Share
Explore BrainMass

Fallacy article

Identify the fallacy each article commits. I identified the first one to be slippery slope and the second as common belief and the third I am lost. Can you identify these correctly for me by highlighting and explaining why you think they commit these fallacies. Answer the following question below.

The Other Shoe
Back to Journal
Monday, April 11, 2005 Don't touch that >
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
April 2005 4
Tuesday, April 12, 2005

Never trust anyone you meet in a library......even if he is an ex-con.
And it was his love of books that brought him to the library where he met the two people he is suspected of killing - the librarian who would move in with him and the elderly man who spent many days chatting with the couple, said John Gaumer, director of the Horry County Memorial Library. See what I mean?
Stephen Stanko, 37, was arrested in a shopping center parking lot in Augusta, Ga., a day after authorities launched a nationwide manhunt, police said. Authorities had been tipped that a truck they believed Stanko was driving had been seen in the lot.
Stanko, who had just eaten lunch, was unarmed and was taken into custody without incident, Horry County Police spokesman Andy Christenson said. He was wearing a suit and tie.
"He did not look dangerous at all," said Marcie Crown, manager of the Atlanta Bread Co. restaurant where Stanko ate. "It's very freaky."
He didn't look dangerous at all...that's just what they said about those girls in the Manson family.
Hmmm...anyway, you can't judge a a book written by a murderer, or even a mere kidnapper, by its cover.
See? Looks innocent enough...er...or guilty enough, whatever the case may be.
Stanko was released from prison nearly a year ago after serving most of a 10-year sentence for kidnapping. While in prison, he co-wrote a book titled "Living in Prison: A History of the Correctional System With an Insider's View" with the help of two criminology professors.
Stanko wrote about the hardships of prison life and the fear of being labeled "a convicted felon" after his release."What I fear most now is that I may carry some of this total institution back into society with me,? he wrote.
Call me cynical but what I fear most from ex-cons isn't that they'd bring too much of the institution back into society with them, but rather that they'd still harbor the same evil within themselves that led had them them to lead a life of crime in the first place.
And on a related note..
...never play golf with anyone who's supposed to be out looking for the "real" killer.
"Innocent Until Proven Guilty" and "Reasonable Doubt"
Michael Williams
Law & Justice
The idea that one is "innocent until proven guilty" beyond a "reasonable doubt" is a great standard for a legal system. I think it should be hard to justify using government power to take away a person's liberty. That said, there's no reason why we each need to use that same standard when making personal judgements.
For example, many people argued that it was wrong to declare Scott Peterson's guilt before his trial had even started. And sure, from a legal perspective we had to treat him as if he were innocent. However, anyone who paid attention to the news (unlike that idiot Amber Frey) had known for quite a while that Peterson murdered his wife. It was obvious. So obvious that he should have been executed without a trial? Of course not. But individuals can use whatever standards they want to judge each other, restricted only by their consciences.
Secondly, consider Michael Jackson. Sure, nothing has been proven in court, but it doesn't take a genius to interpret the evidence. He admits to sleeping in bed with strange children and says that he thinks it's normal. He surrounds himself with children all the time and separates them from their parents. When he gets accused of molestation (repeatedly) he pays out huge sums of money to make the charges go away. Should we throw him in jail without a trial? No. But it seems to me that there's more than enough evidence for someone to make a personal evaluation of the situation and rationally believe that he's a child molester.
Finally, consider OJ Simpson. He was actually acquitted of murder -- does that mean we all have a moral responsibility to act as if he's innocent? Duh, of course not. Everyone knows the guy did it, that's why he tries to maintain a low profile and doesn't get any more movie roles. A jury acquitted him, so he doesn't go to jail, but that doesn't prohibit us each from reaching our own conclusion on the matter and acting accordingly.
Posted at http://www.mwilliams.info/archives/005140.php02:36 AM

The Future of the Catholic Church

If the new pope, Benedict XVI, has as much influence on the Catholic Church as John Paul II did, his papacy will shape the future of the church in many important ways.

If the new pope, Benedict XVI, has as much influence on the Catholic Church as John Paul II did, his papacy will shape the future of the church in many important ways. There are five vital issues that the church must address in the coming decade. John Paul II effectively defended the Biblical position on three of them. He ignored one. And he failed miserably in his attempts to deal with the last. Let us hope that Benedict XVI will follow the lead of his predecessor on the issues where he was effective, while addressing the issues that John Paul II did not deal with.
The major issues facing the Catholic Church are the sanctity of marriage, abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality among the priesthood, and sexual abuse by priests. Many Catholics today are putting pressure on the church's leaders to liberalize the church's position on the first three. Let's look at them individually.
The church's traditional view of marriage is the Biblical view. Liberal Catholics want the church to accept homosexual marriage. The church also has many members who are living in sin; members who are not married, but who live together as if they were. These people want the church to accept their sin. Unfortunately, parish priests, by and large, have ignored this issue. Perhaps they fear losing members if they speak the Biblical truth. In any case, John Paul II strongly defended the traditional, Biblical view of marriage. Let us pray that his successor does as well.
John Paul was also strong in his defense of unborn children. Again, when we get to the local parish, we find some priests ignoring what the pope says and turning a blind eye to the many "good Catholics" in their churches that murder their children in the womb. Benedict XVI must not only talk the talk; he must also walk the walk. He needs to make sure that the cardinals and archbishops remove priests who do not actively defend the unborn.
The same is true of euthanasia. It is not nearly the problem that abortion is, but unless all churches, Catholic and Protestant, strongly support the Biblical view of the sanctity of ALL life, it will become a very big problem. Many have ridiculed me for making statements like this, but I understand the depths to which men will sink if they ignore the Word of God. If we let down our guard, it will become commonplace for elderly and handicapped people to be killed "for their own good".
John Paul II basically ignored the huge problem of homosexuality among priests. The head of a Catholic seminary has estimated that as many as 60% of American priests are homosexuals! (See LINK below.) If the Catholic Church is to avoid becoming an institution controlled by men who have embraced a lifestyle the Bible calls perverted, it must make a major change. It must allow priests to marry. There is absolutely no Biblical prohibition against pastors marrying. The Catholic Church's current position is nothing more than tradition. In the early years of the Catholic Church priests (and even popes) had wives. Unless they allow priests to marry, the leaders of the Catholic Church will increasingly fill their pulpits with perverted priests whose lives defy the Bible they are supposed to be teaching. Hopefully, Benedict XVI will have the courage to address this vitally important issue.
Finally, John Paul missed his opportunity to do the right thing on an issue that is far more important than many of the things he spent time on. World peace is an important issue, one the pope spent much time on, but let's face it: World leaders don't really care what the pope says about world issues. They will always do what they think is best for their country, while giving lip service to the pope's counsel (particularly if they have a large Catholic population).
Perhaps the fact that the priest child abuse scandals came to the world's attention when the John Paul II was ill and aging had something to do with his failure to deal with it. Perhaps he got bad counsel from his cardinals. Whatever the reason, when all the cardinals went to Rome to take action on the issue, they ended up taking no action. If John Paul II had used forceful leadership, the result would have been quite different. Instead, children are still at risk of being sexually abused by the one person they should be able to trust: their parish priest.
It would not be possible to completely eliminate the possibility of priest sexual abuse, but there are two steps the pope could have (and should have) taken that I pray Benedict XVI will take. First, defrock all homosexual priests. The Bible is very clear that homosexuality is sin, and that no homosexuals will enter Heaven. So why do the Catholic Church and many liberal Protestant denominations allow homosexuals in pulpits?
Second, any bishop, archbishop or cardinal who took part in the cover-ups of priest sexual abuse should be removed from office. Court records prove that these "leaders" pressured law enforcement officials to ignore crimes; they moved priests to other parishes where they continued to abuse children; and worst of all, they failed in their basic duty to their flocks by not immediately removing these perverts from the priesthood. The only position these "leaders" should be allowed to serve in is cleaning the toilets at the church.
My Catholic readers may be thinking, "Who is Tom to judge our church?" First, I am not judging the church; I am simply stating facts. Second, as you will see if you read the articles referenced below under "Related Articles," many Catholic leaders have been saying the same things.
Pope Benedict XVI has a tremendous opportunity to do great good. If he has the strength and the courage to hold to the Biblical position on these issues, he will be a great blessing to the Catholic Church worldwide.
Tom Barrett
Publisher, Editor, Conservative Truth
What are some examples of fallacies in the media--print, sound, or visual?

Identify some slippery slope arguments for a controversial social issue?

Should people who are uninformed and reason illogically be allowed to vote
for issues and candidates that determine the course of the country? Why?

What is an example of a fallacy that may affect reasoning regarding a decision being made?

How many different meanings of "God" are there?
Can you think of other questions that should be qualified before answering?

Solution Preview

Well, I am not certain what taxonomy of fallacies you are using, however, I have found a useful one at:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html

I would agree with your slippery slope analysis of the first article. For more analysis on this concept see http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

As for the second article, The argument also suffers from some other ...

Solution Summary

Fallacy article is analyzed briefly.

$2.19