In more biased news articles, I notice the authors often make the people of whom they are speaking against seem cartoonish, and generally characterized in completely over-the-top, unnecessary, and simplistic ways. Is this a type of fallacy or would you just call it sarcasm?
asked on Monday, Aug 06, 2018 05:45:35 PM by Jonathan Thomas
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."
Grow Intellectually by Taking Dr. Bo's Online Courses
Dr. Bo is creating online courses in the area of critical thinking, reason, science, psychology, philosophy, and well-being. These courses are self-paced and presented in small, easy-to-digest nuggets of information. Use the code FALLACYFRIENDS to get 25% off any or all of Dr. Bo's courses.
As far as this is related to fallacies, it could often be a form of poisoning the well<>.
answered on Tuesday, Aug 07, 2018 06:27:28 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD
Comments
Bo Bennett, PhD
0
If it is indeed an out of context characterization it could fall under "strawman fallacy. If this misrepresentation is of their positions. And if it's their character that is being misrepresented it could fall under one of the "poisoning the well" ad hominem fallacy. Since they are presenting someone in a very negative light as they describe that person's policy or positions.
answered on Tuesday, Aug 07, 2018 07:53:59 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD
Comments
mchasewalker
0
From Dr. Bo's Menu above:
Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association) argumentum ad hominem
(also known as: association fallacy, bad company fallacy, company that you keep fallacy, they’re not like us fallacy, transfer fallacy)
Description: When the source is viewed negatively because of its association with another person or group who is already viewed negatively.
Logical Form:
Person 1 states that Y is true.
Person 2 also states that Y is true, and person 2 is a moron.
Therefore, person 1 must be a moron too.
Example #1:
Delores is a big supporter for equal pay for equal work. This is the same policy that all those extreme feminist groups support. Extremists like Delores should not be taken seriously -- at least politically.
Explanation: Making the assumption that Delores is an extreme feminist simply because she supports a policy that virtually every man and woman also support, is fallacious.
Example #2:
Pol Pot, the Cambodian Maoist revolutionary, was against religion, and he was a very bad man. Frankie is against religion; therefore, Frankie also must be a very bad man.
Explanation: The fact that Pol Pot and Frankie share one particular view does not mean they are identical in other ways unrelated, specifically, being a very bad man. Pol Pot was not a bad man because he was against religion, he was a bad man for his genocidal actions.
Exception: If one can demonstrate that the connection between the two characteristics that were inherited by association is causally linked, or the probability of taking on a characteristic would be high, then it would be valid.
Pol Pot, the Cambodian Maoist revolutionary, was genocidal; therefore, he was a very bad man. Frankie is genocidal; therefore, Frankie must also be a very bad man.
References:
Walton, D. (1998). Ad hominem arguments. University of Alabama Press.
answered on Tuesday, Aug 07, 2018 11:08:51 AM by mchasewalker
Comments
warning Help is Here!
warning Whoops!
You have one or more errors in this form. After you close this notice, please scroll through this form and correct the specific errors.