For instance, some misguided southern whites argued voter registration drives among African-Americans were unnecessary. This was a fallacy used in some of the rhetoric against the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. A Historical Example-1960s Voter Registrations in the South
He never responds to the issue of it affecting the child’s ability to focus on anything for long periods of time. But once Jim lists all these alleged benefits, he concludes that digital media is good for our kids. Whether or not he is right about these benefits of social media, this is not the issue. But then Jim sidetracks the discussion and focuses on another issue: other positive results of our kid’s use of digital media. Notice the discussion we are having is whether digital media contributes to our kids losing the ability to focus for longer periods of time. So I don’t think today’s digital media is a bad thing at all. And video games help our kids improve their reflexes and decision-making skills. Netflix and news websites are great ways to learn about the world. But there is so much that can be learned from digital media. It allegedly gets its name from the use of herring, a type of fish with a pungent scent, to distract tracking dogs from following someone’s trail.įor instance, suppose I’m discussing with Jim the impact social media has on our kids, and he says:Ī lot of people say today’s digital media leaves our children with the inability to focus on something for more than a few minutes. One commits this fallacy when she or he sidetracks conversations away from the point under discussion to a different issue, and then announces that the point made about that other issue establishes proof of the conclusion. This week I’ll discuss the first of the three: the red herring fallacy. This non-sequitur is one of three common but very harmful errors we must understand and avoid if we want to promote healthy dialogue, human flourishing, and-ultimately-the common good.
Why would these two corporations that trade in essential services take such an extreme position? I believe it may be because they have embraced as valid a logical fallacy that is prevalent in current discussions of social issues. They said the organization’s view of family breakdown and the impact such a view has on children made it a “hate group.” Similarly, a firm that provides information about non-profits labeled one association a “hate group” due to the group’s traditional position on marriage (though the information company quickly retracted this assessment when critics challenged their arbitrary action). Recently a major credit card processor refused to handle further transactions that were gifts directed to a non-profit group.
0 kommentar(er)
