to his "sincerity", rather than the validity of his claims.  The second logical fallacy that Beck uses is the bandwagon fallacy.  Beck spends around thirty seconds explaining how many people are watching his show and supporting the 9/12 project across the nation.  In saying that thousands of people are watching his show and having "viewing parties", Beck is trying to show the viewer that everyone supports him, and therefore what he says is correct.  

Personally I think that pretending to cry on national television should be some sort of fallacy itself.  

 

Peer Pressuring Fallacies?

Today in class when we discussed a variety of different  logical fallacies I kept feeling as if they could be considered peer pressure; correct me if I am wrong. For an example appeal to popular opinion could be; "Everyone is jumping off a bridge, why don't you join?" Someone may be peer pressured to jump off that brigde because everyone else is doing so. This is a rediculous example, but I think that it is also common with many highschoolers and drugs, partying, or even trends. If a large group of people start wearing sweatpants every Wednesday; maybe someone will catch onto that trend and wear sweatpants every Wednesday. That is a fallacy in itself! (No?)

I feel as if people, especially in todays age, are constantly using fallacies, besides through peer pressure. (There should be a verb tense of fallacies!) Kids will use so many logical fallacies to get their arguments across. Their arguments may not be as rediculous as others, but I would still consider a great deal of how people casually argue, with fallacies.

Talk About Fallacy

In regards to our recent topic of logical fallacies, I thought it fitting to address "appealing to popular opinion". I remembered from the beginning of the year the days we spent studying American culture and identifying popular trends and whatnot. I think sometime in the unit Mr. Heidkamp showed us a campaign ad for John McCain. I recalled this ad vividly, where he campaigns for his Arizona senate seat by supporting and promising to help the fight across the border. McCain starts out the ad by referencing "drug and human smuggling, home invasions, and murder", after which the border patrol officer discusses the action being made and proudly says, "Senator, you're one of us." This conversation exhibits multiple fallacies. For one, McCain appeals to authority, looking to validate his argument through use of the credibility of an uniformed border officer. Also, McCain appeals to popular opinion when referencing the crimes committed. He associates all of these injustices with people who cross the border, no doubt affirming the thoughts of many across the nation. Finally, if someone could figure out this last one, it would be great. The border patrol moves from "completing the danged fence" to outright saying, "Senator, you're one of us", as if the entire situation is one of patriotism. This argument also includes the complete disregard for the reasons people cross the border, even if they come to America for opportunity, family, etc.

School Shootings and Abortion? -Faulty Cause/Effect

The logical fallicy called false cause or faulty cause/effect is present everywhere around us. It can occur when people make an assumption that two things are caused by each other when they are not or when a person jumps to a biased conclusion. An example of false cause is in this article.

The article starts talking about how horrible the shooting at Columbine High School was and then jumps to talking about abortion. Even though they do try to find similarties between the shooting and abortion, there is not enough evidence to back up that the two are related or that the shooting was caused by abortion. They go on to argue that abortion is wrong and that it is the reason why there is so much violence in the world.

The reason this is false cuase is because they are trying to link two things that do not have anything to do with each other. It is too much of a stretch to blame a school shooting on abortion. They should not have jumped to a conclusion that the two were related.

The Funniest Fallacy

Almost everyone in America has heard of Stereotypes because they are so common. Stereotypes are facts about a group of people that people might think are true, but the stereotype will never apply to every single person in the group. For example, a lot of people know the stereotype of dumb blonds. This stereotype says that: "all blonds lack intellect." Lets not lie to ourselves. There are thousands of VERY dumb blonds. ha-habut there are also plenty of blond girls who are extremely intelligent!

Stereotypes are similar to one of the logical fallacies called Hasty Generalizations. Like stereotypes, hasty generalizations make assumptions about a group even though the assumption is not supported with evidence and never applies to every individual in that group.

Americans today use hasty generalizations as jokes. Although they are funny at times, they should not be used in serious moments such as politics or education. One example of a few hasty generalizations is in the video below. Note: i tried to embed this video, but it didn't work. So i had to post the link instead.

>

If Only We Had Our Own Minds

The slippery slope fallacy is used by many people, including politicians, to get a point across and to make that point seem very grave. The problem with this use of the fallacy is that it has many people believe things that just aren't true.

Some people, including relatives of mine, believe almost everything they hear on the radio or TV without thinking about what the media personality is really saying. Many of these personalities try to instill fear into the minds of their viewers, and it often works because they use the slippery slope fallacy. If this one small thing happens, then it will lead to this large thing.

I think that if people would think more for themselves rather than have the media think for them, people would see that many of the things on the radio or TV are exaggerations or straight up falsities.

"Then you show up, and it breaks!" A Post-Hoc Fallacy

A Post-Hoc Fallacy is also known as a post hoc, ergo propter hoc, which is Latin for "after it, therefore because of it." It is an assumption that, since two events occured, one event was caused by the other event. It ends up as a conclusion that makes sense but doesn't have the evidence necessary to prove it. Sometimes these assumptions make sense: for example, I could say that since my sister was the last person to use the computer, and then the computer broke, my sister broke the computer. It seems logical that the last person to use the computer was the one who broke it, even though there is no clear-cut evidence to back it up.

Lawyers also use post-hoc fallacies to persuade the jury to believe that someone is guilty. They may say that the defendant was in the house at the time of the victim's murder, so therefore the defendant must have killed the victim. Again, this argument is very persuasive but cannot be proven true.

I found a great example of a ridiculous post-hoc fallacy in an episode of "Friends." Joey broke his refrigerator, but he doesn't have enough money to buy a new one, so he tries to blame all of his friends so that they willl pay for a new fridge. But there are definitely some holes in his thinking... check it out:  

The Trip from Citibank to Palm Springs

While looking through the newspaper, I came across an interesting advertisement for Citibank. It was a picture of a couple in a pool laughing and enjoying their time, and underneath them, it says, “$400 in rewards turned two days in Palm Springs into four.” Therefore, the advertisers are trying to explain to viewers that if you open a checking account in Citibank, you will automatically be awarded money for traveling. Then, you will inevitably go on an amazing trip with this money that you are “given” from the bank, and you will have an amazing time away from home. All of this enjoyment began when a Citibank checking account was opened.

However, there is no guarantee that you will receive these awards. Furthermore, there are a list of guidelines and rules at the bottom of the advertisement that explain the long and difficult process of receiving these benefits of opening a checking account. In addition, just because you are given an amount of money for travel doesn’t mean you will be able to go on a trip for an extended amount of time, nor does ensure you will definitely enjoy your time on the trip.

Consequently, in order for the advertisement agency to make this Citibank advertisement effective and appealing towards consumers, they slide a slippery slope fallacy into the ad, making it seem as if you will absolutely have a great trip if you open a checking account at Citibank; in reality, there are a few missing details that need to be acknowledged before jumping to the advertisement’s conclusion of having a remarkable and memorable vacation.

An Explanation of how the Kardashians Became Famous

Circular Thinking is when a person uses fact A to justify fact B, and then fact B to justify fact A. This proves that fact A was true and therefore fact B is true. Confused?  I think that might be the point...

It really isn't that complicated, though.  Here, I'll give you and example:

People often question why reality stars are famous for doing nothing.  Someone, somewhere decided that people should give the Kardashians attention.  The family became famous, then more people give them attention.  They become even more famous. That's circular thinking. Why are the Kardashians famous? Because people pay attention to them.  Why do people pay attention to them? Because they're famous.

Circular thinking is the fallacy that led to "Speidi".  That make it the most detrimental fallacy in American Culture.  Why?  Because it made Spencer Pratt a household name.