|
|
Checkers Speech: Straw Man or Red Herring?Would you describe Richard Nixon's 1952 Checkers speech as a straw man fallacy or a simple red herring? Why? Many articles about the straw many fallacy describe it as a two-step process: 1) A propagandists creates a shallow imitation of his opponent's argument (i.e. a "straw man"). 2) The propagandist then knocks his argument down, creating the illusion that he destroyed his opponent's original argument. Most straw man examples clearly illustrate the first step (e.g. introducing Checkers), but I don't see the second step. If we view checkers as a straw man "argument," then how did Nixon knock that particular straw man down? Wikipedia's straw man article calls the Checkers speech a straw man, but I'm voting to call it a red herring. Can anyone tell me why I'm either right or wrong? |
|||
| asked on Saturday, Mar 06, 2021 07:30:18 PM by David Blomstrom | ||||
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
||||
Comments |
||||
| ||||
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.
In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
