Logical Fallacy 11/27/2016

A logical fallacy can be defined as faulty reasoning, or an error in reasoning, that makes an argument invalid or unsound. Logical fallacies are often unintentional but writers can use them intentionally to mislead or manipulate an audience. An example of a logical fallacy is black-or-white. Black-or-white fallacy is when two opposing arguments are presented as the only two options, even though there are obviously other options that exist. There's no compromise or, in other words, it's either black or it's white, no grey area. This logical fallacy makes it seem as if there's only two sides to an argument forcing an audience to choose either or, but it's effective because it creates an illusion that there's no middle ground making the audience feel pressured to side with you. Black-or-white fallacy is often seen in political cartoons, speeches, and social media. George Bush was known to use this logical fallacy in his speeches and in his campaigns. He would say a phrase like "You're either with the standards, or your with the terrorists!" He used it so often that political cartoons were made with him saying "You're either with us or against us" or other misleading phrases that give people no space to choose on their own. Instead it felt to his audience that they were required to side with him, always. Black-or-white fallacies are also very commonly seen in social media. for example when two friends are fighting in a group of three forcing the third friend to have to choose a side. If you think about it black-or white fallacies are very common; we've all experienced them. Growing up I was told "Valerie you either eat your food or you watch tv, you can't do both!" I never understood this reasoning. I always thought of it as killing two birds with one stone. I'm already sitting at the table with a tv in front of me, why can't I eat and enjoy it while watching a movie? There's always a compromise that can be made but when someone is forcing you to choose sides and makes it seem as if there's no other possibility, it's difficult to see that.

Don't Fight Flames With Flames 11/19/16

"Don't Fight Flames With Flames", written by Nick Bilton, is an article in the NY Times that argues that no one can ever win a social media argument. Bolton started off the article telling his readers that he once made the mistake of engaging in an argument online thinking that he should share his opinion on a matter, only to then be bombarded with hate messages calling him "ignorant" and "stupid" for his opinion. He goes on to explain that "trying to discuss an even remotely contentious topic with someone on social media is a fool's errand" and that many journalists believe that "the rule about engaging is that you should never engage". Nothing good comes from social media arguments and most of the time they have no purpose. 

I believe that Bilton's argument was effective and I agree with his claims. He built his credibility by mentioning that he himself has engaged in a social media argument and this helped further his argument and gave him the reliability to argue against involving yourself in a social media altercation. The author's use of anecdotes also helps make his argument effective. Everyone has either seen or been in a social media argument and we've witnessed how no one ever wins these debates because there is never an end. First off using social media to argue with someone is a problem in and of itself. Your argument is public allowing anyone who sees it to join in and that causes the argument to go on longer than it was meant to. There's also the problem that when having digital arguments you can't "detect tone, facial expressions, and, most of all, sarcasm" which, usually, leads to miscommunication and makes the argument last longer and get more heated. And even though many people know that the smart thing to do when someone is attacking you is not to respond, the impulse to defend yourself when being cursed out or called bad names causes you to attack the person back. Social media arguments can't be won because even if you know your opinion has been proven wrong you don't admit it and continue to drag the fight out. There's never a compromise made in these situations. And even if the argument gets placed to rest there will always be that one person who comes upon it three months later or so and starts the fight all over again. 

Why You Should Fear Your Toaster more than Nuclear Power 11/3/2016

Taylor Pearson, in his essay, "Why You Should Fear Your Toaster more than Nuclear Power", explains that nuclear power plants don't pose as much danger to us as everyone thinks they do. In fact a toaster, which is a common household item, poses more danger to us than any nuclear plant can. He proves this by saying "Over three thousand people died from toaster accidents... and they still cause around fifty accident-related deaths every year in the United States." Pearson mainly uses logos throughout his essay to support his claim; we need nuclear energy. He uses real life incidents to sum up the amount of deaths caused by nuclear power plants and to prove that nuclear plants should not be everyone's main concern. "The actual number of deaths...have been few. Take the Chernobyl accident- the worst and most lethal nuclear incident to date. As tragic as it was, the incident has killed only eighty-two people." He uses logos to put in perspective that nuclear power is one of the least dangerous means of production in the United States. "According to the U.S. Department of Labor, coal mining currently causes about sixty-five deaths and eleven thousand injuries per year, while oil drilling is responsible for approximately 125 deaths per year in the United States." Compared to this, nuclear power is especially safe. Pearson goes on to describe radiation, which is another aspect of nuclear energy that everyone fears. He uses logos to state that a brick wall emits more radiation than a nuclear power plant. Pearson says "...a wall emits about 3.5 milligrams of radiation per year," while "a nuclear power plant gives off about .3 milligrams per year." 

I feel that Pearson was effective in writing his essay and revealing to his readers the common misconceptions about nuclear energy. He proves to us that we need nuclear energy, which was his purpose in writing the essay, by describing that nuclear power has the potential to save our plant. He proves to us that we have been mislead by fear and are missing the benefits of such a safe and clean resource. But I also believe that people will still fear nuclear power and Pearson's patronizing tone in his essay was insensitive and uncalled for. When trying to argue his point of view he should have been more focused on connecting himself to his audience rather than sounding like he's judging the fact that they ever believed that nuclear energy is so harmful. The essay was very interesting because it revealed things about nuclear power that I have never heard, especially about the toaster and brick wall. It was extremely insightful.