Sep 22, 2004 09:15 PM
written by gwenith
| 21 Comments
Here are some of the new "tricks" that are being used to manipulate you the voter.
An
appeal to the majority (also called
argumentum ad populum) is the logical fallacy of believing that because something is popular, it is right.
For example, using the argument that most Americans support the death penalty is an appeal to the majority and does not logially support the argument.
Argumentum ad nauseam or
argument from repetition is the false proof of a statement by (prolonged) repetition, possibly by different people. This
logical fallacy is commonly used as a form of
rhetoric by
politicians. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of
brainwashing This logical fallacy tends to be convincing to people because, as
Joseph Goebbels discovered, if something is repeated as true often enough, people will eventually come to accept it.
"Flip-Flop!" "Terror" "Flip-Flop!" "Terror" "Flip-Flop!" "Terror" "Flip-Flop!" "Terror" "Flip-Flop!" "Terror" "Flip-Flop!" "Terror" "Flip-Flop!" "Terror" "Flip-Flop!" "Terror"
An
appeal to fear (also called
argumentum ad metum or
argumentum in terrorem) is a
logical fallacy
For example, "We must raise taxes or else even more hospitals will be closed" or "You should stop drinking unless you want to die young like your father." In both cases, existing fears are exploited to create support for the speaker's proposal. Neither fear is necessarily directly tied to the proposal in question however, and therein lies the fallacy.
"If Kerry wins there will be a terrorist attack" false dilemma, also known as
false dichotomy,
either/or dilemma or
bifurcation, is to set up two alternative points of view as if they were the only options, when they are not.
"With us or against us" Argumentum ad crumenam is a logical fallacy of thinking a conclusion is correct because the person making the argument is rich e.g.
If you're so smart, why aren't you rich? Poisoning the well is a preemptive logical fallacy where unfavourable information about someone is presented to an audience, with the intent of discrediting everything said by that person beforehand.
The origin of this phrase comes from the belief in medieval times that outbreaks of plague were caused by Jews poisoning the water supply. Suggesting that someone was not to be trusted after accusing them of the unrelated crime of poisoning the water was effective rhetoric, but bad logic.
"He has lied about his service in Veitnam"
from
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com The light blue bits are mine!! 
Spindoctoring
World News & Politics