Rhetorical Fallacies; an illustrated guide

65 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ripple

I don't know synecdoche from rhetorical fallacy, but I do know bullshit.

Sven Sven's picture

I agree that if an assertion is a synecdoche, the assertion cannot be a rhetorical fallacy (at least not the Fallacy of Division).

But, as the author in that linked-to piece notes, an assertion can only be a synecdoche "if the part really does stand for the whole."

6079_Smith_W

To jump in briefly, I don't want to get into the question of the sport; because although I am not a fan, I think there is more to it than the NHL.  Nevertheless, I think this dude is getting way more mileage from his association with the culture of hockey fans (and even more disgusting, wrapping himself in the anthem of our country, whose laws actually support freedom of choice) than he is from his singing career. He is using that fame to drive his own agenda, and there are plenty of those who like those things willing to go along with it.

Give me a call when he starts singing arias with his hamburger pics and his bible and his penitent sinners.

Yes, part of the culture - both of sport fandom and of those who think they speak for the nation - is what he is exploiting here. If that were not the case he'd have nothing to exploit in the first place.

 

Fidel

Sven wrote:

I agree that if an assertion is a synecdoche, the assertion cannot be a rhetorical fallacy (at least not the Fallacy of Division).

But, as the author in that linked-to piece notes, an assertion can only be a synecdoche "if the part really does stand for the whole."

Is it faulty deduction of division or of composition of the group? I'm thinking we don't know what all hockey enthusiasts think about women's rights, but we have a good idea of what that individual's opinions are. Does he even like hockey?

And what could we do about it? If he is singing at games in Vancouver, then perhaps a boycott of the anthem by fans attending is on order. Everybody remain seated or something. Do like Vancouver musicians, Trooper, and raise holy old hell about it, c'mon!

Sineed

Sven wrote:
I don't think there are such things as absolute rights and absolute wrongs.  People, through one type of political mechanism or another, determine what is "right" and what is "wrong".

Genocide? Child rape? Randomly spraying bullets in a shopping mall? Throwing acid into women's faces? Jailing and torturing your political opponents? Kidnapping children, arming them, and forcing them to murder their own siblings? Poisoning journalists with radioactive isotopes?

Moral relativism can be an Achilles heel for thoughtful people seeking to avoid Ayn Rand-esque black-and-white ideology.

Fidel

Sineed wrote:
Throwing acid into women's faces?

They were freedom fighters as recently as the 1980s. And our governments support some of those right wing extremists still and depending on whether they are Karzai's mujahideen/warlord government or the Taliban. 

Sven Sven's picture

Sineed wrote:

Sven wrote:
I don't think there are such things as absolute rights and absolute wrongs.  People, through one type of political mechanism or another, determine what is "right" and what is "wrong".

Genocide? Child rape? Randomly spraying bullets in a shopping mall? Throwing acid into women's faces? Jailing and torturing your political opponents? Kidnapping children, arming them, and forcing them to murder their own siblings? Poisoning journalists with radioactive isotopes?

Moral relativism can be an Achilles heel for thoughtful people seeking to avoid Ayn Rand-esque black-and-white ideology.

What, then, is the source of absolute rights and wrongs?

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

babble moderators

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

LaughingLaughingLaughingLaughingLaughing

Sineed

Catchfire wrote:

babble moderators

Sven Sven's picture

Catchfire wrote:

babble moderators

Right, but besides the moderators where to absolute rights and wrongs come from? :)

Sineed, the only source of right and wrong among humans is...humans (and those decisions are inherently political...and are in no way absolute). 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Nothing is absolute except that you get the munchies after smoking a joint.

Fidel

Sven wrote:

Catchfire wrote:

babble moderators

Right, but besides the moderators where to absolute rights and wrongs come from? :)

Sineed, the only source of right and wrong among humans is...humans (and those decisions are inherently political...and are in no way absolute). 

 

If they are absolute rights, then why do we feel compelled to struggle to maintain and even fight to increase women's rights? If they are universal rights, then why are there millions of widows and otherwise discarded women living hand to mouth on the streets in countries like democratic capitalist India? Why is gender savagery happening in Guatemala? Why have Iraqi women's rights deteriorated so since 2003 and Libyan women's rights greatly threatened by right wing religious fundamentalism since 2011? Why is it that a certain country next door to us refuses to acknowledge a UN declared right to food and security? I don't think we should be lulled into believing anything is absolute. They would cancel certain rights in a heartbeat unless people remain vigilant.

Fidel

I last did that with some young guys from Montreal on a bus trip from Ottawa to Sudbury. My cop sister met me at the station and said I smelled like a marijuana cigarette. And she said it just like Jack Nicholson did in Easy Rider which was was pretty freaky deaky at the time.

Pages