Ad Hominem in Political Ads

Political parties are constantly using attack ads to shed negative light on opposing candidates. In many of those ads you can find a black and white filter, an ugly picture of the other candidate, and aggressive music playing in the background. These effects are added to sub-consciously give viewers the idea that this person represents only bad things and is clearly not the one they should be voting for. Another way they may convince you of this is by using logical fallacies in their argument.  One very common fallacy used in attack ads is Ad Hominem which is essentially attacking someones character rather than the argument the person is advancing (or rather, their ability to fulfill the duties their elected position would require them to do). An example of Ad Hominem in an attack ad is one created by Taxpayers for Quinn, who are attempting to persuade Illinoisans that Bruce Rauner is a billionaire that isn't realtable to the average man and, therefore, a poor choice for Illinois governor. They do so by attacking his character rather than directly stating why he lacks the ability to govern.

The ad states that Rauner outsourced jobs to China which is actually an important piece of information for an informed voter however, it also attacks his character by mentioning that he stashed his own money to avoid paying higher taxes.  What he does with his own money has little to do with his actual ability to govern Illinois. Instead, it gives the audience a clear and simple idea of what Rauner's moral are. The ad also shows its audience that Rauner isn't a normal guy and isn't for the normal guy by stating that he joined an elite wine club for 140,000 dollars. Although the audience may look poorly on him, that fact gave them no information on how he plans to lead a state full of middle class citizens when he himself is a billionare. The commercial used Ad Hominem fairly effectively because it would be difficult to watch this attack ad and them think fondly of Rauner.

Proactive Commercial Appeal to Authority

Many of us watch television when we have spare time, turning on the TV and watching some shows. While we watch these shows many of us do not actually may attention to the inaccurate arguments being posed to us in the form of commercials. For example the Proactive commercials, famous for saving you from black heads and breaks outs, just how it's helped Katy Perry, Justin Bieber, Emma Roberts, and many average people just like you! The fallacy in these celebrity endorsed commercials is the appeal to authority. Appeal to authority is the appeal to by someone that is recognized and respected. The Proactive commercials have celebrities that are well known in our society and they tell us "Proactive really works!" "My skin has never looked better" "Proactive is the best", not necessarily telling you why it works or how it works, the commercials just feature a well known nae that appeals to the audience. The audience tends to not notice the fallacy being advertised on their television screen, but that doesn't mean it's not there. Proactive is not the only company to advertise with logical fallacies but their appeal to authority fallacy is most prominent in the majority of their commercials.

Logical Fallacies in DirecTV

A series of rather humorous DirecTV commercials intentionally use extensive logical fallacies to persuade the viewer into ridding themselves of cable and buying DirecTV. The commercials each follow the same general formula: someone who has cable is unsatisfied with some particular aspect of owning cable (such as price or speed). Because they are unsatisfied with owning cable, event X happens, and because event X happened, event Y happens, and so on. The events become less desirable with each one, until the conclusion, which is some strange occurrence that one would usually not associate with the ownership of cable. For instance, one commercial goes from the person in question "feeling powerless from paying too much for cable" to the same person falling into a dinner party. The exact sequence occurs as follows:

1. The person feels powerless from paying too much for cable.
2. Because the person feels powerless, they want to take the power back.
3. When the person wants to take the power back, they take karate.
4. When the person takes karate, they want to use their karate.
5. When the person wants to use their karate, they become the Fist of Goodness.
6. When the person becomes the Fist of Goodness, they run along rooftops.
7. When the person runs along rooftops, they fall into a dinner party.

The commercial uses the slippery slope fallacy to portray how cable frustrations can snowball into larger problems as well as post hoc, which assumes correlation and causation are the same (event X happened before event Y; therefore, Y was caused by X). The combination of the two leads to a fairly ludicrous (and hilarious, to be honest) commercial. I am not sure how effective these commercials would be at convincing their audience to switch to DirecTV, but they are sure fun to watch. 

Ham and Mayonnaise!

The show Parks and Recreations, is a satire on government. One of the best parts of the show are the town hall meetings that make fun of how stupid the overall government is. The citizens often oppose what ever good Leslie Knope is trying to impose on Pawnee. The citizens in arguing to get their way they use a plethora of logical fallacies.

In a town hall meeting about health and trying to prevent the selling of a candy company's energy bars the citizens oppose and one man in particular speaks up. He uses the fallacies straw man, hasty generalization, and a bandwagon appeal. The presenter Anne says that the bars contain a lot of corn syrup and that it is unhealthy for you. The man then goes into his rant saying "What's so bad about corn syrup? It's natural! Corn's a fruit! Syrup comes from a bush! I think we ought to throw those bars out and eat ham and mayonnaise sandwiches!" He then begins to chant "Ham and Mayonnaise!" and the rest of the people in the meeting join him.

The speaker hastily generalizes in his argument for corn syrup being healthy because he has no evidence and his statements about corn being a fruit and syrup coming from a bush are false. The argument is straw man because the argument goes from being about whether or not corn syrup is good for you to if people should eat ham and mayonnaise sandwiches everyday. By rousing the "Ham and Mayonnaise" chant at the end of his rant the speaker has gotten the other citizens in the town hall meeting on his bandwagon.

Logical Fallacies in State Farm Commercial

State Farm commercials are famous for having an instantaneous service reply. They boast customer service that not after hours on hold, but is rather available at the ring of a jingle. 

This is a logical fallacy that can be attributed to both ad hominem and ad populum, or perhaps a combination from the two. 

The ad hominem aspects of the advertisement are shown in bashing other insurance companies, showing how they do not matchup to State Farm's superior cashback program. The first woman gets the money she needs to buy the hot item, while the second has to "catch" a dollar to save on the item that she wants. This is also an example of ad populum, because it shows how one person sticks out because they do not have the special powers of State Farm insurance. 

Ultimately logical fallacies appear in a wide variety of commercials, but ad hominems are popular because companies are trying to bring down the reputation of their competitors. 

Logical Fallicies in the Ferguson Dilemma

The Ferguson situation currently hold a lot of logical fallacies on both opposing sides. This is extremely topical because the jury's verdict will be announced tonight and there is military presence in St. Louis area in anticipation of the results. The argument contains composition/division which is basically assuming that what is true about one part of something, is true for the whole thing. Also the controversy around military presence contains the fallacy of slippery slope.

Composition/Division: In the two overall sides of the argument we have overgeneralizing of black people being criminals/dangerous and all white police officers being racist. Although there are black criminals, there are also many many white criminals and the assumption that all black people mean harm is a dangerous generalization. Same goes for the opposing side, some police officers many abuse their power and let racist tendencies make decisions instead of unbiased reason-- but not all white officers work like this. 

Slippery Slope: When the military got involved it suggested that since there was a protest (a mostly peaceful one) it would turn violent. Having such a strong military presence suggested that there shouldn't be protesters because if they allow A to happen (protesting) then B would happen (violence) and there fore A should not be happening. 

Logical fallicies in Friends

There are probably a million examples of logical fallacies in hit shows like Friends. I love Friends. It is just one of those classic shows that you can watch over and over again. But that's not why I'm writing this post.

In the episode I chose, Joey's very old fridge breaks. And the first person he sees, which is Rachel, is now his first target. Joey wants to avoid paying for a new fridge so he initiates his first logical fallciy. Non Sequitor. Although it was a flimpsy attempt, it still was an attempt. Joey starts off by saying that his parent's bought this fridge when he was born, and it was always working. But the minute Rachel moves in it breaks. So, Rachel moves in, and the fridge breaks. Therefore Rachel broke the fridge.

His next victim is Chandler. Chandler used to live with Joey, so Joey feels that Chandler has some due to pay for the refridgerator. Joey's logical fallicy this time is faulty analogy. His analogy is that Chandler and Joey are married and they have a kid together, but the kid dies, so Joey has to buy a new one, and he wants Chandler to give him the money to pay for it. To someone that might be a good analogy, but to me, a child and a refridgerator really shouldn't be compared.

If you continue on in the episode, you will defintely find more of these logical fallicies, but non sequitor, and faulty analogy are the ones I chose to focus on. If Joey doesn't win the award for most convincing arguement, then I don't know what should.

Logical Fallacies in The O'Reilly Factor

One show on television that many people have either grown to be avid supporters or simply aggravated with it is The O'Reilly Factor.  Bill O'Reilly has gained a rather infamous reputation for his strong conservative views on his show of almost two decades.  In addition to these views, O'Reilly quite frequently uses the hasty generalizations to attempt to prove his assertions.  Most notably, this could be seen when O'Reilly had a segment commentating on the former Republican congressman, Ron Paul.  When commenting on Paul's thoughts about drug laws, O'Reilly states that the act of dealing narcotics is a, "violent crime..."  Although I understand what is meant by this statement, the maker of the video below compares the previous statement with dealing cars, stating that cars kill people all of the time.

The publisher of the channel also includes fear mongering as another tactic used by O'Reilly to support his side of the argument.  This is just one example of how logical fallacies are used in the media today and how it impacts the way that society thinks.

Logical Fallacy

"The acceptance of abortion does not end with the killing of unborn human life. It continues on to affect our attitude toward all aspects of human life. This is most obvious in how quickly, following the acceptance of abortion, comes the acceptance of infanticide―the killing of babies who after birth do not come up to someone's standard of life worthy to be lived―and then on to euthanasia of the aged. If human life can be taken before birth, there is no logical reason why human life cannot be taken after birth. If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination. Once begin upon this downward path, you never know where you are to stop. Many a man has dated his ruin from some murder or other that perhaps he thought little of at the time" (39).

This is a small exerpt from Who is for Life? by Francis A. Schaeffer. We can see clearly from this that Schaeffer employs a 'slippery-slope' fallacy. In this example, he draws the conclusion that to be a proponent of abortion is also to be a proponent of countless, less controversial, and clearly morally impermissible actions(i.e. infanticide, murder, etc). A slipper slope argument operates by drawing the deduction that because A, then B... and because Y, Z so because A is true, Z(which is clearly wrong) must also be true. The fallacy in Schaeffer's argument is in the inconsistent, and generally invalid method with which he attempts to display a causation between each of the steps on his slope. 

Logical Fallacies in The Office

Throughout the duration of the American Television series “ The Office”, Michael Scott, the show’s main character, develops a personal hatred of Toby Flenderson, the office’s human resources representative. Michael, as the regional manager of the office, is in charge of the people who work there, despite his obvious lack of intelligence. He is always trying to involve his coworkers in ridiculous, pointless, and sometimes dangerous projects. Nobody stands up to Michael because they are all his subordinates who do not want to get fired or be punished for criticizing the boss. However, because Toby works in human resources, it is his job to shoot down Michael’s policies if they are irrational and ridiculous. Because he is frequently the one to kill Michael’s enthusiasm about a particular whim, Toby is abhorred by Michael. Frequently, Michael discounts Toby’s contribution to a conversation solely because Toby is speaking and he hates Toby’s tendency to ruin his ideas. When he does this, Michael is attacking Toby through Ad hominem responses. Though Michael has dozens of ad hominem interactions with Toby, one of my favorites occurs in season 5 episode 9, “ The Surplus”.

In this episode, one of the office accountants discovers a $4300 surplus in the company budget. He points it out to Michael, and explains that the office has to spend the money at the end of the workday, or it will be deducted from next year’s budget. Michael is clueless about how to spend the money, so he looks for suggestions from his coworkers. Toby stands up and offers his ideas for how to spend the money:

“We should really have the office’s air quality tested. We have radon coming from below. we have asbestos in the ceilings. these are silent killers.”

Obviously, this is a reasonable claim, and an understandable argument for how to spend the money. However, Michael counters by saying:

“You are the silent killer. Go back to the annex.”

Michael completely ignores Toby’s plan and shoots down his argument not because toby’s evidence was weak, but because Michael hates Toby’s character. Michael does not address the legitimacy of any of Toby’s claims. Instead, he pushes him aside by saying that Toby is “The Silent Killer". Since Michael uses Toby’s character to refute Toby’s argument, Michael is using ad hominem evidence.

Ad Hominem in the Media

One of the most prevalent logical fallacies in modern day political debating and reporting is a technique called ad hominem. Its a phrase that translates to, attacks against the man. This fallacy takes aim at not the claim a person is trying to make, but rather the speaker of that claim. And its most effective use is in the way that when this fallacy is used it draws the attention away from the substance of the argument and focuses on things irrelevant to the topic. What this means is that if you have an opposing arguer who has some arguable flawed character trait, it doesn't matter if your argument is right or not; as long as you can show why your opponent is a bad person, you can obtain the support of your audience.

One excellent example of the use of this fallacy is those criticizing Obama’s foreign policy. More often than not, those who don't agree with Obama’s reactions to foreign crisis around the world don't have any substantiated claims on why his plan of action would be ineffective. They instead try to minimize Obama’s leadership, describing him as weak or a pushover. Often in debates of this topic, arguers simply claim that the fault in Obama’s foreign policy is not the strategies he uses to solve world problems, but in fact the weakness in character Obama possesses. It is the avoidance of the substance of the argument that places this type of criticism in the category of a logical fallacy, specifically ad hominem.

Pitbulls: Hasty Generalization

When famileies are searching to find the perfect puppy for their young children, a pitbull would probably not come to mind. Most people automatically assume that all pitbulls are vicous dogs that are easily set off. Every type of dog has issues. No dog comes out of the box perfectly ready to live side by side with people. They all need some training to live with human beings. Some owners have been selectively bred so they have certain genes that would give them an advantage to fighting. 

One hundred years ago, when dog fighting was common, pure breed dogs like the Bull Terrier, and American Staffordsshire Terrier, and the American Pit Bull Terrier were bred to be extremly friendly and gentle with people. Handlers wanted the dogs to be friendly because they wanted to be able to control the dogs without being bitten. Not all pitbulls are naturally dangerous, it just depends on how they are trained and raised. 

Interstellar

This post is not about fallacies, but I am doing it as a makeup. I saw Interstellar a while ago and was blown away. Those who have not seen it or 2001: A Space Odyssey should not read this post.

I want to compare Interstellar with 2001: A Space Odyssey, as Interstellar is clearly an homage to 2001. Christopher Nolan touches on many of the same themes, but approaches them completely differently. 2001 is very emotionally distant. Much of the dialogue is monotone and there is not much character development. As a result, we don't "feel" anything for the few main characters. Interstellar on the other hand, spends almost the entire first half of the movie developing Matthew McConaughey's character's relationship with his family. When he finally leaves, viewers know that he is doing it all to save his family, but mostly his daughter.

The second aspect, is each film's views about computers/robots. 2001 famously ends with the evil robot, HAL, taking control of the ship, having killed off all of its crew members. HAL is an indifferent, calculating, scheming computer. Interstellar is quite the opposite. Computers' ability to calculate and act with lightning-quick precision and efficiency sets them apart from humans. Computers are capable of more than we could ever hope to do on our own. The computer saves the ship multiple times, most dramatically when it docks itself with the spinning space station that was reeling after an explosion. Interstellar says that the only reason humans are needed is for their emotion, which gives them a sense of desperation. It was McConaughey's desperation that gave him the idea to match the space station's spin. Only a combination of human desperation/emotion and computer accuracy will lead to success.

Hasty generalizations in commercials

I was recently watching a football game with my brother over the weekend and ran across this particular commercial that stood out to me. It was a Taco Bell commercial that depicted two women hoping to meet some cute guys at the bar.

All seems normal until one of the women notices it smells a lot like bacon in the bar. As soon as the woman finished talking, the other woman pulled out a taco filled with bacon and explained to her friend that, "all men love bacon". It wasn't to my surprise that within 5 seconds after she secretly puts back the taco in her purse, three men seem to have sprinted over to her side and start flirting with her commenting, "what is that you're wearing (perfume)... it smells so.... intoxicating".

Hasty generalizations about how all men love bacon is a perfect example. Not all men like bacon! My brother doesn't like bacon, in fact, he hates the greasy smell of it and refuses to eat it. Taco Bell's generalization that not only that all guys are obsessed with bacon but for women that want to meet attractive guys should smell like bacon.

This commercial is ridiculous and completely false

Obama's Immigration Speech and Fallacies

During president Barack Obama's address to the nation over immigration policy, he employs a number of logical fallacies which he tries to use to appear more persuasive, although they do not always work. Within the first three minutes of his speech, Obama used Ad Hominem and oversimplification as logical fallacies to convince his audience of his point. When he discussed what he thought the nation should do regarding the problem of immigration in the United States, he talked of a piece of legislation he supported, which was not passed by Congress. He instantly placed all of the blame upon the Republican leaders in the legislative branch, and attacked them for their party position rather than for their argument. He also oversimplified the situation, by saying that if they had only agreed with him, then everything would be better today, which is complete speculation. He used these techniques to justify creating an executive order in an area of policy which belongs the the legislative branch. I think that he used these fallacies in a convincing way, however, I also think that they are unfairly misleading to the general population.

Logical Fallacy - Racism Style

A former mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani, recently complained that people only speak up about white people killing black people, and never about blacks killing blacks. He allegedly stated, "Ninety-three percent of blacks are killed by other blacks... I would like to see the attention paid to that that you are paying to this."

This is an example of "false equivalence" - when you equate two separate concepts that really aren't equal by ignoring important facts. Giuliani equates white-on-black killing to black-on-black killing, when really, the two are treated very differently in our society. Michael Eric Dyson, who debated with him, eloquently illustrated this difference:

“Black people who kill black people go to jail,” Dyson said. “White people who are policemen who kill black people do not go to jail.”

The Hasty Generalization of Irresistibility

Three commercials, all dealing with the logical fallacy of the hasty generalization, claim to know what men and women cant resist.

In one for Taco Bell, two women go to a bar hoping to meet men. One of them hides a bacon taco in her purse, thinking that men will me attracted to the smell, and the other questions whether it will work. Sure enough, three guys come flocking to their table, informing her that she smells great. This commercial makes the generalization that all men are crazy about bacon, and the smell of it will attract them.

Another commercial for axe body spray shows a guy spraying himself with chocolate scented spray and then literally turning into a chocolate man. As he walks around town, women are mesmerized by him, staring as he goes by, pushing against windows to get to him, and even stealing his arm. This commercial makes the generalization that women can't resist chocolate, and if you wear this scent, they won't be able to resist you either.

The third commercial, also for axe body spray, tells the story of a heroic firefighter saving a damsel in distress from a burning building. He preforms amazing feats to get to her like climbing up crumbling stairs and lifting heavy pieces of the building. Once he has her thrown over his shoulder, he zip lines out to the street. When they're on solid ground, they gaze into each other's eyes as if they are falling in love. But then she spots an astronaut walking towards her and she immediately forgets about the man who just saved her and runs to the new guy. This commercial makes the generalization that when it comes to lovability, firemen are great but astronauts are better and women will not be able to resist them.

Logical Fallacies on the Issue of GunControl

The controversy of gun control has been a topic of discussion for a long time, especially in the wake of school shootings, but people have recently been taking extreme stances on the issue. I have noticed that the news can portray false information on gun control and they use many different tactics to try and support their side of the argument. Ad Populum is one fallacy that reporters use by giving statistics and showing polls that support their argument. When people see that more people support gun control, many will believe that gun control has to be the better option. If a reporter is biased toward not having gun control, then he or she would not show viewers any reason to believe that their should be any type of control. This fallacy twists peoples views, which can lead to people switching opinions based on the opinions of others. While the News should report strict facts without bias, that is not the case and more people should realize that.

Another example of a fallacy in the topic of gun control is called "Slippery Slope." This is when people jump from one event to what they believe to be an inevitable consequence. Many that believe in not having gun control argue that having regulations on guns will then lead to a removal of second amendment rights, or the right to bear arms. This argument jumps to an illogical conclusion that does not have anything backing it up. Even though there is a possibility of totally outlawing guns, this most likely won't be the case.

Logical Fallacies in the Gun Control Debate

The debate over gun control is one of the most fiercely contested issues that politicians face today. The gun control debate is even more fraught with fallacies than most other issues. In this post, I will focus on fallacies committed by the liberal side, because most other posts will point out conservative fallacies. I want to show that logical fallacies are not exclusive to one party or another.

False Dichotomy - "If we don't change gun laws, our people will die."
There are many ways to stop violent crime, and most of them don't infringe on law abiding citizens' right to defend their homes. These include: increased mental health awareness, better education in violence-ridden neighborhoods, and stricter sale laws. We don't have to choose between our safety and our rights, we can have both.

Appeal to Emotion - "If we don't ban guns, our kids will continue to be gruesomely murdered."
This fallacy is often combined with the first one. Liberals incite the heinous crimes that have been committed, most notably the Newtown tragedy, to appeal to our emotions. This logic puts listeners in a dangerous place. They feel that if they don't agree with the speaker, they are supporting the psychotic murderers. Furthermore, emotion often conceals facts. Murder and violent crime in general have declined by almost 50% since 1990 (source), but the horrific-ness of the crime that does occur often distracts us from this fact.

Misconstruction of Facts - This may not technically be a fallacy, but I thought it might be worth mentioning, considering that even President Barack Obama was guilty of this(source). Contrary to popular belief, neither the Newtown killer(source), nor the Colorado shooter (source), used automatic weapons. Both used semi-automatic reproductions of automatic rifles.

Sesame Street Logical Fallacy

In this short skit (Part 2) from the popular children's TV show, Sesame Street, Ernie is seen holding a banana in his left ear. Because something like this is out of the ordinary, Bert asks Ernie why he's doing it. He replies that it keeps the alligators away from him and out of Sesame Street. Of course we know this isn't true, but when Bert brings up that it there aren't any alligators on Sesame Street anyway, Ernie says "Right! It's doing a good job then isn't it, Bert?" In this situation, Ernie is assuming illogically that holding a banana in his ear will protect him from any alligators that may be near him.

This is an example of a post hoc fallacy. A post hoc fallacy occurs when Event X follows Event Y, and can therefore be assumed that Event X was caused by Event Y. In this case, Event X would be the prevention of alligators from Sesame Street and Event Y would be the banana in Ernie's ear. This is illogical because clearly holding a banana in your ear or anywhere near your head will do nothing to stop an alligator and furthermore, makes Ernie's claim illogical and false.