Member-only story

Exposing the Bogus Arguments of Politicians, Priests, Journalists, and Others

Chadwick Powell

·2.8k Followers· Follow

Published in Crimes Against Logic: Exposing The Bogus Arguments Of Politicians Priests Journalists And Other Serial Offenders

5 min read

714 View Claps

87 Respond

Save

Listen

Public figures often use bogus arguments to support their positions. These arguments are often based on faulty logic, misleading evidence, or emotional appeals. In this article, we will expose some of the most common bogus arguments and provide you with the tools to counter them.

Crimes Against Logic: Exposing the Bogus Arguments of Politicians, Priests, Journalists, and Other Serial Offenders

by Jamie Whyte

4.2 out of 5

Language	:	English
File size	:	452 KB
Text-to-Speech	:	Enabled
Screen Reader	:	Supported
Enhanced typesetting	:	Enabled
Word Wise	:	Enabled
Print length	:	178 pages

Faulty Logic

One of the most common types of bogus arguments is based on faulty logic. This occurs when the premises of an argument do not logically support the . For example, a politician might argue that we should support a new tax because it will raise revenue for the government. However, the politician's premises do not support this . Just because the tax will raise revenue does not mean that it is a good tax. The politician would need to provide additional premises to support this , such as evidence that the tax will not harm the economy or that the revenue will be used to fund important programs.

Misleading Evidence

Another common type of bogus argument is based on misleading evidence. This occurs when a public figure presents evidence that is inaccurate, incomplete, or taken out of context. For example, a priest might argue that abortion is wrong because it kills a human being. However, the priest's evidence might be based on a misleading definition of "human being." The priest might define a human being as any fertilized egg, even though most scientists agree that a fertilized egg is not a human being.

Emotional Appeals

Public figures also often use emotional appeals to support their positions. This occurs when they try to evoke strong emotions in their audience, such as fear, anger, or pity. For example, a journalist might argue that we should support a new law that would ban assault weapons because it will save lives. However, the journalist's argument is based on an emotional appeal. The journalist is trying to scare people into supporting the new law by making them believe that it will prevent mass shootings. However, there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, there is evidence that gun bans do not reduce gun violence.

How to Counter Bogus Arguments

Now that we have identified some of the most common types of bogus arguments, we can discuss how to counter them. The first step is to be aware of the different types of bogus arguments and the fallacies that they contain. Once you are aware of these arguments, you can be more critical of the information that you are presented with.

The second step is to ask questions. When someone makes an argument, ask them for evidence to support their claims. If they cannot provide evidence, or if the evidence is misleading, then you should be skeptical of their argument.

The third step is to think critically about the evidence that is presented to you. Don't just accept it at face value. Ask yourself if the evidence is accurate, complete, and relevant. If it is not, then you should discount it.

Finally, don't be afraid to challenge bogus arguments. If you hear someone making a bogus argument, don't be afraid to point out the fallacies in their argument. You can do this in a respectful and polite way, but you should not be afraid to stand up for what you believe in.

Bogus arguments are a common problem in public discourse. Politicians, priests, journalists, and other public figures often use these arguments to support their positions. However, we can counter these arguments by being aware of the different types of bogus arguments and the fallacies that they contain. We can also ask questions, think critically about the evidence that is presented to us, and challenge bogus arguments when we hear them. By ng this, we can help to create a more informed and rational public discourse.

Crimes Against Logic: Exposing the Bogus Arguments of Politicians, Priests, Journalists, and Other Serial Offenders

by Jamie Whyte

4.2 out of 5