13 Logical Fallacies and How Conservatives Use Them to Distort the Facts

via Americans Against the Tea Party:

How do conservatives keep winning the public debate, when their agenda is so cruel, destructive and unworkable? By using 12 sneaky tricks that are logical fallacies, but devastatingly effective ones that work almost every time.

If you’re anything like me, you can’t resist commenting on links from sites like Mediaite or HuffPo, where you are likely to get replies from conservatives and/or Teabaggers. Every time this happens, I find myself rolling my eyes at their comments because 9.9 times out of 10 it will contain a logical fallacy (the other .1 are just name-calling). Face it, most righties just can’t make a sound argument. This is usually because they either don’t have the facts or don’t understand the premise. So they resort to logical fallacies.

Ground rules: what is an argument?

Despite what our ideological opponents believe, an argument is more than just naysaying (as Monty Python showed us). A real argument presents a conclusion and then, using empirical, and sometimes anecdotal, evidence goes on to prove it. There are two kinds of argument: a deductive argument is one in which all evidence completely supports the conclusion. For (a very simplistic) example:

Premise: If I am not a conservative, then I am a liberal
Premise: I am not a conservative
Conclusion: I am a liberal

The second kind of argument is inductive, in which the premises appear to lend some degree of support for the conclusion. Another rather simplistic example:

Premise: Most liberals are Democrats
Premise: I am a liberal
Conclusion: I am a Democrat

An incorrect conclusion can easily be supported via either kind of argument. If a basic premise is wrong — such as President Obama is a socialist — it will lead to a faulty conclusion: Obama wants to ruin America. One cannot support a conclusion with the wrong premises as a starting point.

13 techniques conservatives use to win arguments.
The following are logical fallacies we see a lot:

13. Ad Hominem. Latin for “against the man,” this logical fallacy is a favorite among the Teabagger crowd. The ad hominem attack will first go after the character of the person, then against the claim being made. For example, climate change deniers malign Al Gore then maintain that, since he is obviously unreliable (or greedy, or whatever), then his claims about climate change are invalid. Of course, a person’s character, actions or circumstances have no bearing on the facts of the argument being made. An extension of ad hominem is ad hominem tu quoque, or the “you too” fallacy. Rand Paul used this to discredit Rachel Maddow and her exposing him as a plagiarist.

12. Appeal to the consequences of dis/belief. This posits the conclusion is true/false because if it were not, there would be negative consequences. Or that the conclusion is true/false because I want the conclusion to be true/false. That last one is wishful thinking and we see it a lot. Birthers live by this fallacy: “I want Obama not to be President.” So they believe that he was not born in America because it supports their faulty conclusion. As we can see, the consequences of belief or disbelief have nothing whatever to do with whether a point is true or false.

11. Appeal to authority. This is a fallacy that uses perceived authority to support a claim. The Wall Street Journal‘s publication of an op-ed by Suzanne Somers in its “The Experts” section is a great example. They set her up as an authority on the American health care system and the ACA, when she is nothing of the kind. The talking heads on cable news are often referred to as “an authority” or “expert” on an issue when, in fact, they are a paid shill or someone with an axe to grind or agenda to promote. Any claim made by a self-identified expert must be in their area of expertise, which must be a generally recognized discipline. Being an expert in one area, doesn’t automatically make you an expert in everything.

10. Appeal to Fear. You might say that this one of the right’s go-to strategies. They present a claim that is intended to produce fear — say, that Obama will take away your guns. Then present another claim (that may be related to the first, but need not be): the Administration will be rounding up and imprisoning gun lovers. It’s easy to get fearful people to believe anything that validates their fear. Just ask Fox News.

9. Appeal to Ridicule. Here, mockery is the substitute for reasoning. For example, Rush Limbaugh makes fun of Sandra Fluke, calling her a slut and opening her to ridicule. Therefore, covering birth control is a bad thing. He expects his listeners to say, “That’s ridiculous!” And they do. This is a specious argument because making fun of someone who holds a position does not affect its validity. If it did, Limbaugh would be unemployed.

8. Appeal to popularity. This one always crops in in relation to Fox News. “Well more people watch Fox than watch MSNBC.” You can almost the added, “Nyah!” That’s fine and good for them. But that does not make the information they present factual. This is best summed up with a quote from Anatole France: “If 50 million people believe a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing.”

7. Begging the Question or Circular Reasoning. The premise is put forward in which the truth of the conclusion is assumed, therefore the claim is true. The best known example of this is using the Bible to prove that the things in the Bible are true. For the right, many things are true because one conservative cites another conservative as proof. For example, Sean Hannity might “prove” his conclusion that President Obama is weak by citing Bill O’Reilly, who may cite Hannity at some later point. This is the basis of the right-wing echo chamber.

6. False choice. This presents only two choices when there are, in fact, many. The right often does this with instances of aggression. For example, when Putin took the Crimea, it was either go to war or be weak and this is how most of them presented the situation. As we know, diplomacy and sanctions were also, and sanely, in play. This fallacy is best demonstrated in the right’s tendency to see any issue in a bad/good paradigm, ignoring reality and eschewing nuance.

5. Straw Man. Oh, the many times this appears in comment threads… These sort of fallacies are similar to the “slippery slope” but are more subtle. With a straw man argument, the original position against which the argument is made is misrepresented (usually to make it sound weaker), or exaggerated. Then the misrepresentation is refuted. By refuting the weaker, made-up position, the original position is seen as having been refuted. For example, you argue that we ought to spend more money on infrastructure to which your opponent responds with questioning why you don’t want America defended properly. She then can argue why the defense budget shouldn’t be cut while you are still on infrastructure.

4. Generalization. You know how this one goes: “Obama wasn’t born here because his birth certificate is fake!” your Teabagger friend spouts. Let’s see… jumping to a huge conclusion? Check. Based on little or no evidence? Check. Or maybe it’s “All Muslims are terrorists!” A stereotype based on a few examples? Check. Sometimes known as painting with a big brush or a blanket statement. No matter what you call it, it’s lazy thinking.

3. Slippery Slope. Here’s Rick Santorum’s favorite. If we allow gays to marry, then the next thing you know people will be marrying their dogs. Or horses. Or their car. Whatever. There is no actual connection between the premise and the feared outcomes. Also known as leapfrog logic.

2. Shifting the burden of proof. Hugely popular on Fox News, this argument often begins, “Some say…” or “It’s commonly known…” Anytime someone begins with those or something similar prepare for the burden of proof to be shifted to you. Some say that climate change is a myth. Over to you to prove that it’s not. Don’t fall for it. Demand they prove their position with facts.

1. False Cause. In this fallacy, it is claimed that because event B happened after event A, it actually caused event B. To which the smart liberal replies, “Correlation does not indicate causation.” For example, Obama went golfing just before the Malaysian jet was shot down over Ukraine. The conservative will say that the jet was shot down because Obama went golfing, a patently ridiculous claim. This is often used in climate change debates so be on your toes.

These are just a handful of logical fallacies you are likely to see when debating with a conservative. Sometimes you’ll see many all at once, sometimes it will be the only method they use. It’s good to know about as many as possible. This website is a great resource for identifying logical fallacies. If you know which fallacy you’re dealing with, this website is useful. Knowing about logical fallacies is an important tool for liberals now, what with so much utter bull being lobbed our way daily. Be good at argument and you may win the day. Or at least the comment thread.

How Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories May Pose a Genuine Threat to Humanity

Tea Partiers, freaking out about "Agenda 21" and convinced global warming isn't real, are gumming up the works for those trying to save the planet.

The paranoia infecting a broad swath of the American right-wing can be comical at times -- think about Orly Taitz and her fellow Birthers. But we laugh at our own peril, because what Richard Hofstadter famously characterized as "the paranoid style in American politics" poses a serious threat to our future: the right's snowballing conspiracy theories could ultimately lead to disaster.

Consider what's happening in Virginia's Middle Peninsula on the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay, among the areas in the U.S. most vulnerable to climate change. Earlier this month, Darryl Fears, reporting for the Washington Post, offered a glimpse into the madness that city planners have faced in recent months as a local Tea Party group, convinced that a nefarious plot by scientists and city officials is afoot, have disrupted their work trying to mitigate the potential impacts of rising sea levels.

"The uprising," wrote Fears, "began at a February meeting about starting a business park for farming oysters in Mathews County." He continued:

The program to help restore the Chesapeake Bay oyster population was slated for land owned by the county, but it was shouted down as a useless federal program that would expand the national debt. The proposal was tabled.

As the opposition grew over the summer, confrontations became so heated that some planners posted uniformed police officers at meetings and others hired consultants to help calm audiences and manage the indoor environment, several planners said.

In James City County, speakers were shouted away from a podium. In Page County, angry farmers forced commissioners to stop a meeting. In Gloucester County, planners sat stone-faced as activists took turns reading portions of the 500-page Agenda 21 text, delaying a meeting for more than an hour.

"Agenda 21" is one of a number of silly but dangerous conspiracy theories sweeping through the fever swamps of the right. Although admittedly sinister-sounding, Agenda 21 is just a blueprint for sustainable development, especially in emerging economies. It outlines how wealthier countries can contribute to smarter growth through technology transfers and public education. It stresses the importance of fighting deforestation and conserving bio-diversity -- all things that normal people would consider wise.

The important thing to understand about Agenda 21 is that there is absolutely nothing binding or compelling member countries to implement any part of it. It's not a treaty -- it is entirely voluntary and certainly doesn't have any connection to local governments. Yet for the right, with its long John Birch Society undercurrent of paranoia about international institutions, Agenda 21 represents some kind of dark UN conspiracy to impose socialism on the "free world."

That craziness lies at the heart of Michele Bachmann's quixotic war on energy-efficient lightbulbs. Tim Murphy reported, "The Minnesota congresswoman is part of a movement that considers 'sustainability' an existential threat to the United States, one with far-reaching consequences for education, transportation, and family values."

Last year, during the Denver mayoral race, Tea Party candidate Dan Maes argued that a local bike-sharing program, a popular initiative among city residents, was a "very well-disguised" part of a plan by then-Denver mayor (and now Colorado governor) John Hickenlooper for "converting Denver into a United Nations community." Alex Jones constantly hawks the conspiracy. Glenn Beck warned it would lead to "centralized control over all of human life on planet Earth." And in September, Newt Gingrich, hoping to burnish his wingnutty creds, told a group of Orlando Tea Partiers that, if elected, his first order of business would be "to cease all federal funding of any kind of activity that relates to United Nations Agenda 21." (Currently, no federal funding of any kind is used for implementing Agenda 21.)

It's causing uprisings like that seen in Virginia at ordinarily dull city planning board meetings across the country. As Stephanie Mencimer reported for Mother Jones, "Agenda 21 paranoia has swept the Tea Party scene, driving activists around the country to delve into the minutiae of local governance... they're descending on planning meetings and transit debates, wielding PowerPoints about Agenda 21, and generally freaking out low-level bureaucrats with accusations about their roles in a supposed international conspiracy."

Agenda 21 is inextricably linked to the most dangerous conspiracy theory going: that 97 percent of the world's climate scientists are lying when they say human activities are contributing to global climate change. This, too, is supposedly in service of the goal of destroying capitalism, which means one has to believe that climatologists around the world are not only all very political -- enough to conspire to deceive the entire world -- but they also all share the same largely discredited ideology.

Back in Virginia, the Coastal Zone Management program is struggling to "help prepare for the predicted effects of climate change, especially sea-level rise on Virginia's coastal resources." The area is uniquely imperiled; in June, Darryl Fears, a science correspondent, reported that Hampton Roads is especially vulnerable because several rivers run through it on their way to the Chesapeake Bay. He continued:

Unfortunately, this crowded, low-lying area also has long-term geological issues to deal with. Thirty-five million years ago, a meteor landed relatively close by and created the Chesapeake Bay Impact Crater. Hampton Roads is also home to a downward-pressing glacial formation created during the Ice Age. Scientists theorize that these ancient occurrences are causing the land to sink -- and together account for about one-third of the sea-level change.

Fears notes that "the water has risen so much that Naval Station Norfolk is replacing 14 piers at $60 million each to keep ship-repair facilities high and dry," but "this geology is lost in local meetings, where distrust of the local and federal governments is at center stage."

And their harassment is having the desired effect of "freaking out low-level bureaucrats" trying to prepare the area for the changes to come, preparations that have absolutely nothing to do with the United Nations, Agenda 21 or "socialism." According to Fears, Shereen Hughes, a former planning commissioner, is "worried that some officials are giving ground to fearmongers. The uprising against smart growth 'is ridiculous' and 'a conspiracy theory,' she said. But it's effective."

Planners aren't saying this is wrong, Hughes said, because "most are afraid they won't have a job if they're too vocal about this issue." Tea Party members have political allies who "might stand up" against planners who complain, Hughes said.

In his excellent book, Collapse, scientist Jared Diamond looked at a number of societies that had seen their physical climates change. He tried to determine what made some cultures die out while others persevered. According to Diamond, it wasn't the severity of the change, or its speed that was the determining factor. One important variable was the foresight of those societies' leaders -- their ability to properly diagnose the problem and adapt, to come up with proactive solutions to the problems they faced.

Diamond, in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, said, "one always has to ask about people's cultural response. Why is it that people failed to perceive the problems developing around them, or if they perceived them, why did they fail to solve the problems that would eventually do them in? Why did some peoples perceive and recognize their problems and others not?" Diamond explained

A theme that emerges...is insulation of the decision-making elite from the consequences of their actions. That is to say, in societies where the elites do not suffer from the consequences of their decisions, but can insulate themselves, the elite are more likely to pursue their short-term interests, even though that may be bad for the long-term interests of the society, including the children of the elite themselves.

Today, oil and gas corporations are still funding a bunch of crank climate change deniers in order to avoid regulations that might slow their "short-term interests" in extracting as much wealth as they can from traditional hydrocarbons. And here we have Tea Partiers -- a "movement" nurtured by business-friendly Republican operatives and backed by the Koch brothers' dirty energy money -- being whipped into a frenzy by the likes of Glenn Beck and shouting down local planners trying to do something about rising water levels. They're freaking out about energy-efficient lightbulbs and bike-sharing programs, the very sorts of things we need in order to stave off disaster.

So the next time you hear a wingnut spewing feverish nonsense about "climategate" or the "globalist agenda," remember that this is not just fodder for late-night TV monologues, but the kind of stuff that has in the past brought societies faced with changing environments to their ultimate end.

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet. He is the author of The 15 Biggest Lies About the Economy: And Everything else the Right Doesn't Want You to Know About Taxes, Jobs and Corporate America. Drop him an email or follow him on Twitter.


© 2012 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

Amen To That: Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus

From Richard Metzger at DangerousMinds

This article was co-authored by Phil Zuckerman, a professor of sociology at Pitzer College in Claremont, CA and Dan Cady, an assistant professor of history at California State University, Fresno. He publishes on the history of the American West, music, and religion. Since Huffington Post didn’t pay them for this, I hope they won’t mind if I post it here in full, it’s quite a good read and so eloquently put.

What is addressed here should be examined in every church in America:

The results from a recent poll published by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reveal what social scientists have known for a long time: White Evangelical Christians are the group least likely to support politicians or policies that reflect the actual teachings of Jesus. It is perhaps one of the strangest, most dumb-founding ironies in contemporary American culture. Evangelical Christians, who most fiercely proclaim to have a personal relationship with Christ, who most confidently declare their belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, who go to church on a regular basis, pray daily, listen to Christian music, and place God and His Only Begotten Son at the center of their lives, are simultaneously the very people most likely to reject his teachings and despise his radical message.

Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness. These are supposed to be cardinal virtues of the Christian faith. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of the death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governmental use of torture. Jesus exhorted humans to be loving, peaceful, and non-violent. And yet Evangelicals are the group of Americans most supportive of easy-access weaponry, little-to-no regulation of handgun and semi-automatic gun ownership, not to mention the violent military invasion of various countries around the world. Jesus was very clear that the pursuit of wealth was inimical to the Kingdom of God, that the rich are to be condemned, and that to be a follower of Him means to give one’s money to the poor. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of corporate greed and capitalistic excess, and they are the most opposed to institutional help for the nation’s poor—especially poor children. They hate anything that smacks of “socialism,” even though that is essentially what their Savior preached. They despise food stamp programs, subsidies for schools, hospitals, job training—anything that might dare to help out those in need. Even though helping out those in need was exactly what Jesus urged humans to do. In short, Evangelicals are that segment of America which is the most pro-militaristic, pro-gun, and pro-corporate, while simultaneously claiming to be most ardent lovers of the Prince of Peace.

What’s the deal?

Before attempting an answer, allow a quick clarification. Evangelicals don’t exactly hate Jesus—as we’ve provocatively asserted in the title of this piece. They do love him dearly. But not because of what he tried to teach humanity. Rather, Evangelicals love Jesus for what he does for them. Through his magical grace, and by shedding his precious blood, Jesus saves Evangelicals from everlasting torture in hell, and guarantees them a premium, luxury villa in heaven. For this, and this only, they love him. They can’t stop thanking him. And yet, as for Jesus himself—his core values of peace, his core teachings of social justice, his core commandments of goodwill—most Evangelicals seem to have nothing but disdain.

And this is nothing new. At the end of World War I, the more rabid, and often less educated Evangelicals decried the influence of the Social Gospel amongst liberal churches. According to these self-proclaimed torch-bearers of a religion born in the Middle East, progressive church-goers had been infected by foreign ideas such as German Rationalism, Soviet-style Communism, and, of course, atheistic Darwinism. In the 1950s, the anti-Social Gospel message piggybacked the rhetoric of anti-communism, which slashed and burned its way through the Old South and onward through the Sunbelt, turning liberal churches into vacant lots along the way. It was here that the spirit and the body collided, leaving us with a prototypical Christian nationalist, hell-bent on prosperity. Charity was thus rebranded as collectivism and self-denial gave way to the gospel of accumulation. Church-to-church, sermon-to-sermon, evangelical preachers grew less comfortable with the fish and loaves Jesus who lived on earth, and more committed to the angry Jesus of the future. By the 1990s, this divine Terminator gained “most-favored Jesus status” among America’s mega churches; and with that, even the mention of the former “social justice” Messiah drove the socially conscious from their larger, meaner flock.

In addition to such historical developments, there may very well simply be an underlying, all-too-human social-psychological process at root, one that probably plays itself out among all religious individuals: they see in their religion what they want to see, and deny or despise the rest. That is, religion is one big Rorschach test. People look at the content of their religious tradition—its teachings, its creeds, its prophet’s proclamations—and they basically pick and choose what suits their own secular outlook. They see in their faith what they want to see as they live their daily lives, and simultaneously ignore the rest. And as is the case for most White Evangelical Christians, what they are ignoring is actually the very heart and soul of Jesus’s message—a message that emphasizes sharing, not greed. Peace-making, not war-mongering. Love, not violence.

Of course, conservative Americans have every right to support corporate greed, militarism, gun possession, and the death penalty, and to oppose welfare, food stamps, health care for those in need, etc.—it is just strange and contradictory when they claim these positions as somehow “Christian.” They aren’t.

Confounding Fathers The Tea Party’s Cold War roots.

Glenn Beck’s view of American history stems from the paranoid politics of the fifties.

by Sean Wilentz
from the New Yorker

A few months ago, the cable-television and radio host Glenn Beck began his Fox News show with one of his favorite props: a pipe clenched between his teeth. “I’ve got my pipe,” he told his audience, his speech slightly muddled by the stem, “because we’re going to speak about schoolish kind of things.” The theme of the day was “Restoring History,” and Beck, looking professorial in a neat dark blazer and a pink button-down shirt, began the lesson by peering at a stack of history textbooks and pronouncing them full of falsehoods, produced by “malicious progressive intent.” Progressives, he explained—liberals, socialists, Communists, the entire spectrum of the left—“knew they had to separate us from our history to be able to separate us from our Constitution and God.” For the next hour, Beck earnestly explained some of the history that “is being stolen from us”: the depression of 1920, for example, or how conservative economics saved the nation from the “near-depression” of 1946—crises that progressives don’t want you to know about. “You’ve been taught one lie, I think, your whole life,” he said.

For the fractious Tea Party movement, Beck—a former drive-time radio jockey, a recovering alcoholic, and a Mormon convert—has emerged as both a unifying figure and an intellectual guide. One opinion poll, released in July by Democracy Corps, showed that he is “the most highly regarded individual among Tea Party supporters,” seen not merely as an entertainer, like Rush Limbaugh, but as an “educator.” And in the past few months Beck has established his own institute of learning: the online, for-profit Beck University. Enrollees can take courses like Faith 102, which contends with “revisionists and secular progressives” about the separation of church and state; Hope 102, an attack on the activist federal government; and the combined Charity 101/102/103, a highly restrictive interpretation of rights, federalism, and the division of powers.

During the “Restoring History” episode, Beck twice encouraged viewers to join his Web seminars, where they can hear “lessons from the best and brightest historians and scholars that we could find.” The B.U. faculty consists of three members, including one bona-fide academic, James R. Stoner, Jr., the chair of the political-science department at Louisiana State University; the other two are the head of a management consulting firm and the founder of WallBuilders, which the Web site calls “a national pro-family organization.” Beck himself often acts as a professor, a slightly jocular one, on his Fox News program. Surrounded by charts and figures, he offers explanations of current politics and history lessons about the country’s long march to Obama-era totalitarianism. The decline, he says, began with the Progressive era of the early twentieth century, in particular with the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson, when both the Federal Reserve System and the graduated federal income tax came into existence. “Wilson,” Beck told his radio audience in August, “just despised what America was.”

Beck’s claims have found an audience among Tea Party spokesmen and sympathizers. At the movement’s Freedom Summit in Washington last September, one activist told a reporter, “The election between Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson in 1912 was when it started going downhill.” And in April an angry member of the Tea Party Patriots group from Cape Fear, North Carolina, claimed on the group’s Web site that “the very things you see happening in this country today started with the Wilson Administration.”

At a Tax Day rally this past spring, the veteran conservative organizer Richard Viguerie described the Tea Party as “an unfettered new force of the middle class.” And, indeed, calling Obama a socialist in the tradition of Woodrow Wilson is audacious enough to seem like the marker of a new movement—or, at least, a new twist in the nation’s long history of conspiracy-mongering. In fact, it marks a revival of ideas that circulated on the extremist right half a century ago, especially in the John Birch Society and among its admirers.

Beck’s version of American history relies on lessons from his own acknowledged inspiration, the late right-wing writer W. Cleon Skousen, and also restates charges made by the Birch Society’s founder, Robert Welch. The political universe is, of course, very different today from what it was during the Cold War. Yet the Birchers’ politics and their view of American history—which focussed more on totalitarian threats at home than on those posed by the Soviet Union and Communist China—has proved remarkably persistent. The pressing historical question is how extremist ideas held at bay for decades inside the Republican Party have exploded anew—and why, this time, Party leaders have done virtually nothing to challenge those ideas, and a great deal to abet them.

The early nineteen-sixties were a turbulent time in American politics, for the right wing in particular. In the South, racist violence against civil-rights workers was constant, deepening sectional splits in the Democratic Party that would in time deliver the once solidly Democratic South to the Republicans. Southern elected officials, in support of what they called “massive resistance” to civil-rights laws and judicial rulings, resurrected the ideas of nullification and interposition, which claimed that individual states could void federal laws within their own borders. Others focussed on what they considered a fearsome Communist menace inside the United States. General Edwin A. Walker caused an enormous stir when he resigned from the Army in 1961, after President John F. Kennedy’s Pentagon reprimanded him for spreading right-wing propaganda among his troops and accusing prominent American officials of Communist sympathies. Senator Strom Thurmond, the Dixiecrat from South Carolina, spoke for many on the far right when he declared that various modestly liberal domestic programs “fall clearly within the category of socialism.”

Continue reading HERE