Watch the following video:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-28-2007/immigrant-disease
Look at the different logical fallacies that you see in the video. Find a video, news article, or interview that has at least one of fallacies depicted in the video. Post a link to your found source, and then name and define the fallacy you noticed in your source.
Post your initial post by Wednesday, October 9th. Post your reply to a classmate by Friday, October 11th.
Your reply should address your classmate's source. Respond by listing at least one additional fallacy your classmate might have missed, and why you think the fallacy should be addressed, or respond by addressing whether or not you believe your classmate has rightly addressed his/her fallacy in his/her source.
As always, stay professional with your classmates.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/151029/you-hate-children
ReplyDeleteIn this video it encourages viewers to vote “Yes on 10” or else they hate children. This is an example of a non sequitur fallacy. Voting No on 10 would not necessarily mean the voter hates children; the conclusion that they do is drawn from a false assumption. The information does not correlate much like the non-sequitur example in the Daily Show video. John Hodgman stated that diseases they had thought to be wiped out many years ago were coming back due to illegal immigrants. The conclusion that illegal immigrants are responsible is drawn from a false assumption.
I believe you rightly addressed the fallacy in the South Park parody of "Yes on 10." It drew the conclusion that if you were to put your vote down on "Yes on 10" then you care for the children and if not, then you absolutely hate them. Good find on the video!
DeleteThis ad does make it seem as if the future is only about children and if you dont vote yes then you hate your children.
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Auqp28Bk4RI
ReplyDeleteThe video I found is an advertisement on McDonald's new Mighty Wings. One fallacy I found in the video was when the speaker announced, "Players can't stop talking about McDonald's new Mighty Wings." That was an example of a sweeping generalization fallacy. In the ad there are a handful of different football players speaking highly of the new wings. But, just by those handful it doesn't necessarily mean all players are talking about it. The speaker asserted the opinion to all players when it necessarily does not specify every single one.
I agree completely. They attempt to get you to hop on board something by appealing to celebrity, namely every football player by saying that "players can't stop talking about McDonald's new Mighty Wings." This example is great because it generalizes every player when not all of them may like the wings. There's no facts backing up the claim, much like in the Daily Show Video when a news reporter says that most the immigrants are immoral and disease-ridden.
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z01sQpuBe4s
ReplyDeleteThis commercial is all one big slippery slope logical fallacy. It starts with the man's picture on his tv freezing and ends with his house exploding. It implies that because the man does not have DirecTV, the events in his life will spiral out of control eventually ending with his home exploding. Although it's an obvious logical fallacy, it tries to convince the consumer to get DirecTV or a dramatic string of bad events might happen to them too. The commerical is not true because it would be a big reach to suggest that his house exploded (or any of the other events) are going to happen to you if you don't switch to DirecTV.
Interesting take on the video. I think the ad is a Non sequitur...a conclusion (the series of bad consequences) is made that these things will happen to the audience if they don't switch to DirecTv, which is not based on anything at all. It also begs the question that is open to debate, whether or not their product is better than cable. They have settled it...there is no other choice but their product. It would be interesting to hear more specifically your take on what kind of logical fallacies were used and where you thought they were used. For instance, which part of the ad spoke to you the loudest and what effect, if any, did it have on you? You did a really good job describing the video, breaking it down into an easy-to-follow way and explaining your overall take on it! Great job!
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqT4gIZuaq8
ReplyDeleteThis single-sided Global Warming debate uses Logical Fallacy around every corner. And though it is only a parody, the tactics shown can be powerful defenses in real life arguments.
(False authority) Showing a teacher who is probably somewhat knowledgeable but hardly an authority. (Inappropriate appeals) The Bandwagon tactic is utilized, inviting society to live in a “glorious utopian paradise” if only it would do what is asked. Who wouldn’t want to move to utopia? Fearful language such as, “die a horrible death”, and the exaggerated, gruesome ending of exploding heads, is an over the top attempt to scare the audience. Argument ad populum pokes at sympathy with pitiful descriptions of suffering animals, “crying puppies and kittens” and “dead polar bears”. Hasty generalizations are widespread throughout the video, but mainly in the ending. The teacher shows no evidence of her claims besides showing an imminently gory death. An example of the Reductive fallacy exists in the overall simplified message that all of these horrible things will be caused by not cutting our carbon emissions, without any sound examples of why this will happen. This video has definitely convinced me to drive my car less for fear of my head exploding at a stoplight. If nothing else, the traffic ticket for it is probably pretty steep.
I like it. It really makes me think about global warming. Is it propaganda, or is it a legitimate problem? It's really hard to tell these days. :)
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=485FQu3xfNw
ReplyDeleteThis is a youtube video I found of a pro-life speech. In the very first minute a fallacy already pops up. She says "abortion cannot be justified." She also goes onto say that "it is a scientific fact that a fetus does feel pain." While this may very well be true she gives no backing to this statement basically using the fallacy of False Authority by essentially posing as an expert on the subject. She, like John Hodgman (although in a serious setting), acts as an expert on the subject, referring to scientific research without any proof at all! Statements like "several well known doctors" get people listening and believing because science is something we rely on as people and are more apt to listen to people claiming to have seen "scientific research" or "heard from well known doctors." All in all she really uses False Authority in this segment quite a bit.
This is a very sensitive debate. I do agree with the author of this blog, it is a False Authority Fallacy. I think the speaker also uses Argument Ad Populum. The speech is a persuasive speech and the speaker is trying to use a persons values and moral beliefs to influence her audience.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://vimeo.com/27306098 I like this Axe Body Wash commercial. I chose it because I wanted to show an example of a Post Hoc Fallacy (assuming that a caused b because a preceded b).The commercial leads people to believe that if they use Axe Body Wash it will act like a magnet and attract beautiful woman. It seems like a lot of company's are using this marketing strategy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about it being a Post Hoc Fallacy. It could also be a sweeping generalization because it assumes that all men want girls when the guy in the commerical or any man comsumer could be interested in men too.
DeleteI love these ads. It almost makes me wanna start using Axe. Maybe I will have better luck with the ladies, or according to the commercial I will!!! Great choice.
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXLTQi7vVsI
ReplyDeleteI particurlarly like the political ad where the speaker is trying to divert your attention away from the main subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLTIowBF0kE
ReplyDeleteIf you buy your man Old Spice, he will undoubtedly be more amazing in general. In this commercial, an attractive black man is an imagine of the person the women watching this commercial could be with. Not everyone can be with a man who will build them a kitchen and bake a cake for them in that same kitchen. However, anyone can be with a man who wears Old Spice, and obviously, there's no better man than that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMTKAgboC0U
ReplyDeleteIn this ad the woman "trades up for everything else, so why not your bath tissue"? This is an example of a Sweeping Generalization logical fallacy.