Never Argue The Inarguable

After learning more about fallacies, the closer I am to understanding it's use. I've come up with a conclusion, fallacies are arguments that make absolutely no sense. Sometimes you can get away with it, but when you don't, you can look like a first grader trying to solve a square root AKA ridiculous. I make fallacies more than I would rather do, but nothing compared to the King and Queen of fallacies (my parents). If you are a “wise-ass” you won’t get trap in your parent’s favorite way of using rhetoric, but if you aren’t, well prepare for a nice-stay-at-home-type-of-childhood.

This video can be an example of a type of fallacy, the power fallacy, "the person on top wants it, so it must be good"(156). The way this is used in this commercial is because the person on top, the oven, is telling Scott what to do, therefore he does it. The oven has a power...badass oven.

Ok, moving on.

Fallacies aren’t the only always you can get a foul in the game of rhetoric. According to Heinrichs there are seven of them, these are like his “deadly sins”. So if you are going to argue do it right, if not you know what they say (I don’t know what they say but it sounded like a good way to conclude my argument) ________________.

I lost myself.

Lets get back to the seven fouls:

“Switching tenses away from the future” (170). This “sin” can be seen frequently in debates between politicians. Let’s say the first candidate of a presidential election says “He did an utter disaster of the country.” Well ok A for effort, but the argument would be much better if it was in deliberative format rather than in forensic or demonstrative. I would rather vote for someone who says, “He did an utter disaster of the country, if I get elected as president I will do [such] and [such] differently to get the country back on track.” If the first candidate does no get back to future tense, “the argument is dead on arrival” (163).

“Inflexible insistence on the rules – using the voice of God, sticking t your gums, refusing to hear the other side” (170). Yeap, what he said.

“Humiliation – an argument that sets out only to debase someone not to make a choice” (170). We all know what humiliation is.

“Innuendo” (167). Self – Explanatory… NOT. I’m not going to deny it but the first things that came to mind with this word were: a video game and a type of Chinese martial arts. But it really just is a type of humiliation

BOSS: “It’s nice to see you wear a tie” (167).

ME: “I always wear a tie” (167).

In other words… you’ve just been BURN.

“Threats” (170). We all know what threats are, at least I hope.

"Nasty language or signs" (170). Just avoid those f*&$@, S%^+=, and b@!#$, that sometimes escape us when not paying attention. If doing a video you can putt a sort of “PIIII” noise while you say those nasty words, just like they do in movies.

Oh well, just try avoiding those words.

"Utter Stupidity" (170). Pretty self – explanatory, but pretty  fun to explain as well. I have to agree with Gabriela, when she says that sometimes people whose argument’s are so ignorant that they win just because there is no way to convince them that they are wrong. Here is an example:

JOHN: The sky is red.

ME: No, it’s blue.

JOHN. Not its not, are you blind?

ME: No, are you

JOHN: Just look up, it’s red!

So, that was a really bad example. But as you can see  there get’s a point that "me" just ends up agreeing that the sky is red, because like Gabriela said, “you will eventually get bored.” One might think most people avoid this “sin,” but is more common that Spanglish at CNG (sorry I just wanted to end my blog with a metaphor).

That was the lesson for today kids!