Can anyone say "Red Herring Fallacy"?
How about "Poisoning the Well?"
Conservatives are especially fond of the latter. Any time they're caught being abusive, they like to go on the offensive and put the accuser on trial. When they can, they like to change the subject and make all the talking points about what an awful person the accuser is and hopefully the accusation will be forgotten.
It usually works. It works very well, I'm sorry to say.
Just look at this thread. We've gone from discussing police abuse, the threat of the militarization of the police, the crackdown on the press (including firing upon, threatening and jailing members of the press just for doing their job) to discussing the victim and, well, he was a horrible person anyway, right?
Totally.
Fucking.
Irrelevant.
Let's just grant the argument. Let's say the victim really was a punk, a thief, a drug dealer, *put your character assassination here*, etc. etc. Let's just grant all these assumptions about him. This frankly is no better than defending a rapist by showing pictures of the rape victim at a party getting drunk, being scantily clad or whatever and trying to imply she had it coming. This is pure blame-the-victim. But fine, let that go. Let's grant all these assumptions.
So?
The cop who shot him DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT ANY OF THIS STUFF WHEN HE SHOT HIM. Even the police chief admitted this.
Since the cop didn't know, it wasn't part of the decision to shoot.
Since it wasn't part of the decision to shoot, it's totally irrelevant.
Totally.
Irrelevant.
Return to the subject.
The allegations that are relevant:
1. A cop allegedly shot an unarmed man who had his hands in the air.
2. When peaceful protests gathered, the cops seem to have acted like a bunch of drunken frat boys with some shiny new toys they got for Christmas and decided it was time to party. And boy, howdy, did they party!
3. The press has been intimidated, threatened, fired upon and arrested for doing their jobs.
This is an example of how NOT to handle public relations.
This is an example of how NOT to diffuse public anger.
This is an example of how NOT to keep order.
This is an example of how NOT to maintain a free society.
This is an example of why we should NOT militarize the police.
Quote:A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.
How about "Poisoning the Well?"
Quote:This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person...
This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make
Conservatives are especially fond of the latter. Any time they're caught being abusive, they like to go on the offensive and put the accuser on trial. When they can, they like to change the subject and make all the talking points about what an awful person the accuser is and hopefully the accusation will be forgotten.
It usually works. It works very well, I'm sorry to say.
Just look at this thread. We've gone from discussing police abuse, the threat of the militarization of the police, the crackdown on the press (including firing upon, threatening and jailing members of the press just for doing their job) to discussing the victim and, well, he was a horrible person anyway, right?
Totally.
Fucking.
Irrelevant.
Let's just grant the argument. Let's say the victim really was a punk, a thief, a drug dealer, *put your character assassination here*, etc. etc. Let's just grant all these assumptions about him. This frankly is no better than defending a rapist by showing pictures of the rape victim at a party getting drunk, being scantily clad or whatever and trying to imply she had it coming. This is pure blame-the-victim. But fine, let that go. Let's grant all these assumptions.
So?
The cop who shot him DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT ANY OF THIS STUFF WHEN HE SHOT HIM. Even the police chief admitted this.
Since the cop didn't know, it wasn't part of the decision to shoot.
Since it wasn't part of the decision to shoot, it's totally irrelevant.
Totally.
Irrelevant.
Return to the subject.
The allegations that are relevant:
1. A cop allegedly shot an unarmed man who had his hands in the air.
2. When peaceful protests gathered, the cops seem to have acted like a bunch of drunken frat boys with some shiny new toys they got for Christmas and decided it was time to party. And boy, howdy, did they party!
3. The press has been intimidated, threatened, fired upon and arrested for doing their jobs.
This is an example of how NOT to handle public relations.
This is an example of how NOT to diffuse public anger.
This is an example of how NOT to keep order.
This is an example of how NOT to maintain a free society.
This is an example of why we should NOT militarize the police.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
