Sunday, January 01, 2006
Rush's Greatest Hits (Quotes from Limbaughs own website, deconstructed for your reasoning pleasure.)
How to detect a logical fallacy:
Determine someone's statement(s) and consider the source of the statement.
An example from Rush Limbaugh's website:
A CD cover:
Why I'd Never Want to Be a Liberal
They're too unhappy all the time...
type of fallacy: straw man and generalization
Implication: liberals are too unhappy all the time. Therefore indirectly implies that conservatives are happy all the time. Therefore if you want to be happy, don't be a liberal.
Another example:
"One of the greatest educations in this country is just listening to liberals, just watching them and then applying what they do and say to something called common sense and reason. You can't. Very little of it is even rational."
type of fallacy: Generalization
A hasty generalization is one in which there is an insufficient number of instances on which to base the generalization.
According to Limbaugh, liberals have no common sense or ability to reason. They are also irrational. What does Rush base this statement on?
Another example:
"The left has engineered more civil liberties defeats for people in this country than any of theirs have ever been threatened."
logical fallacy: generalization
Consider a) who is "the left?" b) what defeats is he talking about? c) does someone's civil liberties need to be threatened for them to take a stake in society? (ie. Do I have to be gay to support gay rights? Do I have to be a woman to support women's rights? Do I have to be a man to support men's rights? )
Another example:
"People crave leadership. They want to get behind it."
logical fallacy: generalization
Limbaugh implies the people crave leadership, and that they just want to follow any old leader.
Another example:
"Rumsfeld is over in Iraq and he's announcing troop withdrawals. Of course I'm waiting for Murtha or some Democrat to stand up and claim credit for this."
logical fallacy: ad hominem attack
Limbaugh is attacking Senator Murtha from Pennsylvania, and Democrats in general, implying they will claim credit for Sec of Def Rumsfeld's troop withdrawal announcement. This implies a) that Democrats and Sen. Murtha take credit for the work of others and b) that Democrats & Murtha had nothing to do with Rumsfeld's statement. Democrats & Murtha have become vocal about removing troops from Iraq, so it wouldn't be wrong for them to make claims about troop withdrawals.
another example:
"There are people who want to roll the dice that terrorism is not a problem, that we're really taking it too seriously, that we have no business declaring war against it. It's not that bad."
logical fallacy: generalization, appeal to fear
Who wants to roll the dice that terrorism is not a problem? Who is claiming that terrorism is being taken too seriously? (Let me go out on a limb... Rush is implying Democrats and liberals again. Go figure.)
But wait! There's more...
You can find this book:
100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (and Al Franken is #37)
by Bernard Goldberg
Bet you can find lots and lots of logical fallacies in this book. Consider the author. Who is he to make an assessment of who is harming America the most?
First, what gives Mr. Goldberg the means of judging what is screwing America up. At best, I'll grant that Mr. Goldberg has an educated opinion. Since I found the book on Rush Limbaugh's website, I'd be willing to take a poke that there are few if any Republicans or conservatives mentioned in the book. Of course, if I claimed the book was biased without reading it, the I would be making a logical fallacy. I'm judging the source from where I found the book link.
I could be guilty of the fallacy of indirect consequences in what I'm about to write. Because Rush Limbaugh is a pronounced conservative, and he has a thing against Democrats & liberals, this book must be one that attacks/pokes fun at liberals and Democrats. (Heck, Mr. Goldberg could claim Rush is one of the 100 People. Now, that would be funny.)
Next, the book implies that 100 people have enough power to screw up a country of 300 million. It gives 100 people near super powers, in the sense that they can bring down a civilization like the United States.
----
Looking through many of the titles in Rush Limbaugh's book list, I see a common theme in the titles. America is threatened, under attack, on the brink of collapse.
Example titles:
Women Who Make the World Worse (and How Their Radical Feminist Assault is Ruining Our Schools, Our Families, Our Military and Sports)
The War on Christmas
A Patriot's History Book
Treachery (How America's Friends and Foes Are Secretly Arming Our Enemies)
100 People Who Are Screwing Up America
Do As I Say, Not As I Do (Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy)
If you believe that liberals are hypocrites, radical feminists are assaulting and ruining schools, families, the military, and sports, there's a war on Christmas, America's friends and foes are helping America's enemies, and that 100 people have enough power to screw up America, then you'll probably be a fan of Rush's.
Just how dense do you have to be to believe all this crap? I'm going to take a stab and say that the people who listen to Rush are a) fearful b) logically inept, and c) devoid of reason. Also, their love of God and country is used against them.
---
I have picked up "A Patriot's History Book" at Barnes & Nobles. It's a history book that presents American history from a particular angle. Its approach mentions and talks about all the heroic deeds Americans have done throughout history. This isn't a bad thing in and of itself, but the implication is in title of the book. Patriots, in the sense of the title, believe in an America that is purely good, and that it has never done anything wrong in its history, ...ever.
It's not about patriotism, as it is about blind nationalism. Love of country over everything. Somehow, to point out America's warts, blemishes, and flaws is somehow un-patriotic. As if someone that brings up bad things America has done somehow doesnt love America.
There's an implied logical fallacy in that line of reasoning as well. That is the fallacy of the appeal to loyalty. It's the, "America, love it or leave it" mindset. Bringing up the fact that the US used the CIA to topple democratically elected leaders around the world during the Cold War is unpatriotic because its not being loyal to the state. Mentioning that fact that the FBI spied on protestors in the 60s in violation of their civil rights is disloyal to the state.
Go a step further. Condemning President Bush for spying on Americans in violation of their constitutional rights is questioning the power of the president, and the authority of the state. The Fox News set defend the presidents actions by claiming logical fallacies in the president's defense. Attacking the Bush administrations policies that violate the Geneva Conventions in their eyes is tanamount to treason.
Here are their arguments: The president must have the authority to do whatever needs to be done to stop terrorists, even if that means bypassing our civil rights. (Appeal to fear, authority, and loyalty.) The war in Iraq is the keystone to winning the war on terrorism. (appeal of indirect consequences, false dilemma) Making Iraq a democracy will give us an ally in the war against terrorism. (wishful thinking, indirect consequence, appeal to vanity (America knows best) )
Determine the source of the Fox News / Rush Limbaugh side of the political spectrum. What is the basis for their arguments or statements?
How does bypassing the constitution make America a better country? If Americans lose their civil liberties, will they necessarily be safer? Do our civil liberties make us weaker? What makes the Bush administration so certain that a) the US can turn Iraq into a Western style democracy, and that b) that even if Iraq turns into a democracy, it won't become our enemy?
Also, terrorism is usually the resort of fringe groups within societies. Generally, they have radical ideas. This implies that there is no forum for them to air their ideas and that they don't have the ability as citizens to air their grievances.
Consider this. If Saudi Arabian citizens had free speech, they could publicly protest and speak out against an American air base being positioned so close to the city they consider the holiest place on Earth. Political pressure could have been waged against the government to remove the American base near Mecca, or to relocate the base to a different place.
If Saudi Arabian citizens had free speech and the right to publicly assemble and petition their government, would 9/11 have happened? Osama Bin Laden could have used his financial backing to fund groups that would organize and petition the government to remove the American base near Mecca.
Instead. The Saudi's crush dissent. So, those who have no voice take radical action. 9/11 happens. The US removes its military base near Mecca. Bin Laden wins. What this does is reinforce terrorists and the notion that terrorism is the key to getting victory and achieving political and social objectives.
So, what has the US foreign policy response been to 9/11? Invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Granted each nation was at the bottom of most lists for human rights, but how does that solve the problem of terrorism? There are radical elements still in those societies, who have violent agendas. (They've learned that violence produces results.)
President Bush took the wrong approach. He took a short term solution and oversimplified ideas and applied them to solving the problem. This will not fix the problem for the long haul. An international effort should have been undertaken to make the world a better place for democracy.
Didn't happen. The might makes right mentality prevailed. Historically this hasn't solved problems for the long haul.
---
Somehow we must move America toward a more rational and reasonable nation. Somehow.
How to detect a logical fallacy:
Determine someone's statement(s) and consider the source of the statement.
An example from Rush Limbaugh's website:
A CD cover:
Why I'd Never Want to Be a Liberal
They're too unhappy all the time...
type of fallacy: straw man and generalization
Implication: liberals are too unhappy all the time. Therefore indirectly implies that conservatives are happy all the time. Therefore if you want to be happy, don't be a liberal.
Another example:
"One of the greatest educations in this country is just listening to liberals, just watching them and then applying what they do and say to something called common sense and reason. You can't. Very little of it is even rational."
type of fallacy: Generalization
A hasty generalization is one in which there is an insufficient number of instances on which to base the generalization.
According to Limbaugh, liberals have no common sense or ability to reason. They are also irrational. What does Rush base this statement on?
Another example:
"The left has engineered more civil liberties defeats for people in this country than any of theirs have ever been threatened."
logical fallacy: generalization
Consider a) who is "the left?" b) what defeats is he talking about? c) does someone's civil liberties need to be threatened for them to take a stake in society? (ie. Do I have to be gay to support gay rights? Do I have to be a woman to support women's rights? Do I have to be a man to support men's rights? )
Another example:
"People crave leadership. They want to get behind it."
logical fallacy: generalization
Limbaugh implies the people crave leadership, and that they just want to follow any old leader.
Another example:
"Rumsfeld is over in Iraq and he's announcing troop withdrawals. Of course I'm waiting for Murtha or some Democrat to stand up and claim credit for this."
logical fallacy: ad hominem attack
Limbaugh is attacking Senator Murtha from Pennsylvania, and Democrats in general, implying they will claim credit for Sec of Def Rumsfeld's troop withdrawal announcement. This implies a) that Democrats and Sen. Murtha take credit for the work of others and b) that Democrats & Murtha had nothing to do with Rumsfeld's statement. Democrats & Murtha have become vocal about removing troops from Iraq, so it wouldn't be wrong for them to make claims about troop withdrawals.
another example:
"There are people who want to roll the dice that terrorism is not a problem, that we're really taking it too seriously, that we have no business declaring war against it. It's not that bad."
logical fallacy: generalization, appeal to fear
Who wants to roll the dice that terrorism is not a problem? Who is claiming that terrorism is being taken too seriously? (Let me go out on a limb... Rush is implying Democrats and liberals again. Go figure.)
But wait! There's more...
You can find this book:
100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (and Al Franken is #37)
by Bernard Goldberg
Bet you can find lots and lots of logical fallacies in this book. Consider the author. Who is he to make an assessment of who is harming America the most?
First, what gives Mr. Goldberg the means of judging what is screwing America up. At best, I'll grant that Mr. Goldberg has an educated opinion. Since I found the book on Rush Limbaugh's website, I'd be willing to take a poke that there are few if any Republicans or conservatives mentioned in the book. Of course, if I claimed the book was biased without reading it, the I would be making a logical fallacy. I'm judging the source from where I found the book link.
I could be guilty of the fallacy of indirect consequences in what I'm about to write. Because Rush Limbaugh is a pronounced conservative, and he has a thing against Democrats & liberals, this book must be one that attacks/pokes fun at liberals and Democrats. (Heck, Mr. Goldberg could claim Rush is one of the 100 People. Now, that would be funny.)
Next, the book implies that 100 people have enough power to screw up a country of 300 million. It gives 100 people near super powers, in the sense that they can bring down a civilization like the United States.
----
Looking through many of the titles in Rush Limbaugh's book list, I see a common theme in the titles. America is threatened, under attack, on the brink of collapse.
Example titles:
Women Who Make the World Worse (and How Their Radical Feminist Assault is Ruining Our Schools, Our Families, Our Military and Sports)
The War on Christmas
A Patriot's History Book
Treachery (How America's Friends and Foes Are Secretly Arming Our Enemies)
100 People Who Are Screwing Up America
Do As I Say, Not As I Do (Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy)
If you believe that liberals are hypocrites, radical feminists are assaulting and ruining schools, families, the military, and sports, there's a war on Christmas, America's friends and foes are helping America's enemies, and that 100 people have enough power to screw up America, then you'll probably be a fan of Rush's.
Just how dense do you have to be to believe all this crap? I'm going to take a stab and say that the people who listen to Rush are a) fearful b) logically inept, and c) devoid of reason. Also, their love of God and country is used against them.
---
I have picked up "A Patriot's History Book" at Barnes & Nobles. It's a history book that presents American history from a particular angle. Its approach mentions and talks about all the heroic deeds Americans have done throughout history. This isn't a bad thing in and of itself, but the implication is in title of the book. Patriots, in the sense of the title, believe in an America that is purely good, and that it has never done anything wrong in its history, ...ever.
It's not about patriotism, as it is about blind nationalism. Love of country over everything. Somehow, to point out America's warts, blemishes, and flaws is somehow un-patriotic. As if someone that brings up bad things America has done somehow doesnt love America.
There's an implied logical fallacy in that line of reasoning as well. That is the fallacy of the appeal to loyalty. It's the, "America, love it or leave it" mindset. Bringing up the fact that the US used the CIA to topple democratically elected leaders around the world during the Cold War is unpatriotic because its not being loyal to the state. Mentioning that fact that the FBI spied on protestors in the 60s in violation of their civil rights is disloyal to the state.
Go a step further. Condemning President Bush for spying on Americans in violation of their constitutional rights is questioning the power of the president, and the authority of the state. The Fox News set defend the presidents actions by claiming logical fallacies in the president's defense. Attacking the Bush administrations policies that violate the Geneva Conventions in their eyes is tanamount to treason.
Here are their arguments: The president must have the authority to do whatever needs to be done to stop terrorists, even if that means bypassing our civil rights. (Appeal to fear, authority, and loyalty.) The war in Iraq is the keystone to winning the war on terrorism. (appeal of indirect consequences, false dilemma) Making Iraq a democracy will give us an ally in the war against terrorism. (wishful thinking, indirect consequence, appeal to vanity (America knows best) )
Determine the source of the Fox News / Rush Limbaugh side of the political spectrum. What is the basis for their arguments or statements?
How does bypassing the constitution make America a better country? If Americans lose their civil liberties, will they necessarily be safer? Do our civil liberties make us weaker? What makes the Bush administration so certain that a) the US can turn Iraq into a Western style democracy, and that b) that even if Iraq turns into a democracy, it won't become our enemy?
Also, terrorism is usually the resort of fringe groups within societies. Generally, they have radical ideas. This implies that there is no forum for them to air their ideas and that they don't have the ability as citizens to air their grievances.
Consider this. If Saudi Arabian citizens had free speech, they could publicly protest and speak out against an American air base being positioned so close to the city they consider the holiest place on Earth. Political pressure could have been waged against the government to remove the American base near Mecca, or to relocate the base to a different place.
If Saudi Arabian citizens had free speech and the right to publicly assemble and petition their government, would 9/11 have happened? Osama Bin Laden could have used his financial backing to fund groups that would organize and petition the government to remove the American base near Mecca.
Instead. The Saudi's crush dissent. So, those who have no voice take radical action. 9/11 happens. The US removes its military base near Mecca. Bin Laden wins. What this does is reinforce terrorists and the notion that terrorism is the key to getting victory and achieving political and social objectives.
So, what has the US foreign policy response been to 9/11? Invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Granted each nation was at the bottom of most lists for human rights, but how does that solve the problem of terrorism? There are radical elements still in those societies, who have violent agendas. (They've learned that violence produces results.)
President Bush took the wrong approach. He took a short term solution and oversimplified ideas and applied them to solving the problem. This will not fix the problem for the long haul. An international effort should have been undertaken to make the world a better place for democracy.
Didn't happen. The might makes right mentality prevailed. Historically this hasn't solved problems for the long haul.
---
Somehow we must move America toward a more rational and reasonable nation. Somehow.
