By Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk, Comment Is Free.

Civility has its uses, but atheists should not be afraid to mock faith to undermine religious power.

Religious teachings promise us much — eternal life, spiritual salvation, moral direction, and a deeper understanding of reality. It all sounds good, but these teachings are also onerous in their demands. If they can’t deliver on what they promise, it would be well to clear that up. Put bluntly, are the teachings of any religion actually true or not? Do they have any rational support? It’s hard to see what questions could be more important.

Surely the claims of religion — of all religions — merit scrutiny from every angle, whether historical, philosophical, scientific, or any other.
Contrary to many expectations in the 1970s, or even the 1990s, religion has not faded away, even in the Western democracies, and we still see intense activism from religious lobbies. Even now, one religion or another opposes abortion rights, most contraceptive technologies, and therapeutic cloning research. Various churches and sects condemn many harmless, pleasurable sexual activities that adults can reasonably enjoy.

As a result, these are frowned upon, if not prohibited outright, in many parts of the world, indeed people lose their lives because of them. Most religious organisations reject dying patients’ requests to end their lives as they see fit. Even in relatively secular countries, such as the UK, Canada, and Australia, governments pander blatantly to Christian moral concerns as the protection of religiously motivated refusals to provide medical professional services demonstrates.

In a different world, the merits, or otherwise, of religious teachings might be discussed more dispassionately. In that world, some of us who criticise religion itself might be content to argue that the church (and the mosque, and all the other religious architecture that sprouts across the landscape) should be kept separate from the state. Unfortunately, however, we don’t live in that world.
When religion claims authority in the political sphere, it is unsurprising — and totally justifiable — that atheists and skeptics question the source of this authority. If religious organisations or their leaders claim to speak on behalf of a god, it is fair to ask whether the god concerned really makes the claims that are communicated on its behalf. Does this god even exist? Where is the evidence? And even if this being does exist, why, exactly, should its wishes be translated into law?

In many situations, it is better to be civil, as Paul Kurtz has pointed out, but satire and  mockery have traditionally had a legitimate place whenever absurd ideas are joined to power and privilege. Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire often used mockery to show the absurdity of  ideological stances — including religious ones — that were considered sacrosanct. Mockery is one way of saying that a view does not deserve to be taken seriously. Religious views are fair game if one can also show, on a more serious level, why the view in question does indeed not deserve serious respect.

Perhaps some rationalist or humanist organisations, such as Kurtz’s venerable Center for Inquiry, do have good reason to maintain a scholarly and dignified brand image. But there is also room for the younger, brasher atheists whom Kurtz inaccurately brands as “fundamentalists”, and, in any event, there is a world of difference between appropriate civility and keeping quiet.

In the US, unfortunately, some atheists appear to have concluded that even civil and thoughtful criticism of supposedly “moderate” religion (i.e., almost anything that does not dispute evolutionary theory) should be discouraged.

These “accommodationist” atheists tend to be focused on science advocacy, particularly the teaching of evolution in public schools. In seeking public support for their positions, they think it prudent to take the various American demographics as they are. Since they want to sell evolutionary science to very large numbers of pious Americans, the last thing they want is to see it linked with atheism.
Once you think in that way, from a kind of marketing perspective, it can take over your approach to what you think you ought to say. Sincerity goes out the window, and everything must be “framed” to please the audience. We doubt that this strategy can work.

Religion cannot be eradicated — that is not a realistic goal — but the many problems with religious dogma can and should be highlighted. As atheists, we should state clearly that no religion has any rational warrant, and that many churches and sects promote cruelty, ignorance, and civil rights abuses.

There are harmful consequences to real people in the real world if the views of churches and sects are enshrined in law or given undue social deference – the acceptance even in liberal secular societies of conscientious objection as a legitimate reason for health care professionals and even civil servants to refuse to provide professional services to certain citizens is a case in point. For these reasons it is important that we should speak out and publicly contest the special authority that is accorded, all too often, to pontiffs, imams, priests, and presbyters. Religious leaders are not our moral leaders, much as they clamour to be, and however much the politicians flatter them. These spiritual emperors have no clothes, and we shouldn’t flinch from saying so.

Found at AlterNet.

Thanks to Bill for sharing this. While I’ve been guilty of being overly accommodating regarding religion, I find myself agreeing with this argument. Sure, there’s a place and time for civility, but in general, I think this article is right. Religion should be heartily mocked for its unfulfilled, ridiculous promises and stories that people eat up like candy.

Related posts

• Advice For Freethinking Kids? (0)
• 2012 Doomsday Fast Approaches! (0)
• You Are Wrong Because: (0)
• Some Great Advice by Robert Gula (1)
• Religion: The Root of All Evil? (0)

Of course the Mayans themselves didn’t survive till 2012, so maybe they aren’t the best group to ask about such things.

Recently a friend of mine mentioned the 2012 phenomenon as if it were true. Unfortunately I didn’t have the hard facts at my disposal so I told him it’s not going to happen and left it at that. But I thought I’d look up some more information so when your mother starts talking about the end of the world, you will have some facts to back you up.

Lucky for me, NASA and Wikipedia have pages to explain where the concept came from and what scientific basis there is for it (none, thank you very much).

Some people seem to love the idea of predicting cataclysmic events and the destruction of the world. Of course, since we’re still here, so far they have been wrong every time. That’s something in itself to consider.

NASA explains it all very succinctly in FAQ form:

Q: Are there any threats to the Earth in 2012? Many Internet websites say the world will end in December 2012.
A: Nothing bad will happen to the Earth in 2012. Our planet has been getting along just fine for more than 4 billion years, and credible scientists worldwide know of no threat associated with 2012.

Q: What is the origin of the prediction that the world will end in 2012?
A: The story started with claims that Nibiru, a supposed planet discovered by the Sumerians, is headed toward Earth. This catastrophe was initially predicted for May 2003, but when nothing happened the doomsday date was moved forward to December 2012. Then these two fables were linked to the end of one of the cycles in the ancient Mayan calendar at the winter solstice in 2012 — hence the predicted doomsday date of December 21, 2012.

Q: Does the Mayan calendar end in December 2012?
A: Just as the calendar you have on your kitchen wall does not cease to exist after December 31, the Mayan calendar does not cease to exist on December 21, 2012. This date is the end of the Mayan long-count period but then — just as your calendar begins again on January 1 — another long-count period begins for the Mayan calendar.

Q: Could a phenomena occur where planets align in a way that impacts Earth?
A: There are no planetary alignments in the next few decades, Earth will not cross the galactic plane in 2012, and even if these alignments were to occur, their effects on the Earth would be negligible. Each December the Earth and sun align with the approximate center of the Milky Way Galaxy but that is an annual event of no consequence.

Q: Is there a planet or brown dwarf called Nibiru or Planet X or Eris that is approaching the Earth and threatening our planet with widespread destruction?
A: Nibiru and other stories about wayward planets are an Internet hoax. There is no factual basis for these claims. If Nibiru or Planet X were real and headed for an encounter with the Earth in 2012, astronomers would have been tracking it for at least the past decade, and it would be visible by now to the naked eye. Obviously, it does not exist. Eris is real, but it is a dwarf planet similar to Pluto that will remain in the outer solar system; the closest it can come to Earth is about 4 billion miles.

Q: What is the polar shift theory? Is it true that the earth’s crust does a 180-degree rotation around the core in a matter of days if not hours?
A: A reversal in the rotation of Earth is impossible. There are slow movements of the continents (for example Antarctica was near the equator hundreds of millions of years ago), but that is irrelevant to claims of reversal of the rotational poles. However, many of the disaster websites pull a bait-and-shift to fool people. They claim a relationship between the rotation and the magnetic polarity of Earth, which does change irregularly, with a magnetic reversal taking place every 400,000 years on average. As far as we know, such a magnetic reversal doesn’t cause any harm to life on Earth. A magnetic reversal is very unlikely to happen in the next few millennia, anyway.

Q: Is the Earth in danger of being hit by a meteor in 2012?
A: The Earth has always been subject to impacts by comets and asteroids, although big hits are very rare. The last big impact was 65 million years ago, and that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. Today NASA astronomers are carrying out a survey called the Spaceguard Survey to find any large near-Earth asteroids long before they hit. We have already determined that there are no threatening asteroids as large as the one that killed the dinosaurs. All this work is done openly with the discoveries posted every day on the NASA NEO Program Office website, so you can see for yourself that nothing is predicted to hit in 2012.

Q: How do NASA scientists feel about claims of pending doomsday?
A: For any claims of disaster or dramatic changes in 2012, where is the science? Where is the evidence? There is none, and for all the fictional assertions, whether they are made in books, movies, documentaries or over the Internet, we cannot change that simple fact. There is no credible evidence for any of the assertions made in support of unusual events taking place in December 2012.

Q: Is there a danger from giant solar storms predicted for 2012?
A: Solar activity has a regular cycle, with peaks approximately every 11 years. Near these activity peaks, solar flares can cause some interruption of satellite communications, although engineers are learning how to build electronics that are protected against most solar storms. But there is no special risk associated with 2012. The next solar maximum will occur in the 2012-2014 time frame and is predicted to be an average solar cycle, no different than previous cycles throughout history.

Addition information concerning 2012 is available on the Web, at:

• NASA Astrobiology Institute: “Nibiru and Doomsday 2012“
• Bad Astronomy: “The Planet X Saga: The Scientific Arguments in a Nutshell”
• Sky and Telescope Magazine: “2012: The Great Scare“

Also see Wikipedia or more. It seems well referenced. Even Science Daily mentions the cyclical nature of the Mayan Calendar.

December 21, 2012 is a Friday. I propose a huge “Another Unfounded Prediction Has Failed” Party for Saturday December 22, 2012. How nice that we will also be able to celebrate the Winter Solstice as well!

Originally posted by Neece at Heaving Dead Cats

Related posts

• Logical Fallacy: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation (6)
• Atheists, It’s Time to Stand Up to Jesus (0)
• You Are Wrong Because: (0)
• Some Great Advice by Robert Gula (1)
• Podcasts and Internet Radio Stations You May Enjoy (2)

I really wanted to share part of chapter 17 with you. Mr. Gula lists the most important principles to be gleaned from the rest of the book. I highly recommend getting the book and reading it. It has really helped me think more logically. The other thing it’s helped me with is to realize when someone has used a logical fallacy on me. I might not remember the name, but I remember that it is nonsense. It sort of gives me a red flag when someone uses bad logic in an argument. I think that’s pretty invaluable.

So here’s the list of important principles from Robert Gula:

1. Be alert to anyone who speaks in absolutes: who uses words like all, none, no one, never, always, everyone, must, immediately, or who refers to a group of people as if all the members have identical characteristics, beliefs or attitudes.
2. Be alert to generalizations, especially ones that are unsupported or that are supported from just one or two specific, unusual or extreme examples.
3. Be alert to anyone who uses emotional language and evaluative words instead of objective, factual responses.
4. Do not confuse opinion, attitude, personal bias, speculation, personal assurance or unsupported generalization with hard, factual evidence.
5. Be sure that the issue under discussion is clear and precise, that its ramifications, complexities and goals have been identified, and that the words and concepts have been defined.
6. Be sure that the evidence is relevant to the specific topic of discussion, not to some related topic.
7. When an authority is referred to, do not automatically accept that authority unless their credentials are relevant to the issue under discussion.
8. Make sure that the conclusion follows from the evidence.
9. Be sure that you do not put others in a position where they have to make inferences, and that you are not put in a position where you have to make inferences. In other words, be sure that necessary steps are not omitted in argument. Avoid making assumptions.
10. Wherever possible, do not allow rational discussions to become heated arguments.
11. Make sure that the evidence is thorough, not selective.
12. Don’t quibble; don’t argue just for the sake of arguing.
13. Think critically. Never let a fallacy go by without making a mental note of it; even if you don’t say anything, say to yourself, “this is nonsense.”
14. Whenever you hear an argument, examine it before you accept its conclusions. As three questions:
    1. Are the statements – the premises – the points being made and used as evidence – true?
    2. Is the evidence complete? Or has the evidence been one-sided?
    3. Does the conclusion come incontrovertibly from the evidence? Or might a different conclusion just as easily have come from the evidence?
15. Finally, no matter how skilled in argument you may become, never forget the opening sentence of Poe’s “The Cask of Amontillado”:
    The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as best I could, but when he ventured upon insult, I vowed revenge.
    The world does not need another smart aleck.

Related posts

• How To Argue (0)
• Taxonomy of the Logical Fallacies (0)
• Logical Fallacy: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation (6)
• Logical Fallacy: Cherry-Picking (0)
• Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Emotion (0)

Chapters 12-17, pages 153-222

We each took a chapter and presented it to everyone.

• Chapter 12: Neece
• Chapter 13: Tim
• Chapter 14: Gerald
• Chapter 15: General discussion
• Chapter 16: Brent
• Chapter 17: Neece

This book was quite helpful and I would recommend it. Feel free to comment with how you liked the book and what you got out of it.

This will be our third meeting for Nonsense: Red Herrings, Straw Men and Sacred Cows: How We Abuse Logic in Our Everyday Language by Robert J. Gula. This should be great for helping us to think and converse more logically.

We had some good discussions and a lot of people showed up.

Here are some general principles and some great advice by Robert Gula, the author (from chapter 1 and 17).

Related posts

• Book Club September 27: Nonsense 1 (2)
• September 13 Meeting – Favorite Logical Fallacy (10)
• Reminder: Events This Weekend (0)
• Some Great Advice by Robert Gula (1)
• October 11 Meeting – My Personal 10 Commandments (8)

We are slowly going through the main logical fallacies, with examples and also with how to refute them. You can use this in all aspects of your life, whether it be science vs. pseudo-science, religion vs. atheism or agnosticism, the daily assault of advertising and consumerism, or simply to put your own belief systems to the test.

This page will have an introduction to each one. Click the title of the fallacy to read the full article.

First, some definitions:

• Logical: Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner. Reasonable.
• Fallacy: A deceptive, misleading or false notion or belief. A misleading or unsound argument.

Another thing that is really important as we get started is to keep in mind the difference between Fact versus Opinion, and the difference between Objective versus Subjective.

• Fact: something that actually exists; reality; truth. Something known to exist or to have happened. Something known to be true.
• Opinion: a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

Pointing out that an issue is actually not based on fact, but rather an opinion, can end an argument that can never be solved. If I say that I make the best cookies in the world, that isn’t based on fact, simply my own opinion.

• Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased. Of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
• Subjective: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to Objective)

Our Resources:

• The Skeptic’s Guide To The Universe
• The New England Skeptical Society
• Skeptoid
• Wikipedia
• Logical Fallacies.info
• Fallacy Files

~

The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

Information from Carl Sagan and Michael Shermer (video) about how to detect baloney with skeptical thinking.

~

~~

~

Taxonomy of the Logical Fallacies

This is from Fallacy Files. You can see a chart showing the relationships of all of the fallacies. This can be helpful in getting to know the categories and how fallacies are similar.

~

How To Argue

There is actually a right way and lots of wrong ways to have a discussion or argument. The Skeptic’s Guide 5×5 did an episode on how to argue. This is a fairly close transcript of the podcast.
~
~
~
~

Correlation and Causation

Just because two events occur together does not mean that one caused the other. Or just because two variables have a connection does not automatically imply that one causes the other.

~

~

Appeal to Emotion

This logical fallacy uses emotion to prove a point without resorting to actual facts.

~

~

~

Cherry-Picking

This logical fallacy occurs when you count the hits and ignore the misses. It is used when only certain quotes, data, studies or research are used to support an argument while ignoring other valid and credible quotes, data, studies and research. In my personal experience, cherry-picking is rampant in the religious population.

~

~

Cross-posted from Heaving Dead Cats with links to articles on Morgantown Atheists.

Related posts

• Taxonomy of the Logical Fallacies (0)
• Some Great Advice by Robert Gula (1)
• Logical Fallacy Land 2: A Treat For You (0)
• Logical Fallacy Land (6)
• How To Argue (0)

Chapters 6-11, pages 55-151

We each took a chapter to share with everyone. This was a good format which we’ll use again.

• Chapter 6:  Brent
• Chapter 7:  Neece
• Chapter 8:  Gerald
• Chapter 9:  Butch
• Chapter 10:  Tim
• Chapter 11:  Butch

This book should be easy to catch up with if you want to join us.

This will be our second meeting for Nonsense: Red Herrings, Straw Men and Sacred Cows: How We Abuse Logic in Our Everyday Language by Robert J. Gula. This should be great for helping us to think and converse more logically. (The link goes to Amazon where you can get the book either new or used.)

We’ll divide the book into three sections to span 3 meetings.

• Meeting 1 (September 27): Chapters 1-5, pages 1-53
• Meeting 2 (October 25): Chapters 6-11, pages 55-151
• Meeting 3 (November 15) Chapters 12-17, pages 153-222

EDIT: Bring your book ideas for what we’ll read next!

Related posts

• Some Great Advice by Robert Gula (1)
• February Book Club Meeting (8)
• Book Club September 27: Nonsense 1 (2)
• Book Club November 15: Nonsense 3 (4)
• Book Club Meeting: Aug 15: The GOD Part of the Brain (0)

Chapters 1-5, pages 1-53

This was our first meeting for  Nonsense: Red Herrings, Straw Men and Sacred Cows: How We Abuse Logic in Our Everyday Language by Robert J. Gula. This should be great for helping us to think and converse more logically.

We’ll divide the book into three sections to span 3 meetings.

• Meeting 1 (September 27): Chapters 1-5, pages 1-53
• Meeting 2 (October 25): Chapters 6-11, pages 55-151
• Meeting 3 (November TBA) Chapters 12-17, pages 153-222

We had a great meeting. We are all enjoying the book. We went through the ways language can be misused with emotional appeals, propaganda and mannerisms.

Here is a bit from chapter 1 that I want to share with you:

First, some general principles. Let’s not call them laws; and since they’re not particularly original, I won’t attach my name to them. They are merely a description of patterns that seem to characterize the ways that people tend to respond and think. For example, people:

1. tend to believe what they want to believe.
2. tend to project their own biases or experiences upon situations.
3. tend to generalize from a specific event.
4. tend to get personally involved in the analysis of an issue and tend to let their feelings overcome a sense of objectivity.
5. are not good listeners. They hear selectively. They often hear only what they want to hear.
6. are eager to rationalize.
7. are often unable to distinguish what is relevant from what is irrelevant.
8. are easily diverted from the specific issue at hand.
9. are usually unwilling to explore thoroughly the ramifications of a topic; tend to oversimplify.
10. often judge from appearances. They observe something, misinterpret what they observe, and make terrible errors in judgment.
11. often simply don’t know what they are talking about, especially in matters of general discussion. They rarely think carefully before they speak, but they allow their feelings, prejudices, biases, likes, dislikes, hopes and frustrations to supersede careful thinking.
12. rarely act according to a set of consistent standards. Rarely do they examine the evidence and then form a conclusion. Rather they tend to do whatever they want to do and to believe whatever they want to believe and then find whatever evidence will support their actions or their beliefs. They often think selectively: in evaluating a situation they are eager to find reasons to support what they want to support and they are just as eager to ignore or disregard reasons that don’t support what they want.
13. often do not say what they mean, and often do not mean what they say.

To these principles, let’s add four observations cited by J.A.C. Brown in his Techniques of Persuasion: “Most people want to feel that issues are simple rather than complex, want to have their prejudices confirmed, want to feel that they “belong” with the implication that others do not, and need to pinpoint an enemy to blame for their frustrations.”

The above comments may seem jaundiced. They are not meant to be. They are not even meant to be critical or judgmental. They merely suggest that it is a natural human tendency to be subjective rather than objective and that the untrained mind will usually take the path of least resistance. The path of least resistance is rarely through reason.

Page 4-5 of Nonsense: Red Herrings, Straw Men and Sacred Cows: How We Abuse Logic in Our Everyday Language by Robert J. Gula.

Related posts

• Book Club November 15: Nonsense 3 (4)
• September 13 Meeting – Favorite Logical Fallacy (10)
• Reminder: Events This Weekend (0)
• Some Great Advice by Robert Gula (1)
• October 11 Meeting – My Personal 10 Commandments (8)

After seeing how they are related, you can go to their How To Use page to read a bit more into it. For instance, you can see the logical relationships between them. Also as you get further to the right, you’ll see the colors fade from strong (more general) to faded (more specific).

The color and scheme is arbitrary, by the way, except how they blend. Red are formal fallacies. Blue are informal. Green is Loaded Question, which is not in either category.

Here is some of the reasoning behind this method:

The Taxonomy is more useful than the alphabetical index for studying the logical relationships between fallacies. To understand an individual fallacy, it may be helpful to move upward in the Taxonomy―that is, to the left―in order to understand the more general fallacy of which it is a subfallacy. Also, moving downward―that is, to the right―can help in understanding a general fallacy through seeing more specific versions of it. Some individual fallacies―such as Wishful Thinking―are leaves on more than one branch of the Taxonomy, because they are subfallacies of more than one type of fallacy.

In addition, fallacies that are subfallacies of the same general fallacy are like siblings, since they share the same parent. So, it may help to compare and contrast a fallacy with its siblings. As with human siblings, the likeness between sibling fallacies is stronger in some cases than in others. For instance, the causal fallacies Post Hoc and Cum Hoc are more similar to each other than they are to their other siblings, the Regression and Texas Sharpshooter fallacies. In the Taxonomy, this strong sibling relationship is indicated by a thicker, similarly-colored line connecting the two fallacies.

Another use for the Taxonomy is in finding a fallacy whose name you do not know, but you do know what general type of mistake you are looking for. Start with a general fallacy, and “drill down” into the Taxonomy―that is, moving to the right―until you find what you’re looking for.

You can also go to their main page to look up fallacies by their alphabetical listing.

I hope you find this useful!

Related posts

• Some Great Advice by Robert Gula (1)
• How To Argue (0)
• Logical Fallacies (0)
• September 13 Meeting – Favorite Logical Fallacy (10)
• Logical Fallacy: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation (6)

1. From a creationist website:

1. “All crime is a result of sin, and of course there was crime before Charles Darwin promoted evolution, but as the theory increased so did the crime rate. Today Creation is not taught, even as a theory, in our schools, therefore children have nothing to base their morality upon. As God has been removed from the classroom, so all kinds of evil has multiplied on our streets. Remove the Bible and you take away the conscience of the nation. Evolution has absolutely nothing to offer with regards to morality, no wonder then that our leaders have no answer to societies problems.”

In fact crime rates have been going down in recent years. Other western nations teach evolution, and they have lower crime rates than the US. Historically the south is the most anti-evolution of geographic regions. The south also has the highest crime rate of any region in the US.

• Crime statistics by country
• Crime reporting in the US (pdf: see pages 9 and 10, especially)

2. This example comes from a “paper” that supposedly showed that global warming wasn’t occurring.

“What better measures of human health and welfare are there? In fact, there is no better way to obtain a good picture of how human health and welfare may trend in the future under increases in greenhouse gas emissions than to assess how we have fared in the past during a period of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.”

Just because there were more greenhouse gases in the 20th century than during past centuries, and human welfare increased during the 20th century, it doesn’t mean the two are somehow connected.

3. This final example comes from a conversation with someone on the Internet. (csiop.org)

“More precisely, causation causes correlation. The “vaccine” as a cause of autism and other sicknesses is not in serious dispute, outside the Big Government agencies whose mission is to force folks to cooperate and the “medical” industry whose sole concern is the enormous profits they make by ensuring and prolonging sickness.”

Even if autism rates have risen since vaccinations were first issued, it doesn’t mean that the two are connected. Remember, correlation doesn’t imply causation. There are many reasons as to why the reported cases of autism are increasing. First of all, it is being recognized as a real condition. In earlier times people who would now be considered autistic were diagnosed with something else or not diagnosed at all. Secondly, the criteria for autism has expanded to included those mildly autistic to those who are severely retarded. That would be like lowering the criteria for tall from 6′ to 5′ 9″ and suddenly worrying about where all the tall people suddenly came from. Thirdly, vaccinations are usually given at around the age that autism is normally diagnosed. All these must be taken into consideration.

If autism and vaccines are connected then a connection should be found. In 1992 Denmark and Sweden removed thimerosal from vaccines. If they were causing autism, then the rates of cases should drop. Instead they continued to rise. In 2002 the US removed thimerosal, and autism rates have continued to climb. Japan even stopped giving out the MMR vaccine, which contains thimerosal, at about the same time and their autism rates continued to rise. A Japanese study also found that there are no significant rates of autism between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

~

Presented by Gerald: This is a series on Logic, Logical Thinking and Dealing with Logical Fallacies in an Argument based on the theme of our Sept. 13 meeting.

Related posts

• Logical Fallacy: Cherry-Picking (0)
• Some Great Advice by Robert Gula (1)
• Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Emotion (0)
• How To Argue (0)
• Boobquake: Dress Immodestly For Science April 26 (0)

I can’t tell you how much these ads offend me. First of all, anyone psychotic enough to kick in the door of someone’s home in broad daylight is not going to turn tail and run off just because some alarm goes off. The first thing they are going to do is get hold of their victim to control their movements, that way they can keep them away from any exit or phone.

The next thing they’ll do is bind the victim with something so they can be controlled with minimal effort. So by the time the company monitoring the alarm system lets the phone ring the required number of times, they then have to determine whether it’s a genuine emergency or someone’s talking on their phone & just doesn’t want to answer the call-waiting signal (I do that all the time), they then call 911 to alert the authorities. You think the cops are going to show up in time to save you? Ask Nathan Lee how that worked out: 5 Calls To 911 Does Nothing To Help Except To Convict The Killer

His wife was kidnapped, raped and then murdered while she was talking to 911! Ok, they may not have heard the gunshot that killed her but damn! Five calls to 911 did nothing to help this poor woman. It broke my heart to listen to her calls & it made me angry at the impotence of the “system” that so many people count on for their safety.

If you worry about safety for yourself & your family, learn how to avoid or take care of trouble. I have dogs & guns, but let’s be honest, that’s not a universal solution & won’t work for everyone. Same for Martial Arts. But you can do something, just find out what that something is and do it.

That’s a classic example of Appeal to Emotion, a logical fallacy used to prove a point without resorting to actual facts. Any time you see an ad that implies “what you have is not good enough” whether it’s your SUV, sunblock or alarm system, they are appealing to your emotions rather than your rationale. They count on your ego, lust, ignorance and fear to motivate you to buy the latest & greatest products, namely theirs. Why else would someone buy a Cadillac Escalade? It’s the exact same vehicle as a GMC Yukon, just dolled up so they can charge a lot more money for it, because isn’t a Cadillac better than a plain-old GMC?

The whole SUV craze was based on an appeal to emotion: “Don’t you want your family to be safe?” – an appeal to fear, because it’s been proven time and again that SUVs are less safe in accidents; “How impressed would your neighbors be if you brought home a Lincoln Navigator instead of a boring old Ford Explorer like they have?”- an appeal to vanity or pride, because they never explain why the Navigator is a better vehicle, just that it’s an impressive display of wealth & it will make your neighbors jealous of you; “You can do anything or go anywhere! It’s sporty and useful!”- an appeal to vanity again, because the only time 99.9% of SUVs go off-road is when their drivers are drunk, and minivans are way more utilitarian. But don’t minivans have their own logical fallacies attached to them? “It’s not Manly,” “It’s a ‘MommyMobile,’” are classic appeals to vanity. You don’t need a 6000 pound all-wheel-drive vehicle to negotiate the strip malls of Suburbia.

Presented by Butch. This is a series on Logic, Logical Thinking and Dealing with Logical Fallacies in an Argument based on the theme of our Sept. 13 meeting.

Cross-posted from Uncle Butchy’s Angry Rants (sans naughty words)

Related posts

• Some Great Advice by Robert Gula (1)
• Logical Fallacy: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation (6)
• Logical Fallacy: Cherry-Picking (0)
• How To Argue (0)
• You Are Wrong Because: (0)