What fallacies, if any, are present in the following passage? Can you please give reasons for your answer, that is, if you say that a fallacy has been committed, then show where the fallacy occurred, and explain why you think it is a fallacy?
Background: In this passage, William Thorsell is arguing that the waging of war is necessary means of opposing tyrants such as Saddam Hussein. His piece,“The decisive Exercise of Power,” appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail for December 19, 1999. In the 1930’s the aversion to war in France and the United Kingdom was so pervasive that some pacifists preferred their own subjugation to resistance in the face of violence. Dandies in the best schools developed ….eloquent rationales for inaction and appeasement, even treason, to avoid the contest for power that was so obviously rising in Europe. They rejected the wisdom that good and evil are perpetually in conflict, and that it is only for food men to do nothing for evil men to triumph…..Remarkably, some of the leading nations in the world still don’t appear to “get is” when Saddam Hussein reappears. At root, it seems to be a matter of non-recognition. They just can’t see the man for who he is, just as many people just couldn’t see “Mr. Hitler” for who he was ( the limits of the parallel noted. If you cannot recognize your enemy, you will not defeat him, except by luck of circumstance, and that will rare
Study this list and descriptions of common fallacies.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm
What fallacy do you see in this clause? "Dandies in the best schools developed . . ." (Hint: look up the word "dandy."
Is it a fallacy to compare Hitler with Saddam Hussein?
What other fallacies do you see?
We'll be glad to comment on your answers.
I am sorry but I just don't get it.. This course is making me crazy.. please help.
Can you please provide answer to this question?
After analyzing the passage, I have identified the following fallacies:
1. Appeal to Emotion: The author appeals to emotions by using loaded language and pejorative terms like "pacifists," "dandies," "treason," and "evil men" in order to create a negative view of those who oppose war. This is a fallacy because it attempts to manipulate emotions rather than provide logical reasoning.
2. False Analogy: The author draws a false analogy between the aversion to war in the 1930s and the current situation with Saddam Hussein. While there may be similarities, it is a fallacy to assume that the two situations are equivalent and that the same actions must be taken.
3. Straw Man: The author sets up a straw man argument by suggesting that those who oppose war do so because they cannot recognize the enemy. This oversimplifies the arguments of war opponents and misrepresents their position. It is a fallacy to attack a distorted or exaggerated version of an argument rather than addressing the actual position.
4. Non Sequitur: The author asserts that if one cannot recognize the enemy, they cannot defeat them unless by luck. This is a non sequitur because it does not logically follow that recognition is the only way to defeat an enemy. There may be multiple factors and strategies involved in achieving victory.
It's important to note that these are potential fallacies that can be observed in the passage based on the provided information. Different readers may interpret the passage differently, and additional fallacies could be identified with more in-depth analysis.