The death of critical thought has been a slow and painful process, one by 1,000 cuts rather than one ushered in overnight, but certainly one that is prevalent around the world today. One of the most difficult debates one can ever have with another person is to convince someone that he or she does not understand something that he or she firmly believes he or she understands. And such misguided delusions lead to delusional arguments:
"So, where did you go to school?"Usually, such empty-calorie questions are posed by graduates from the "elite" schools around the world in the hopes that they can browbeat a person into conceding to them based on academic pedigree alone. Academic pedigree has nothing to do with critical thinking skills unless one attended a specialized school focused solely on critical thinking.
"What did you major in?"
Possession of an analytical major or even a science major degree does not necessarily mean one possesses
strong critical thinking skills (i.e. Dr. Fauci of the WHO is a prime example of an uneducated person that has a medical degree, as he is an endless abyss of misinformation regarding things he has said about the current virus used to lockdown economies around the world, to once
even stating that HIV transmission could happen through casual contact like touching the skin or shaking hands with an infected person.) If you're old enough to remember when HIV was a novel virus not yet well understood because the science behind it was still theoretical, millions of people were terrified of being around people that were infected with HIV, specifically due to charlatans like Fauci
that spread false speculations about people potentially contracting HIV from infected people through casual contact with infected people. History will prove me to be 100% right about condemning Fauci for spreading as much misinformation about this current virus as he once did about HIV not because he has any interest in what in our best interests, but specifically because his misinformation helps solidify the agenda of the black-hearted oligarchs for whom he works.
"You think you know more than Warren Buffet or Jamie Dimon?"This argument is a
fallacy of logic that equates the accumulation of material wealth with intellect, even though there is zero correlation between wealth and intellect. Such an argument also indicates a
complete lack of understanding of the rigged economic and banking system and a
delusional belief that we all operate, rich and poor, on a level playing field with equal opportunity provided to all; and finally, a
fallacious argument we've heard repeated dozens of times within the past year, repeated by those that tend to be delusional about their level of intellect:
"You can't argue with science. I'm quoting science so that's a fact whereas your quoting an opinion."Any real scientist would laugh at this statement as every scientist, no matter the field of study, realizes that there is an immense amount of knowledge in their field that is theoretical, with no absolute evidence of its factual basis and that science is, and has always been an evolving field of knowledge, with theories previously believed to have been true constantly upgraded, transformed and sometimes even fully discredited as the research and knowledge about certain theories becomes greater over time.
Consequently, the irony is that almost none of the talking heads we've seen in the mass media over the past twelve months that have used the "science argument" to falsely claim they were stating facts to try to discredit any narrative that opposed or provided dissent to their tyrannical lockdown efforts were actual scientists, but rather narcissists with inflated opinions of their intellect that failed to understand that as an evolutionary field of study,
many scientific statements have to remain open to debate and dissent to arrive at truth, as many scientific statements only represent the
prevailing opinion at the time that is subject to significant changes and updates in light of new and better information that may be discovered at a future time.
Consequently,
by appealing to "science" in their argument to
shut down dissent, these narcissistic, and frankly, quite dumb, oligarchs, were
shutting down the scientific process that would best lead to truth and instead, using a "science" argument to forward beliefs that only best served their interests. Shockingly, as dumb as these oligarchs are, the audience to whom they appeal are often dumber, as the audience ingests and internalizes all of their non-scientific information passed off as "science" that is instead, truly pure propaganda.
In this podcast, titled,
"Answering this Question is Critical to Having a Good Financial Year," the question I pose is to determine if you understand the methodology by which the test that is most widely used around the world to test for virus infections produces a positive test result. Most people do not understand and cannot properly explain this process. If you 100% understood how the PCR test is used to provide a positive viral infection result, you would have no doubt in your mind that all the infection data being reported is completely unscientific and 100% invalid. If you then wonder why I would equate an inability to understand an undeniable truth about the infection data being reported around the world to an inability to make smart decisions about investing, and believe there is no connection between the two, here is why there is absolutely a valid link between the two.
If one possesses the type of uncritical mind in which one can be led to unquestioningly embrace a false narrative that is created about this virus and then widely disseminated by mass media across the world, then one will undoubtedly embrace false narratives created by bankers and politicians created by the types of people that meet in Davos, Switzerland to direct global financial policy and believe all the misinformation they spread as "fact" as well. One cannot have a critical mindset in finance and have an uncritical mindset when it comes to medicine, the virus and health issues. Either one possesses a critical mindset or one possesses a compliant obedient mindset that always blindly believes narratives spread by those in power and by so-called "authority" figures like Fauci.
For example, as an example of a financial lie embraced by the majority of people, even today, most people still falsely believe that if their boss gives them a 7% raise in annual salary, that given no change in spending habits from year to year, that this 7% raise in salary make them wealthier versus the prior year. In other words, because they cannot or will not question the 1.5% to 2% inflation rates constantly provided by the banking class as the actual inflation rates in many Western and European nations, even though these fake rates should be so obviously fake to the critical mind, they don't understand how one's quality of life and wealth can be constantly degrading even when they keep earning more and more money every subsequent year.
Comment: While the above provides some needed common sense and good reasoning to current issues, it also points to the plethora of
rhetorical fallacies that individuals - in every sphere of life - often resort to in order to convince others of their position or "truth".
As the article suggests, seeing how such fallacies are employed (especially towards social and political ends) can help empower us to see through the lies and, hopefully, make better decisions for ourselves and those in our care and sphere of influence.
If knowledge is truly power, and if the strength of our being and of our very souls is dependent upon our alignment with Truth and Objective Reality, then we'd do well to re-familiarize ourselves with
the ways in which we are lied to on a more or less daily basis.
The list of known
rhetorical fallacies below may be used as just such a tool in the effort to think more critically and strengthen ourselves for the Big Lies coming down the road. And by all means do think critically on the examples given to demonstrate each fallacy. They may not all be correct!
Rhetorical Fallacies
Rhetorical fallacies, or fallacies of argument, don't allow for the open, two-way exchange of ideas upon which meaningful conversations depend. Instead, they distract the reader with various appeals instead of using sound reasoning.
They can be divided into three categories:
1. Emotional fallacies unfairly appeal to the audience's emotions.
2. Ethical fallacies unreasonably advance the writer's own authority or character.
3. Logical fallacies depend upon faulty logic. Keep in mind that rhetorical fallacies often overlap.
EMOTIONAL FALLACIES
Sentimental Appeals use emotion to distract the audience from the facts.
Example: The thousand of baby seals killed in the Exxon Valdez oil spill have shown us that oil is not a reliable energy source.
Red Herrings use misleading or unrelated evidence to support a conclusion.
Example: That painting is worthless because I don't recognize the artist.
Scare Tactics try to frighten people into agreeing with the arguer by threatening them or predicting unrealistically dire consequences.
Example: If you don't support the party's tax plan, you and your family will be reduced to poverty.
Bandwagon Appeals encourage an audience to agree with the writer because everyone else is doing so.
Example: Paris Hilton carries a small dog in her purse, so you should buy a hairless Chihuahua and put itin your Louis Vuitton.
Slippery Slope arguments suggest that one thing will lead to another, oftentimes with disastrous results.
Example: If you get a B in high school, you won't get into the college of your choice, and therefore willnever have a meaningful career.
Either/Or Choices reduce complicated issues to only two possible courses of action.
Example: The patent office can either approve my generator design immediately or say goodbye forever to affordable energy.
False Need arguments create an unnecessary desire for things.
Example: You need an expensive car or people won't think you're cool.
ETHICAL FALLACIES
False Authority asks audiences to agree with the assertion of a writer based simply on his or her character or the authority of another person or institution who may not be fully qualified to offer that assertion.
Example: My high school teacher said it, so it must be true.
Using Authority Instead of Evidence occurs when someone offers personal authority as proof.
Example: Trust me - my best friend wouldn't do that.
Guilt by Association calls someone's character into question by examining the character of that person's associates.
Example: Sara's friend Amy robbed a bank; therefore, Sara is a delinquent.
Dogmatism shuts down discussion by asserting that the writer's beliefs are the only acceptable ones.
Example: I'm sorry, but I think penguins are sea creatures and that's that.
Moral Equivalence compares minor problems with much more serious crimes (or vice versa).
Example: These mandatory seatbelt laws are fascist.
Hominem arguments attack a person's character rather than that person's reasoning.
Example: Why should we think a candidate who recently divorced will keep her campaign promises?
Strawperson arguments set up and often dismantle easily refutable arguments in order to misrepresent an opponent's argument in order to defeat him or her
Example: A: We need to regulate access to handguns. B: My opponent believes that we should ignore the rights guaranteed to us as citizens of the United States by the Constitution. Unlike my opponent, I am a firm believer in the Constitution, and a proponent of freedom.
LOGICAL FALLACIES
A Hasty Generalization draws conclusions from scanty evidence.
Example: I wouldn't eat at that restaurant — the only time I ate there, my entree was undercooked.
Faulty Causality (or Post Hoc) arguments confuse chronology with causation: one event can occur after another without being caused by it.
Example: A year after the release of the violent shoot-'em-up video game Annihilator, incidents of schoolviolence tripled — surely not a coincidence.
A Non Sequitur (Latin for "It doesn't follow") is a statement that does not logically relate to what comes before it. An important logical step may be missing in such a claim.
Example: If those protesters really loved their country, they wouldn't question the government.
An Equivocation is a half-truth, or a statement that is partially correct but that purposefully obscures the entire truth.
Example: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." - President Bill Clinton.
Begging the Question occurs when a writer simply restates the claim in a different way; such an argument is circular.
Example: His lies are evident from the untruthful nature of his statements.
A Faulty Analogy is an inaccurate, inappropriate, or misleading comparison between two things.
Example: Letting prisoners out on early release is like absolving them of their crimes.
Stacked Evidence represents only one side of the issue, thus distorting the issue.
Example: Cats are superior to dogs because they are cleaner, cuter, and more independent.
Further Resources: Lunsford, Andrea A. and John Ruszkiewicz. Everything's an Argument. 3rd ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's,
Undergraduate Writing Center, The University of Texas at Austin UWC
website: uwc.fac.utexas.edu
Last revised by Christine Acker, June 2006
Comment: While the above provides some needed common sense and good reasoning to current issues, it also points to the plethora of rhetorical fallacies that individuals - in every sphere of life - often resort to in order to convince others of their position or "truth".
As the article suggests, seeing how such fallacies are employed (especially towards social and political ends) can help empower us to see through the lies and, hopefully, make better decisions for ourselves and those in our care and sphere of influence.
If knowledge is truly power, and if the strength of our being and of our very souls is dependent upon our alignment with Truth and Objective Reality, then we'd do well to re-familiarize ourselves with the ways in which we are lied to on a more or less daily basis.
The list of known rhetorical fallacies below may be used as just such a tool in the effort to think more critically and strengthen ourselves for the Big Lies coming down the road. And by all means do think critically on the examples given to demonstrate each fallacy. They may not all be correct!