Deliberate use of fallacy

[CapnAwesome]

Is it right to deliberately use fallacy in rhetoric if one thinks it will get a point accepted?

For example, if I know Republicans won't "get" logical arguments-- statistics on gun deaths, for example-- is it right to use appeals to emotion, appeals to authority, and argumentum ad populum? Or does this introduce a kind of Achilles heel-- you'll plow through the masses, and then end up getting embarrassed when you eventually come across a decent debater? Or, on the other hand, will you end up so wrapped up in the web of bullshit that you are spinning, that you will ending degrading your own intellect?

It occurs to me that the Fox News people, for example, may actually be highly intelligent. They may know their crowd, and may be manipulating that crowd in a measured and deliberate way.

I think 'gun deaths' is a type of logical fallacy. A death is a death regardless of the means.

[bennyboy]

Is it right to deliberately use fallacy in rhetoric if one thinks it will get a point accepted?

For example, if I know Republicans won't "get" logical arguments-- statistics on gun deaths, for example-- is it right to use appeals to emotion, appeals to authority, and argumentum ad populum? Or does this introduce a kind of Achilles heel-- you'll plow through the masses, and then end up getting embarrassed when you eventually come across a decent debater? Or, on the other hand, will you end up so wrapped up in the web of bullshit that you are spinning, that you will ending degrading your own intellect?

It occurs to me that the Fox News people, for example, may actually be highly intelligent. They may know their crowd, and may be manipulating that crowd in a measured and deliberate way.

I think 'gun deaths' is a type of logical fallacy. A death is a death regardless of the means.

That's silly. In trying to eliminate or minimize needless deaths, you have to categorize the cause of death. It's not like if the family of some kid who shot himself in the face didn't have a gun, he would have slipped in the shower instead-- at least not at that moment. He would have been reading comic books or jerking off or something.

The problem with what you're saying is that everyone thinks the statistics are "those other guys." Then they're surprised when it turns out that they aren't special God-favored snowflakes, and their kid's face is as susceptible to bullets as those of all those "just numbers" they thought didn't apply to them. You know what? I think you don't care about any of those kids, or their families. You'd rather hold some goofy idea about statistics, which no sensible person can believe in, than take real steps to protect little Johnny here:

I, for one, think this boy's life is valuable enough to justifying trying to keep it from being blown all over the wall of his parents' closet.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I argue sincerely for all the reasons you listed, and additionally, I have to be satisfied with my own efforts. And there's little point in sacrificing my own credibility for the sake of the agreement of others, imo.

I don't think anybody I listed under either side of the subject sacrificed their credibility in any way? Maybe Hitler?

Doc

I'm sorry, I was replying to theOP in an old tab. I didn't realize all the replies were up there.

My point, though, is that getting caught out in a fallacy undermines your credibility even when you move on to sounder argumentation.

Mind you, I'm not saying to avoid passion or even rhetorical effect in making a point. There's nothing wrong with passionate argumentation built on a solid foundation.

My apologies about any confusion I caused.

[Outtahere]

I don't think anybody I listed under either side of the subject sacrificed their credibility in any way? Maybe Hitler?

Doc

I'm sorry, I was replying to theOP in an old tab. I didn't realize all the replies were up there.

My point, though, is that getting caught out in a fallacy undermines your credibility even when you move on to sounder argumentation.

Mind you, I'm not saying to avoid passion or even rhetorical effect in making a point. There's nothing wrong with passionate argumentation built on a solid foundation.

My apologies about any confusion I caused.

No apologies required, The confusion was mine, and I agree with your point as well.

Doc

[robvalue]

I was going to mention something that sort of falls into this category.

The only time I'd personally use a fallacy or be "dishonest" would be as a way of mirroring and highlighting what my opponent is doing.

Take the popular shitty apologetic "argument" where they get you to admit to solipsism, then claim it doesn't apply to them because they get their information direct from God. It's a slimy dishonest tactic, it's not an argument, it's intended to confuse the opponent.

So to deal with it, when they ask me, "Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?" I would say, "I'm happy to answer that question right after you do." And whatever answer they give, yes or no, I'll give the same answer. That way they can't undermine my position without admitting to the problems with their own position. If they won't answer the question, then neither will I.

[Outtahere]

I was going to mention something that sort of falls into this category.

The only time I'd personally use a fallacy or be "dishonest" would be as a way of mirroring and highlighting what my opponent is doing.

Take the popular shitty apologetic "argument" where they get you to admit to solipsism, then claim it doesn't apply to them because they get their information direct from God. It's a slimy dishonest tactic, it's not an argument, it's intended to confuse the opponent.

So to deal with it, when they ask me, "Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?" I would say, "I'm happy to answer that question right after you do." And whatever answer they give, yes or no, I'll give the same answer. That way they can't undermine my position without admitting to the problems with their own position. If they won't answer the question, then neither will I.

The oldest of tactics , you cant lose a game of Tic-Tac-Toe if you force your opponent to move first !

Doc

[robvalue]

Haha yeah

If someone is trying to cheat, then I'll cheat back and they can hardly complain.

"Were you there?"

"Yes I was, and I didn't see you there."

If they are argueing honestly and fairly, then I'll do the same.

[Ignorant]

If you know your opponent is ignorant use it - I used lots of fallacies in my course about debate and communication - In fact what I've learned is that convincing the audience and winning matters more than using rational arguments.

Always know the audience, their age, literacy and political opinions. Manipulate them. That's how you win

Really? Maybe you can start http://www.dystopia.net: The Dystopia Foundation for Sophistry and Science

Thankfully, my experience is that most atheists would find this approach shameful and counterproductive. Could you imagine a person trying to prove evolution using anything but scientific investigations? How would that help anything?

[GrandizerII]

If you know your opponent is ignorant use it - I used lots of fallacies in my course about debate and communication - In fact what I've learned is that convincing the audience and winning matters more than using rational arguments.

Always know the audience, their age, literacy and political opinions. Manipulate them. That's how you win

Really? Maybe you can start http://www.dystopia.net: The Dystopia Foundation for Sophistry and Science

Thankfully, my experience is that most atheists would find this approach shameful and counterproductive. Could you imagine a person trying to prove evolution using anything but scientific investigations? How would that help anything?

I agree with you that it's shameful to do so regardless. But that's what non-academic debates are about.

[abaris]

Is it right to deliberately use fallacy in rhetoric if one thinks it will get a point accepted?

If you need fallacies to bring a point across, you haven't got a point to begin with. It's a different matter if you tailor your arguments to suit a particular audience. That can be achieved without outright lying, which fallacies are all about, if we're honest.