As many of you may be aware, I sometimes like to argue for argument's sake. Not because I enjoy winning or losing, but because I find it instructional to see how far I can go without committing a logical fallacy. If you don't know what a fallacy is, here is the definition from my Logic book (Hurley, 2003):
A fallacy is a defect in an argument that consists in something other than merely false premises {wrong information}. . . A formal fallacy is one that may be identified by merely examining the form or structure of an argument . . . Informal fallacies are those that can be detected only by examining the content of the argument.
I bring this up only because I find that, most of the time, people on both sides of arguments I see are using fallacious arguments. Since
Renee Zapf's article is the exciting thing of the moment, I thought I would make a point to show some of the fallacies that are used both in the article and in the
comments against her point of view.
Please remember that at the moment I am trying to be unbiased. I am only looking for the fallacious arguments on both sides, and I think I have done a decently thorough job of it. If you happen to be a Philosophy major and want to point out where I may appear biased, or where my interpretations are incorrect, please feel free to let me know! I started this list as a personal exercise before I decided to post it. I am not an expert!
Appeal to pity (getting support by invoking a feeling of pity in the reader):
How can any self-respecting person venture out to the beautiful world of nature to destroy it? How does a civilized human being get their jollies from murder?
. . . taking the lives of animals that have no defense from you.
Hasty Generalization (drawing a conclusion from a group from specific examples):
Most of the article. Some excerpts:
Don't boast loudly during class about the deer . . .
And definitely don't boast about how its head is now dripping blood in your garage . . .
Don't wear your hunting gear to class . . .
. . . all-night spree of gunfire and beer . . .
Having animal blood all over your pants . . .
Slippery Slope (following a chain reaction to an unlikely end):
You think the deer of future generations are going to be able to get out of the way of your speeding vehicle any faster if you kill off their best genetic lines? You're really shooting yourself in the foot with that one, or rather, shooting your children and grandchildren in the foot.
She may be more correct than I think. I have not done any research on what effect hunters have on deer genetics and evolution.
Appeal to Force (if you don't agree, you will have harm done to you):
. . . nor will you ever gain my respect for taking the lives of animals that have no defense from you.
Here Renee tries to use herself as a reason for being nice to animals: she threatens to withhold her respect from those who do not agree with her. If you are close to Renee (or want to be), this would probably make an impact, but from the outside, it jumps out as a fallacy.
I have to point out that Renee's article does qualify as an opinion, and as such does not (according to common practice) have to be wholly supported by facts. However, since she is trying to convince the reader of something, she is arguing in favor of a point, which means that she should have to follow some semblence of the rules of logic. I am not picking on you in particular, Renee, because many writers (from the Dakota Student staff and beyond) commit the same logical mistakes.
On to the
article comments on the DS website. Again, I myself am not arguing for or against any one of these people, I just want to exhibit some of the most common fallacies committed. Just a quick observation, I was originally thinking that the comments on Renee's ignorance and idiocy were ad hominems, but then I realized that most of them are the intended conclusions of the argument, i.e., "You are an idiot, and here are the reasons why: . . ."
False Cause (the link between the premise and the conclusion depends on a cause that does not exist):
This is the most ignorant article I have ever read, especially coming from an author in North Dakota!
Essentially, Dustin seems to be saying that since Renee is living in North Dakota, she should write good articles.
want to stand up to this article? join the facebook group
I think Matt is implying that joining a Facebook group will somehow change what Renee wrote. It may also be that Matt wants to get enough people in the Facebook group so that he can use a Bandwagon fallacy (everyone else is doing it!) to convince Renee that she is wrong in her beliefs, but we cannot know what Matt’s intentions are at this time.
Accident (a general rule is applied to a specific case):
I am very offended that you portray hunters like that. Especially in a state that prides itself on the outdoors and the recreation it provides.
Kenny is saying that, since North Dakota is friendly to hunters, and Renee lives in North Dakota, she should be friendly to hunters. Actually, I think this could be considered Division (going from a rule applied to a whole to a rule applied to the parts).
Hasty Generalization:What I find particularly disturbing about most anti-hunting rants is the misconception we all are out there boozng it up playing with our guns with no respect for our hunting partners and the general public. They also often seem to portray us a country bumpkins, cousin marrying, wife beating, smalltown, backwoods, snoose chewing, uneducated, toothless morons with no social, common, or personal sense.
Aaron presents the other side of Renee's argument and commits the same fallacy: just because Aaron does not booze it up, play with his guns, marry his cousin, beat his wife, come from a small town in the backwoods, chew snoose, lack an education, snoose, or teeth, he is arguing that nobody else does either.
it doesn't matter if we bag any game its just the joy of being outdoors to which i can tell you have obviously never done before. we are not out drinking and shooting our guns like lunatics, where do you get your information from i would love to know. just making assumpions isn't good enough.
"This is why I hunt, therefore this is why all hunters hunt. I am a safe hunter, therefore all hunters are safe hunters."
Red Herring (diverting the attention of the reader):
"All night spree of gunfire and beer"; you obviously are very ignorant to the laws set forth by the state, and seemingly ingorant in general. No night hunting and no shining of deer at night.
Red Herrings are always tricky, but here I think I can spot one: Aaron begins by taking a statement made by Renee (which was actually a Hasty Generalization) and implying that he is going to refute the statement that hunters go out on an "all night spree of gunfire and beer." Instead, he chooses to invoke the law, which says that you cannot hunt deer at night. In doing so he is committing an implied fallacy of Accident, saying that since the rule is "no hunting at night," no hunters hunt after dark. At no point does Aaron address what Renee actually said, which was that [some] hunters get drunk and shoot their guns after dark.
Tu Quoque (or, calling the other person a hypocrite. A special form of Ad Hominem)
Do you eat beef, pork, or other animals??
Whether or not Renee eats beef, pork or other animals is not what is being argued about. While it makes her look silly to rant against killing animals and then eat meat, this is not a valid basis for argument.
Also, I hope you make sure all your make-up, hair gell/spray and other beauty products arent tested on animals.
Show some respect??? Renee should have access to a dictionary. Do as I say - not as I do.
Saying you refuse to understand it, then turn around and tell many hunters (myself included) to abide by your rules of 'decency' is a gross hypocrisy.
(As an aside, Tim, this is not "Social Darwinism," this is a combination of natural and artificial selection.)
Appeal to Pity:It would be a slow painful death by pesticide vs a well placed .270 round through the chest.
Here Aaron appeals to pity, which is ironic because it was Renee's appeal to pity with which he disagreed in the first place.
Appeal to Force:this does not only slap me in the face but the majority of the campus,
This is the only one of these from the comments that I am going to highlight, but Brenden is essentially saying "I will continue to be offended unless you change your mind." Whether or not Renee cares is up to her, but since there i actually no substance to this comment, she probably will not worry about it.
You are more than likely the most hated person on campus and you rightfully should be. . . . i'm sure you drive a P.O.S. foreign car which means the deer will go through your windshield
Most of Carson's post was either like this or Ad Hominem. It is a good example of letting your emotions get in the way of making a logical argument. Yes, I know that Carson probably has the opinion of "I am right, you are wrong, and I do not care if I make any sense or not," but again, I am here to illustrate logical fallacies.
Appeal to the People (everyone else is doing it . . .)
not to mention the state of which she now lives in which has one of the highest percentage of hunters
"There are lots of hunters in North Dakota; why is Renee being so weird?" This is also probably Accident again: "Since the majority of North Dakotans think like hunters, all North Dakotans must think like hunters."
Begging the Question (reasoning in a circle):
this article is completely ludacris and completely false. i think you should state true facts and maybe research before you go about writing lies.
"How do we know this article is completely false? Because I said it is!" This may falls under Appeal to Unqualified Authority as well, but since it is couched as an opinion we can probably let it slide.
Ad Hominem:YOUR DUMB!
LOL....judging by your picture, you have NO room to talk about fashion.... your hair looks GREAT and those earings REALLY bring out your eyes! I feel terrible for the person you call your boyfriend.
Brainee speaks of becoming a more, "ethical person." Let me see, she eats meat from giant animal mills that pack the animals together by the 10s of thousands, feed them for a short time, then has some indiscriminate person kill them in droves on an assembly line. Not one animal destined for the market has any chance of living beyond 16 months of age, be it a chicken, pig or cow.
Since we don’t know where Renee gets her meat, we have no basis upon which to judge this statement. The same goes for this one:
But let's guess how Brainee spends her weekends? Anyone thinking she attends the odd Frat party or hangs out at the local club or bar? Hmmm, I drink the odd beer(never more than 2) and spend my time enjoying nature. On the other hand there is a good chance that Brainee gets smash mouth drunk, wakes up with a hangover, and brags about not being able to remember if she hooked up with anyone last night.
Randy has a few good arguments, but the rest of them are either direct attacks on Renee’s character (basic Ad Hominem) or calling her a hypocrite (Ad Hominem: Tu Quoque).
It seems that this post has gone on long enough. While there are more comments on the article at the Dakota Student website, I think I’ve covered the major fallacies that have been used by both Renee and the people arguing against her. As you may have realized, this is not a perfect science and that trying to find fallacies in an opinion article and comments on that article is like shooting fish in a barrel. However, I hope this is instructional to you, and maybe next time you have to argue a point (or write an article), you will think of what you are basing your comments on before you write them.