FALLACIES FALLACIES FALLACIES!

    Did ya’ll know there are wild parrots in Pasadena that just fly around in little flocks like it’s no big deal? Or that there’s a street in the same area filled with peacocks that just casually walk around or chill on top of people’s houses like they own the place?
    Weird right?
    Having these strange, exotic, colorful birds living in neighborhoods that aren’t even rich enough to afford such luxurious animals as pets makes you think of them as being out of place, right?
    And so brings on the topic of fallacies, which are essentially faulty reasoning in arguments that can render said arguments invalid. Fallacies, like these exotic birds in Pasadena, really don’t belong in arguments. Rebecca Jones in her essay “Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic” identifies them as problems within argument. But why are fallacies so problematic? According to Jones a fallacious argument “can result in a standoff rather than a solution,” and “pose real ethical problems” (pg 18, pdf).
    For example: I once voiced my opinions on suicide and mental issues online. As you can probably predict, it didn’t go well. I tried to be an advocate for a group of people being rudely insulted and harassed, and rather than engaging in a conversation of course those doing the harassing turned on me and met my arguments with fallacies. They didn’t care what points I made or raised, they simply insulted me in whatever ways they could.
    “I bet you’re autistic just like these (insert curse word here because cursing on this blog post might be a bad idea)”
    “You’re only defending them because you’re as retarded as they are.”
    “You only spoke up because you want people to think you’re better than us. You speak the way you do because you do think you’re better than us!”
    There was plenty more where that come from but you get the idea. This, my friends, is ad hominem, a type of fallacy that addresses the person rather than the argument the person makes. If you need another example think of two politicians debating only to resort to negatively commenting on each other’s appearances.
    It makes you seem a little weaker, don’t you think? Like you can’t meet the level of argument they make so you fall back on cheap tactics to try to bring them down to your level.
    Let’s consider another one. I once heard a story of a woman going to a metal concert and being verbally harassed by some… well, creeps (not even going to try to sugar coat that one). When she wasn’t looking one of them pulled her top down and shoved her into a huge group of  large, intense looking metal heads. You’d see this and automatically assume most of them would either join in on the action and jump her, stand by and watch it happen as they oggle her, or not pay attention and basically stomp on her. But the exact opposite happened; they helped her up and covered her, with one even helping her fix her shirt; what’s more, two of the gentle giants asked who did it and proved to be not so gentle in dealing with him.
    If that doesn’t restore some or your faith in humanity I don’t know what else to tell you.
    Now, the fallacy I gave an example of was simply known as jumping to conclusions. “Since they’re male metalheads, and metalheads often have tough looking appearances, they must be violent.” Making such assumptions with little to no reason behind them makes for weak arguments and major ethical issues. It’s proven to be quite offensive to. A more extreme example would be assuming that every illegal immigrant from Mexico is a rapist, murderer, or drug-pusher.
    Offensive.
    These are just two of many possible fallacies that people use daily. At times, fallacies can be harmless, like in wrongly jumping to the conclusion that maroon isn’t dark red because maroon isn’t called dark red. But as Jones says about one of Aristotle's works, “he claims that everything good can be used for harm, so rhetoric is no different from other fields.” Arguments can be used for good, and are used for good, but even they are subject to misuse by humanity. The fact that they are intangible doesn’t make them immune to humanity's ability to turn something good into an instrument for harm. We’ve seen it used throughout history for bad intentions; during times of war and peace, when the country is unified or divided, through racism, sexism, classism, and whatever other isms I can’t think of at this moment, arguments have been used for the good and not-so-good.
    Humanity as a whole will never progress if we continue to use argument this way, especially since argument is so essential in a civilized society. So, how do we fix it?
    How do we get rid of these fallacies and other harmful tools within argument?
    It starts with families; with parents teaching their kids that making harsh and baseless assumptions is wrong; with parents making sure their kids know that people will have different opinions and that is perfectly acceptable; with parents teaching their kids little by little how to be civil and not insulting.
It starts in schools teaching students how to debate and argue properly; with teachers showing students the rights and wrongs in argument and reinforcing those teachings; with students engaging with each other in friendly conversation; with students and staff creating a safe environment where opinions can be voiced without fear of judgement or attack.
    It starts with us, breaking the cycle.