for Catherine Owen

Jose post

Instruction

 

The ad hominem fallacy makes an inappropriate reference to a person’s character or behavior.

• How can you distinguish between an inappropriate ad hominem attack and an appropriate use of evidence
• Provide an example of a situation where making a reference to a person’s behavior or character might be appropriate, and probably would not be ad hominem

 The ad hominem attack term can be described as a bias look at the source of the reference due to extenuating circumstances or endeavors. For example, if two people were running for president. On one side you have a Ph.D level educated, war veteran former pro athlete with a female wife and four healthy kids. On the opposing side you have a transsexual, war deserter with same sex marriage and two adopted kids from a third world country. Now, regardless of how the debates are conducted or what questions are ask, the background of each individual will be considered. Even if the representative who appeals to the majority sounds like a political rock star who will be best suited to serve the country, the person background as a source of reference will be judged. 

Ronald post

 

Ad hominem is a basic attack on a person’s character. An ad hominem attack takes issue with the person on a level that attacks their character and does not directly take issue with the premise of the argument. This kind of fallacy takes the focus off the arguer and distracts us from the real issues. Ad hominem comes into play when the attacker takes issue with a person’s features such as inconsistent in their words or psychological makeup. It is an argument that is rejected, or advanced, based on a personal characteristic of an individual rather than on reasons for or against the claim itself.

Ad hominem is appropriate in some situations such as testimony or when a person’s character is directly an issue. When a legitimate character critique is directly or indirectly related to the point being articulated it is appropriate to use ad hominem. Case in point the credibility of President Trump during is run for president. We all know his famous words while in a trailer with Billy Bush from the Today show. These words where used to attack is credibility and his worthiness to hold office. This was in direct relation to his character. Their where many arguments for and against his character. In my opinion the ad hominem attaching trump for sexual harassment and his character are more than appropriate

Soleam post

 Instruction

 

• Find an advertisement (print, online, the radio, or on television) that uses at least two of the fallacies from the unit. Explain what you have seen and/or heard.
• Provide a link, if possible. Identify and explain the fallacies in the advertisement?
• Why are these fallacies used in the argument?

The advertisement that I chose is a one that represents a baby of 6 or 7 months old. He or she has a scared face. The ad has a few messages. First, appealing that the children receive too many vaccines in 6 years. Then, the announcement in letters so small that you cannot almost read it is implying that the vaccines cause autism, diabetes juvenile, brain tumor, cancer, lupus, etc. They are more than 100 diseases.

The fallacies that I have found are an appeal to ignorance, and appeal to illegitimate authority Appeal to ignorance refers to a statement that is true just because has not been proving false or vice versa. Appeal to illegitimate authority occurs when the position expert is not an expert on the subject. The ad made references that the vaccines are harmful to the children, and cause serious diseases, but in the ad, you cannot see a sponsorship of a health authority. Neither you can see any reference to studies that prove or sustain their claim.

Luther post

 The advertisement I chose is an attempt to get people to Go vegan! The advertisement shows a young child smoking a cigar while lying in front of a book. The advertisement says You Wouldn’t Let Your Child Smoke. Like smoking, eating meat increases the risk of heart disease and cancer. One fallacy I believe used in this advertisement is begging the question. The advertiser assumes that since smoking and eating meat increase the risk of heart disease and cancer, they can be used interchangeably. No data is given comparing the risk of smoking and eating meat. The assumption is they will both kill you at the same rate. Like the begging the question fallacy, the “strawman” fallacy also applies to this advertisement. Here, meat is misrepresented in a way people should be concerned about death if they continue to eat meat. Additionally, the advertisement assumes if you feed meat to your children, you are choosing to kill your children in the same way letting them smoke would hurt them. The herring fallacy could also follow the same logic. The advertiser distracts the viewer with the picture of a small child smoking a cigarette. Since many people are sensitive to the future of children, the advertisement makes people take a step back and think about whether feeding meat to their child could be hurting their health. The advertisers used these fallacies in order to gain attention for their advertisement. Most people would be appalled by seeing a young child smoking a cigar. I believe the advertisers attempt was that people would become as appalled about meat as they are about a child smoking a cigar.