But really, what makes them logical?

Now we enter round 2 of the logical fallacy game. Again, I am pulling quotes from the speech President Obama gave this past Tuesday, December 6th, in Osawatomie, Kansas. Here are three more logical fallacies I spotted in the text:


We're going to start with Ad Populum:

My grandparents served during World War II.  He was a soldier in Patton’s Army; she was a worker on a bomber assembly line.  And together, they shared the optimism of a nation that triumphed over the Great Depression and over fascism.  They believed in an America where hard work paid off, and responsibility was rewarded, and anyone could make it if they tried — no matter who you were, no matter where you came from, no matter how you started out.  (Applause.)

And these values gave rise to the largest middle class and the strongest economy that the world has ever known.  It was here in America that the most productive workers, the most innovative companies turned out the best products on Earth.  And you know what?  Every American shared in that pride and in that success — from those in the executive suites to those in middle management to those on the factory floor.  (Applause.)  So you could have some confidence that if you gave it your all, you’d take enough home to raise your family and send your kids to school and have your health care covered, put a little away for retirement. 

Obama is saying these common values we often call "the American Dream" are the reason for our large middle class and strong economy. He is telling the reader that these values are the recipe for a successful economy, and since these values accompany his policies, then his policies are the answer. This is nothing new. Often, we see rhetoricians (not rhetorists like I so brainlessly posted in my last Blog) us ideological values as reasons for a more concrete, adjustment in the state of the economy. By doing so, he is misusing common values and giving us a perfect example of Ad Populum.


The next example represents the use of a Straw Man fallacy:

Now, in the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia.  After all that’s happened, after the worst economic crisis, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess.  In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for way too many years.  And their philosophy is simple:  We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.

Here, Obama is is misrepresenting the opposing argument. Obama oversimplifies the fiscal conservative ideal to one line that indicates stereotyped, negative intentions. It is almost like he is putting words in their mouth to spin their message so that it works in his favor. In my opinion, this fallacy goes hand in hand with the general nature of politics. It's just a race for the next, best straw man.

My last example shows a Red Herring fallacy. In this example, Obama is pointing out a fallacy called upon in a fiscal conservative argument:

Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune.  “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us.  If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes — especially for the wealthy — our economy will grow stronger.  Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers.  But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else.  And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.

In the last line of this section, Obama says, "And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn't trickle down, well, that's the price of liberty." The argument brings in a topic that is completely unrelated. The price of liberty? That has nothing to do with prosperity trickling down. Thus, bringing in a reason that is completely unrelated to the argument makes this an example of Red Herring. This, too, is a logical fallacy very well liked by politicians, but rhetoric is filled with these little gems they call "logical fallacies." All you've got to do is look!

I'm still not, quite sure why they are called "logical fallacies."

Today, I'll be discussing logical fallacies. In this Blog and the next, I pull quotes from Obama's speech in Osawatomie, Kansas on Tuesday. Each quote demonstrates a different logical fallacy. This is not to say anything negative about Obama. In fact, this is an incredible speech. I may not agree with all of his politics, but I can certainly appreciate a well-written piece of literature.


That being said, let's dive right in. Shall we? We will start with a fairly basic fallacy, Bandwagon:

That is the height of unfairness.  It is wrong.  (Applause.)  It’s wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker, maybe earns $50,000 a year, should pay a higher tax rate than somebody raking in $50 million.  (Applause.)  It’s wrong for Warren Buffett’s secretary to pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett.  (Applause.)  And by the way, Warren Buffett agrees with me.  (Laughter.)  So do most Americans — Democrats, independents and Republicans.  And I know that many of our wealthiest citizens would agree to contribute a little more if it meant reducing the deficit and strengthening the economy that made their success possible.

Essentially, Obama is telling us if all these people agree, we should too. Thus, we have Bandwagon. Let's move on to one that is a little harder to recognize. Here is a little something rhetorists like to call Begging the Question:

Look, if we had unlimited resources, no one would ever have to pay any taxes and we would never have to cut any spending.  But we don’t have unlimited resources.  And so we have to set priorities.  If we want a strong middle class, then our tax code must reflect our values.  We have to make choices. 

This statement is a web of circular reasoning. The evidence he uses sandwiches the point he is trying to make. He says we have to set priorities because if we had unlimited resources, we wouldn't have to set priorities, but we don't have unlimited resources, so we do have to set priorities. See how that works? Then, he does it again! He says we need to set priorities, and tax codes that reflect our values will prioritize the growth of our middle class, so we have to make choices (prioritize.) Throughout this statement, his reason for needing set priorities is we need priorities. If you're a visual person like I am, let's just say it's like a venn diagram of reasoning. 


Now we have our final example for today, the False Dilemma. Hit it Obama...

But, Osawatomie, this is not just another political debate. This is the defining issue of our time.  This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and for all those who are fighting to get into the middle class.  Because what’s at stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, secure their retirement.

This example is pretty self-explanatory. Basically, Obama is giving an either/or situation as reasoning. In this argument, there are no exceptions - either a change is made or the middle class is forever screwed. This is a false dilemma at its finest, and a perfect way to close out the first part of my discussion on logical fallacies.

Since when is "The Axe Effect" a rhetorical device?

This image is an advertisement for Axe Body Spray. It tells you if you "spray more," you will, in turn, "get more." So I have to ask myself: '"Get more"? Whatever do they mean?' More rabbits? They use the word get like the object is some sort of concrete possession, like shoes or koozies. 

Instead, they are alluding to a common cultural phrase where getting some refers to sexual activity. The allusion uses rabbits as a substitution for sexual abundance, playing on what is considered common knowledge, the incessant sexual nature of rabbits. More importantly, every element of the advertisement deals with sex. This automatically brands the woman in the advertisement as a sex symbol.

As if the connotations brought upon by the dirty words and bunnies weren’t strong enough indicators, the woman is represented as an animalistic, sexual deviant. She is crouching down with her legs spread wide open. The message of this position is pretty clear, and is furthered by her crouching crawl that resembles a wildcat ready to pounce.

She is wearing a string bikini… A string bikini in a meadow next to bunny rabbits? Well, I give them props for pulling out all the stops. There is an underlying irony to this advertisement and other Axe ads. Cleary, no woman is going to go primeval and pounce any many wearing Axe Body Spray. However, regardless of whether the advertisers are making intentional, comedic gender stereotypes, they are certainly exhausting all possible gender assumptions. The woman in this image is highly objectified, and it can be argued that objectifications like this encourage such practices in our culture. She is portrayed as a crazed creature with a ferocity that suggests she needs a man and an intensity that suggests finding a man is her one and only pursuit.

The use of irony and appeals to sexuality in this image function as appeals to pathos. The ad is targeted toward men. Not only is the intended audience expected to long for attention from women, but also they are expected to relate to the advertisement because of the irony. The ad is supposed to be funny. Guys everywhere are supposed to giggle, nod their heads, and say “yeah,” as if they are trained to indulge in this humor. In other cultures, this ad would be seen as incredible offensive, but in our culture it can be interpreted as a direct response to the feminist movement. In fact, it is almost making fun of everything feminism battles against. Axe successfully uses humor to play on the common assumptions about gender and sexuality. The reason Axe is successful in their degrading appeals is they use irony, and irony is like that little clause that makes it okay to be politically incorrect.

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/raim0007/gwss1001/axe.jpg