editorial with fallacies - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

yatzr · 07-13-2005, 06:51 PM

I don't normally like asking for help on schoolwork, but I've been searching for over a week now with no results. I need to find an editorial or letter to the editor that has at least two fallacies. All of the newspapers available to me have very crappy letters to the editor sections, so I've mainly been searching online for editorials and such. I just can't find any though with fallacies, (that or I have a hard time recognizing fallacies).

Does anyone know of any good places with poorly written editorials? Or maybe some help in recognizing fallacies. Also, any sites with letters to the editor would help too. Thanks in advance for any help.

shakran · 07-13-2005, 07:08 PM

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html

Plenty of fodder there.

reiii · 07-13-2005, 08:10 PM

This is from the Vanderbilt Hustler. Whether you agree with abortion or not, there are still a wide vareity of fallacies to choose from. This is not a level head pro-choice argument by any means.

Fallacy-
1. A false notion.
2. A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.
3. Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.
4. The quality of being deceptive.

Particularly under definition 1 and 4, some of his facts are just wrong too. This was from a thread a while back....
----------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion Thursday, January 27, 2005

The American Holocaust

By Michael Wilt
January 24, 2005

Those who support abortion are, without question, tantamount to those who stood idly by while the Nazi regime in Germany slaughtered millions. It is no different, except our holocaust of the unborn is indiscriminate. It doesn't matter if they're black or white, male or female; any un-born baby -- human being -- is legally allowed to be murdered.

I know the reaction I'm going to get from this article. Outrage. Indignation. There will be women on this campus who will probably never speak to me again. So let it be that way, I guess. I don't blame pro-choice people for the murders themselves, but they do enable it by either directly or indirectly supporting the so-called "right to choose."

One of the most compelling arguments I've ever heard against abortion "rights" is this: in the Declaration of Independence -- you know, the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness part -- which comes first? Life does. Without life, without the ability to live, what good is happiness or liberty going to do for you?

A lot of pro-choice advocates will say that the baby is not alive. As President Reagan once said, "abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born." What right is it of ours to say they are not "alive" and that therefore a woman's right to "choose" is paramount? With the scientific evidence overwhelmingly pointing to the fact that the unborn feel pain, have dreams, talk and do a multitude of other human behaviors, how can we brush all this aside simply because, as disgracefully as it may sound, the left-minded citizens in this country see the unborn as nothing more than a parasite?

The 32nd anniversary of the most atrocious Supreme Court decision in history -- even the abomination of the Dred Scott decision seems like decent reasoning in comparison -- has, as usual, sparked the debate for public awareness once again. Every January we gather at rallies or in our homes to protest or celebrate America's holocaust.

Finally, we have a president who not only reinstated Reagan's Mexico City policy (according to usaid.gov, it requires non-governmental organizations to "agree as a condition of their receipt of federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations"), but also signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003. Now we have an opportunity with the open seats on the Supreme Court for justices who will uphold the Constitution and, when the time comes, will reverse Roe v. Wade.

I'm not blind; I know that women will continue to get illegal abortions. But the point is that instead of 1,500,000 abortions, rather, murders a year, that number will be drastically reduced, the doctors who do break the law will go to jail, and the mothers who try to harm their child will also go to jail. In comparison, the welfare queens who have 15 children at least are using my tax money to, hopefully, keep another human being alive.

It's not going to be easy. The powerful abortion enthusiast lobby has a stranglehold over the Democratic Party (and as we see, its views on morality and issues like abortion played so well in 2004) and they'll try to block judges who don't support abortion in the Senate. While President Bush advocates freedom abroad for oppressed peoples of the world, perhaps we should also take a look inward and realize we are conducting the greatest mass murder on the entire planet. I am confident that with the help of God and the wise votes of the American people, we will end this 1973 travesty once and for all.

--Michael Wilt is a Junior in the College of Arts and Science.

---------------------------------------------------------------

His opening paragraph would be a great place to start. First he makes a comparison which he neuters with his next sentence. "It is no different, except our holocaust of the unborn is indiscriminate" errrr....how is it "no different" if it differs in its most fundamental motivation? Here is an example of 3 and 4 : "any un-born baby -- human being -- is legally allowed to be murdered." Not all un-born babies can be aborted (i.e. no state has ever legalized abortions of babies that are sayyyy 2 days late for delivery). I could go on and on.

reiii · 07-13-2005, 08:16 PM

Here is a nice third one "With the scientific evidence overwhelmingly pointing to the fact that the unborn feel pain, have dreams, talk and do a multitude of other human behaviors"

He is misleading the readers, and basing his opinion on a shaky understanding of "scientific evidence". He is leaving out important details like....all pertinent details of the studies

He could have made a good point had he pointed to a specific study that demonstrates that X week old fetus dreams, and X week old fetus can be legally aborted. I really think you could find a bunch of fallacies here.

kutulu · 07-14-2005, 09:38 AM

How about looking up something by a fundie claiming the earth is 5000 years old and that man and dino walked the earth at the same time. You should have lots of fun with that.

Jinn · 07-14-2005, 07:03 PM

I'm assuming you need to be specific about WHICH fallacies are used, so here's a link:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/archive052005.html

Scroll the left hand side:

Appeal to/
Argument from…

Authority
Consequences
Envy
Fear
Force
Hatred
Ignorance
Pity
Popularity
Pride

Argumentum ad…
Baculum
Consequentiam
Hominem
Ignorantiam
Invidiam
Logicam
Metum
Misericordiam
Nazium
Odium

..etc... etc..

P.S. I got that by putting 'fallacy letter to the editor' into google...

OFKU0 · 07-14-2005, 08:59 PM

editorial with fallacies

This should serve your needs. Not as bad as they used to be (ie,..taking personal opinions in form of an ed-op ((mostly subjective)) and presenting them as fact days or weeks later in the same ed-op style. No wonder all their writer's quit.

Anyways, excellent source for bias's across the board while being an embarrassment to Canada's other national papers. ***Recently bitched about how as a national paper, they were shut out of all catagories at the industry's award show. Hmmm,...wonder why.***

Oh yeah, if you want to access it, you've got to pay.

My suggestion. Don't waste your money.

http://www.nationalpost.com/

yatzr · 07-17-2005, 06:53 PM

thanks for all the help guys, I found several that should work perfect

07-13-2005, 06:51 PM	#1 (permalink)
yatzr Insane	editorial with fallacies I don't normally like asking for help on schoolwork, but I've been searching for over a week now with no results. I need to find an editorial or letter to the editor that has at least two fallacies. All of the newspapers available to me have very crappy letters to the editor sections, so I've mainly been searching online for editorials and such. I just can't find any though with fallacies, (that or I have a hard time recognizing fallacies). Does anyone know of any good places with poorly written editorials? Or maybe some help in recognizing fallacies. Also, any sites with letters to the editor would help too. Thanks in advance for any help. __________________ Mechanical Engineers build weapons. Civil Engineers build targets.

07-13-2005, 08:10 PM	#3 (permalink)
reiii unstuck in time Location: Nashville/D.C.	This is from the Vanderbilt Hustler. Whether you agree with abortion or not, there are still a wide vareity of fallacies to choose from. This is not a level head pro-choice argument by any means. Fallacy- 1. A false notion. 2. A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference. 3. Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness. 4. The quality of being deceptive. Particularly under definition 1 and 4, some of his facts are just wrong too. This was from a thread a while back.... ---------------------------------------------------------------- Opinion Thursday, January 27, 2005 The American Holocaust By Michael Wilt January 24, 2005 Those who support abortion are, without question, tantamount to those who stood idly by while the Nazi regime in Germany slaughtered millions. It is no different, except our holocaust of the unborn is indiscriminate. It doesn't matter if they're black or white, male or female; any un-born baby -- human being -- is legally allowed to be murdered. I know the reaction I'm going to get from this article. Outrage. Indignation. There will be women on this campus who will probably never speak to me again. So let it be that way, I guess. I don't blame pro-choice people for the murders themselves, but they do enable it by either directly or indirectly supporting the so-called "right to choose." One of the most compelling arguments I've ever heard against abortion "rights" is this: in the Declaration of Independence -- you know, the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness part -- which comes first? Life does. Without life, without the ability to live, what good is happiness or liberty going to do for you? A lot of pro-choice advocates will say that the baby is not alive. As President Reagan once said, "abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born." What right is it of ours to say they are not "alive" and that therefore a woman's right to "choose" is paramount? With the scientific evidence overwhelmingly pointing to the fact that the unborn feel pain, have dreams, talk and do a multitude of other human behaviors, how can we brush all this aside simply because, as disgracefully as it may sound, the left-minded citizens in this country see the unborn as nothing more than a parasite? The 32nd anniversary of the most atrocious Supreme Court decision in history -- even the abomination of the Dred Scott decision seems like decent reasoning in comparison -- has, as usual, sparked the debate for public awareness once again. Every January we gather at rallies or in our homes to protest or celebrate America's holocaust. Finally, we have a president who not only reinstated Reagan's Mexico City policy (according to usaid.gov, it requires non-governmental organizations to "agree as a condition of their receipt of federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations"), but also signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003. Now we have an opportunity with the open seats on the Supreme Court for justices who will uphold the Constitution and, when the time comes, will reverse Roe v. Wade. I'm not blind; I know that women will continue to get illegal abortions. But the point is that instead of 1,500,000 abortions, rather, murders a year, that number will be drastically reduced, the doctors who do break the law will go to jail, and the mothers who try to harm their child will also go to jail. In comparison, the welfare queens who have 15 children at least are using my tax money to, hopefully, keep another human being alive. It's not going to be easy. The powerful abortion enthusiast lobby has a stranglehold over the Democratic Party (and as we see, its views on morality and issues like abortion played so well in 2004) and they'll try to block judges who don't support abortion in the Senate. While President Bush advocates freedom abroad for oppressed peoples of the world, perhaps we should also take a look inward and realize we are conducting the greatest mass murder on the entire planet. I am confident that with the help of God and the wise votes of the American people, we will end this 1973 travesty once and for all. --Michael Wilt is a Junior in the College of Arts and Science. --------------------------------------------------------------- His opening paragraph would be a great place to start. First he makes a comparison which he neuters with his next sentence. "It is no different, except our holocaust of the unborn is indiscriminate" errrr....how is it "no different" if it differs in its most fundamental motivation? Here is an example of 3 and 4 : "any un-born baby -- human being -- is legally allowed to be murdered." Not all un-born babies can be aborted (i.e. no state has ever legalized abortions of babies that are sayyyy 2 days late for delivery). I could go on and on. __________________ "Jombe? The chocolate icing" -hedonism bot

07-13-2005, 08:16 PM	#4 (permalink)
reiii unstuck in time Location: Nashville/D.C.	Here is a nice third one "With the scientific evidence overwhelmingly pointing to the fact that the unborn feel pain, have dreams, talk and do a multitude of other human behaviors" He is misleading the readers, and basing his opinion on a shaky understanding of "scientific evidence". He is leaving out important details like....all pertinent details of the studies He could have made a good point had he pointed to a specific study that demonstrates that X week old fetus dreams, and X week old fetus can be legally aborted. I really think you could find a bunch of fallacies here. __________________ "Jombe? The chocolate icing" -hedonism bot

07-14-2005, 07:03 PM	#6 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	I'm assuming you need to be specific about WHICH fallacies are used, so here's a link: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/archive052005.html Scroll the left hand side: Appeal to/ Argument from… Authority Consequences Envy Fear Force Hatred Ignorance Pity Popularity Pride Argumentum ad… Baculum Consequentiam Hominem Ignorantiam Invidiam Logicam Metum Misericordiam Nazium Odium ..etc... etc.. P.S. I got that by putting 'fallacy letter to the editor' into google... __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

07-14-2005, 08:59 PM	#7 (permalink)
OFKU0 Junk	editorial with fallacies This should serve your needs. Not as bad as they used to be (ie,..taking personal opinions in form of an ed-op ((mostly subjective)) and presenting them as fact days or weeks later in the same ed-op style. No wonder all their writer's quit. Anyways, excellent source for bias's across the board while being an embarrassment to Canada's other national papers. *Recently bitched about how as a national paper, they were shut out of all catagories at the industry's award show. Hmmm,...wonder why.* Oh yeah, if you want to access it, you've got to pay. My suggestion. Don't waste your money. http://www.nationalpost.com/ __________________ " In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

07-13-2005, 07:08 PM	#2 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html Plenty of fodder there.

07-14-2005, 09:38 AM	#5 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	How about looking up something by a fundie claiming the earth is 5000 years old and that man and dino walked the earth at the same time. You should have lots of fun with that.

07-17-2005, 06:53 PM	#8 (permalink)
yatzr Insane	thanks for all the help guys, I found several that should work perfect __________________ Mechanical Engineers build weapons. Civil Engineers build targets.