Many of you said that "good" arguments do not have to be ethical. If an argument is structured well, then it qualifies as "good." Some people, though, did feel that any argument should be an ethical one. And, I was impressed that a few of you questioned what was even meant by "ethics." I've been very pleased with the level of critical thinking that so many of you are exhibiting.
Here is our second question regarding our movie. Nick Naylor could be said to use fallacies of argument. Refer to our list of fallacies on my.dmacc to help you with your post. Identify some of the fallacies that are used in the movie (they don't have to be used just by Nick). Discuss whether or not fallacies belong to the "dark side" of argument, or if fallacies can be used in legitimate arguments. Define these terms however you will.
Lastly, in a nutshell, what did you learn about rhetoric and argument from this movie? What might you use to help you in your rhetorical analysis papers?
Again, proofread closely. The spelling in some of these posts is making me question whether or not to give credit to posts with blatantly poor spelling and grammar.
Overall, great work!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments:
In the movie, Nick used many fallacies. Nick used many fallcies. He definetly used Non-sequitur. For example smoke obviously has chemicals and toxins in it, but that doesn't prove to give you cancer. He uses many hasty generalizations from research done at the institute for tobacco studies too. The research that they did maybe only had one trial, and were definetly not conclusive. I think he also used Red Herrings, as most lobbyist and politicians do. He would answer another question, change the topic mid question, etc. Fallacies do not only belong to the "dark side", they can beu used for legitimate arguments too. From the movie I learned that arguments can give prevent something that is right or wrong from being proved.
Nick Naylor was obviously very good at his job. he knew what he was doing and he did it well. He could find his way out of any argument just by a simple change of subject. I noticed he used the Ad Populum fallacy a lot with his job. He could get someone off on another subject and not even thinking about the original question. In some cases they use the either or choices in the movie. Nick makes options for himself and for his son. Saying in which case when his son is old enough he has that right to make that choice. Nick's job is to argue and he was a master at his craft because he knew how to find his way through any argument and still manage to get his point across.
In Thank You for Smoking, Nick Naylor was not the only person who used fallacies in his arguments. When Naylor was being interviewed before the senator, one member of the panel (I don't remember who it was) said, "If you use cigarettes, you will die." This is an example of a non-sequitur fallacy. Everyone will die, whether they smoke or not. If the speaker had said, "Smoking can significantly increase your risk of emphysema and lung cancer," his argument would have been sound. (Please note that I do not at all support cigarettes; I'm just pointing out the man's logical error.) :)
I do not think that fallacies strengthen an argument. They might make it sound better to an inattentive listener, but they will always weaken the logic behind the argument. They can be used in legitiment arguments, but the fallacies will only make the arguments less valid.
This movie helped me to realize how much damage argumentative fallacies can cause. I think that I will more closely scrutinize the arguments that I hear from now on. I will also keep my list of fallacies and use it to check the logic of my own paper.
-Adrian
In the movie Nick Naylor used the fallacy Ad Hominem. He definately attached the person he was arguing with instead of their argument and most of the time he would make the person look pretty stupid. That fallacy is definately a good one to use if you want to embarrase the other person. He aslo uses Hasty Generalizations as well. He used this type of argument when he was arguing in congress when he talked about the Vermont cheese. I think I learned alot from this movie on how to argue, Nick Naylor was very good at using the fallacies and he always made the other person look stupid and sometimes lost for words.
Tyler Wendell
Nick Naylor uses numerous examples of informal fallacies. Some of the fallacies he uses are red herrings, false analogies, and hasty generalizations. The use of red herring fallacy when Naylor attacks the Senator from Vermont for there cheese, the use of false analogies when Naylor compares auto and plane crashes to the deaths that cigarettes cause, and hasty generalization when he reports the studies of the tobacco institution. Arguments that have fallacies in them are not only “bad” arguments they are wrong. I hope that this will help me in my paper by being able to recognize fallacies committed by the author I am writing about.
chris brown
Nick uses a lot of fallacies in his arguments, but the main one that he uses is the Red Herring fallacy. He always changes the subject to what he wants to talk about. He avoids the real questions and twists it into his own. He also uses Ad Hominem while talking about the reporter. He calls her a temptress and says that she'll do anything for her story. I think that these fallacies are not used for good. A lot of them divert attention from the question to the individual asking the question. Others just don't make sense such as False Analogy and Post Hoc. I think that most people should leave out fallacies when they are trying to make a point, unless of course you're a lawyer.
-abshafer
In the movie a variety of falicies were used. The main one I can think of is the way people seemed to attack Nick Naylor instead of the point that he stood for.(Ad Hominem). I think that fallacies belong on the darkside of arguement. I don't think they are fair and they are sometimes misinterpretated. People tend to judge instead of listen to the opposing side.
Dani
In the first scene of the movie, where Nick is on the talk show talking with Cancer Boy and the anti tobacco people, he used the red herring fallacy. He distracted the people from the issue of child smoking by announcing that Winston-Salem was launching a 50 million dollar campaign against child smoking. Nick also stated that if he can prove you wrong then he is right and wins the argument. This is the post hoc fallacy. I do not think that fallacies can be used in legitimate arguments because they are not legitimate points. That doesn't neccesarily mean they cannot be used successfully in arguments. They worked out quite well for Nick. From this movie I learned that any point can be argued well.
-Tyler Rygg
Personally I think the movie displayed a bit of circular arguments. Throughout the whole movie Nick is trying to prove his point. He seemed to keep his arguments in a circular pattern repeating the evidence that he supported about smoking. I think Nick also made an excellent point against the senator about the cheese versus smoking. In this I think he could also being using red herring fallacies.
Personally, the senator of Vermonts, Senator Ortolan Finistirr uses Ad Hominem fallacy to defend his argument to Nick Naylor. Senator Finistirr thinks that Nick Naylor isn't the right person to ask for advice on how to raise kids, when he campaigns for the tabacco. Moreover, Nick Naylor obviously will give the choice to his son on his 18th birthday, when the kid will be ilegal to smoke. In this argument, they also use Ad Populum fallacy, because they attract people by bring up interesting topic about "family" versus "tabacco". The senator tries to distract the candidates for their emotions and prejudices toward tabacco is bad, because tabacco will have a bad effect later on.
I recognized that Nick Naylor uses either/or fallacy, when he talks to the senator. He reverse it back to the senator, asking his for his responsibility on making better on the Vermonts' other problems rather than tabacco.
Senator Lothridge: "Now as we discussed earlier, these warning labels are not for those who know, but rather for those who don't know. What about the children?"
Nick Naylor: Gentleman. It's called education. It doesn't come off the side of a cigarette carton. It comes from our teachers, and more importantly, our parents. It is the job of every parent to warn their children of all the dangers of the world including cigarettes so that one day when they get older, they can choose for themselves.
I think these quotes represent Ad populum fallacy. Nick Naylor uses words to defend himself and also to arise emotions for the candidates, who will think that he's just like other dads, who wants the best for his kid.
I learned that there are some people out there, who make a living by doing this. I've also learned about fallacies, which I can use it for my rethorical analysis papers. Not only that, I have more understanding of what rethorical analysis are and hopefully, I can make a good paper.
Arguments should not have to be ethical. An Argument should serve and protect your side of the argument party. In the movie Nick Nayler uses fallacies every time he opens his mouth. Hus arguments are made up of low blows witch always result in changing the subject or avoiding the question.An examlpe of Nick using fallacies is when he says people already know the dangers of smoking, that is an example of the banwagon appeal.Rhetorical analysis is needed in arguments because if you are not proving your side is right you have to find the wrong in the other party.
Cy Wynn
There were a couple examples of Fallacies used by Nick toward the end of the movie. (Ad Homoinem) Nick brings up the fact that the laeding cause of death in the U.S. right now is Heart Disease and High Cholesterol. He then attacks the Senators home state for its cheese it produces. (It has nothing to do with how harmful ciggarretts are) And he is not an expert on cheese. Another axample that was used would be(Bandwagon Appeal) Nick points out that everyone one already knows that ciggarretts are harmful, so whats the point of changing the warning on the ciggarrette labels from the regular warnings. So then he directs the issue on how it should be the parents job to inform their children of the dangers of smoking.The Rhetoric analysis used in this movie would be that there are more harmful things then smoking.
Ad populum is a fallacy that struck me while watching this movie. They used this with the skull arguments when the senators said "for the children". You hear this so much in politics, news and reading. This is only one of the many fallacies used. Nick liked to get people off on different topics. He is a smooth talker and fast thinker. I would think that they don't always have to be on the dark side of an argument. Amy Hampton
Nick is triying to be more realistic now that cigarretes is not good it all, one of the fallacies when those guys atacked him and took him into a van without his concent and started putting patches on him, then he finaly done in the hospital. another fallacies may be when se said that smoking is dangerous and also synbolos and labels is to remain to people how dangerous is smocking. So when people read the remainder label then they are going to react by using languages of emotion and it may create a powerful positive or negative reaction from people who are smockers. My own opinion is that if people cooperate in stop smoking for their own good health and also for the good of the children.
Nick Naylon is trying to convince the world that smoking is good for you. But the kiddnapping scene proves the point that smoking can actually kill you. When asked about his own son smoking Nick had to take the time to answer that question. Leading people to believe that maybe Nick did not believe what he was saying about smoking was true.
I think fallacies can be used on both sides, dark side and legitimate arguments. LeeAnn
Some of the fallacies used by Nick in the movie were ad hominem, ad populum, false analogy and hasty genaralization. For example, nick uses hasty generalization when he said cigeretts saved his life. Some fallacies do belong to the dark side but many of them could be used in a legitimate argument. I learned from this movie that you don't always have to prove your point, but instead, you can disprove the opposition's argument. This movie will help in my rhetorical analysis paper because it showed me different fallacies i could use.
Blake Vorrath
There were several fallacies used by Nick Naylor in the movie. He used Ad Hominem, Ad Populum, and False Analogy. I think that fallacies can be used only in the "dark side" of an argument. I learned that you can win an argument as long as you present a good argument.
Farron Fiedler Jr.
Nick used the Ad Hominem fallacy when he reported how low it was for the journalist to have sex with him in order to report an article. When Nick testified, he used the Ad Populum fallacy as a response to the Governor of Vermont, when he said cheddar cheese should have a poison label on it. Nick used his fallacies in a manipulative manner to promote his ethical viewpoints. I think Nick displayed many arguments that dealt with pathos. He was good at playing with other people's emotions to manipulate their way of thinking. Nick also brought in many different instances of logos as well: referring to cholesterol, car accidents and plane wrecks as another form of death besides smoking.
Brokaw
In the movie, Nick Naylor comes to the point where he needs to argue the decision of putting a poison label on ciggaretts. When it came to the argument I feel he had used Ad Populum because of the way he turned around how smoking can kill when so does many other things in life. He continued to turn the subject from smoking to some other source of death. I believe that Nick is great at what he does and is able to pursuade his viewers in a way that gets them thinking. Maybe smoking is not such a bad thing if you look at it in the view Nick Naylor set in our minds.From this movie I have learned that you need many strong points to back up what you are fighting for. You need to reach into the minds of the viewers and keep their attention throughout the argument.
Brittany Hagge
In the movie Thank You For Smoking Nick used some fallacies of argument very effectively. He uses false analogy when comparing cigarettes to airplanes and cars. He used non-sequitur when saying that there are a lot of people who smoke who don't have lung diseases, so smoking doesn'
t cause lung diseases. He also used ad populum very well. He could change the subject and confuse people on what they were even questioning in the first place.
I believe that everyone some point in life use fallacies to help presuade there aduience one way over the other. Towards the end of the movie Nick shoulded that you didnt just always have to answer the question if you could put another question out there about the other person.Depending on the case fallacies can or can not help you out. If you were to use fallacies against Naylor you would find yourself in a world of hurt for the fact that he knows how to speak well, and would catch you trying to do so. When i was in high school i had a teacher that would always bring up topics to argue about between him and I. Yet he had always told me iam right, and that i never told him he was right,because i would use any information i could to assure of my win.
JOEL KRAMER
Nick of course used fallacies. He never says out right that cigarettes are bad but he never denies it. It’s all about how you twist your words leaving out specifics while bringing the focus onto another point.
When Nick went to see the Marlboro Man and give him the money; he made it seem as though he could donate all the money to make the cigarettes company look bad or he would have to keep it and keep quiet, all because keeping any would seem like he was giving into the cigarette company. So he forced and either or on the old man.
Also when he was teaching his child his form of argument with the “what’s better chocolate or vanilla” he forced him into the corner with the fact that he needs choices, and because of this chocolate obviously wasn’t the correct choice. An either or fallacy again which made the argument into a “your wrong so I must be right argument”.
After watching the movie and reviewing fallacies I noticed many places where fallacies were used. A couple that I noticed right away was the use of Ad Hominem which Nick used to attack the leader of the committee at the end of the movie. Another one I noticed was Ad populum which I believe Nick used after his kidnapping to say that cigarettes saved his life. I think the main one that I noticed was non-sequitur which Nick used several times throughout the movie in his arguments. I also think that fallacies can be used in all types of arguments not just the "dark side". I do think this movie taught me a lot however on how to argue and how you don't always have to be right to put up a very good argument.
In the movie “Thank You for Smoking” Nick Naylor used fallacies to twist the truth. Toward the end of the movie Naylor was in front of the senators and one of the senators told him that this poison label should be put on cigarettes because according to him “If you smoke then you will die.” that in and of itself is a post hoc fallacy. Naylor being the quick thinking man he is replies by saying that this poison label should be put on cheddar cheese, airplanes and other stuff of the sort, because they too can kill. I found this to be a fallacy because it kind of goes along the lines of a false analogy.
In the movie Thank You for Smoking there were many fallacies used, and they weren’t only used by Nick. The main fallacy he uses is Red Herring. When he is asked a question he never wants to talk about that. He always finds a way to change it to what he wants, so he can say it the way it wants to. Another fallacy that he used was the Ad Hominem. He uses this one when he talks about the girl reporter, and how she will do anything for her information. I feel that fallacies are not used right. Although everybody uses them, they just make people turn around what they are saying. I feel that people just need to leave these how when trying to make a main point, so that what they are saying doesn’t get twisted around.
One fallacie that was used was one the reporter used saying that because Nicks son joined his father on trips that he was being groomed for the job. The fallacie that by not using the imagery of the skull and cross bones on cigarette packages that they want those who can't read English to die is not true. I believe that to have a legitimate true argument you can not use fallacies because they are just that false. To have a genuine, in accordance with established laws or reasoning (legitimate) argument, you must use truths with backing.
in the movie Nick Naylor used red herring fallacies often to distract the viewer. when he was at the meeting with the senator he often mentioned topics to stray the viewer off topic suchs as the death tolls from cheese, cars and airplanes. Nick Naylor often uses Non-sequitur in his arguments. he uses the references that smokeing does have harmful chemicals but does not lead to cancer. also in the end Nick Naylor also used the topic about cell phones causes brain cancer i would also concider that being a Non-sequitur. i dont believe that fallacies belong to the "dark side." i do belive that fallacies can be used in a good argument.
(Greg Call)
I feel there were several different fallacies used in this movie. For example I feel Nick uses hasty generalization when referring to what “they” do. He does not know what everyone believes and how they feel. Throughout the movie while trying to get cigarettes back into movies I feel they are using the bandwagon appeal. Using famous actors they feel they will entice more people to begin smoking because the rich famous actors do it so they should too. Yes, I feel fallacies can be used as “the dark side”. I feel the bandwagon appeal is one of the most used and recognized fallacies today. I feel the bandwagon appeal is very effective in the way it gets you to do something you might not usually do. You want to do whatever it is because others are doing and you want to be cool too. The bandwagon appeal reminds me of peer pressure in this way.
In the movie, "Thank You For Smoking", there are a lot of fallacies used. One example is "Nick, we want you to stop killing people." (from the guy who kid-napped him"), which is an example of an Ad Hominem fallacy. There is a lot more used that are pointing the finger all at Nick even though he isn't the one making the cigarettes. Nick also states that cigarettes saved his life, and so did the doctor, that is Hasty Generalizations. Sometimes yes fallacies would belong to the “dark side” of an argument, but there are times that it is used for the “good side” they just sound really harsh when they come from the “good side”. This movie has kind of showed me to try avoid the use of fallacies because they can be good for the argument but they can also hurt the argument.
I feel that fallacies of argument can be used in a legitimate argument. At the end of the movie, Sen. Finnestirre uses Nick's son, Joey, as a red herring. He brings up the question of what will Nick do when Joey turns eightteen. This really was not relevant to the actual hearing, but it stirs up emotion.
I've seen this movie many times and have always love the way in which his arguments are sculpted. He is absolutely correct: If you argue the right way, then you're never wrong.
In the movie there was a lot of fallacies used. I thought that most of the movie in many of Nick's arguments he "circles" around his point of view to try and not make himself look like the bad guy. Another example was at the end of the movie when Nick pointed out to the senator how the cheese from his state was causing heart disease. I don't really think that Nick knows much about that area but that he was just trying to attack on the Senator.
Andrea Bollenbaugh
Caleb Avery
In The movie, "Thank You For Smoking" Nick Naylor uses alot of falicies in his arguments. I think that usually when you do use fallacies in an argument that it is becuase you do not have tha much good to say about them, so i would say that for the most part fallacies are used for the darker side of arguments. Naylor uses an example that tells how smoking can stop the effects of parkinsons disease, but it doesnt tell the many other proven disadvantages to smoking. Another example of a fallacy would be when Naylor brought up that Vermont's cheese industry is clogging people hearts and is the cause of heart attacks. In the movie others used fallacies as well, in the meeting at the end someone said "if you smoke cigarettes you will die", and although everyone knows cigarettes to be harmful, smoking them will not kill you right away.
I belive that Nick Naylor uses many fallacies, but mostly the Red Herring Fallacy. He's constantly distracting his audience, making them more concerned with another topic than the one that actually at hand. For example when in the court room and they were discussing whether or not the poison symbol should be put on cigarette packages. Well Naylor is constantly bringing up other things that those questioning him do that also cause deaths, like the senator and his support of cheese.
For my own paper, yes I do believe I have learned some things about argument. As far as the argument thing goes, I do agree that arguing is just proving the other side wrong; not necessarily proving your own side right. Which I think Naylor did an awesome job at teaching his own son about this.
Nick Naylor used many fallacies in his arguments. While arguing against the skull and cross bones sticker he uses Ad populum, especially when he physically turns towards the listeners, as well as the Red Herring fallacy when he turns the table on those speaking for the sticker. I found that they way he used these fallacies was very effective. I couldn't say the same of the character Mr. Finister. When questioning several of the speakers he made it quite obvious he was leading them to name Nick Naylor. He did this in such awkward fashion that it did nothing to help his argument. I think that there are certain circumstances where fallacies can be used effectively. In Nick Naylors case I found his use of fallacies to be quite legitimate, while I found Finisters fallacy to be a bit "below the belt" yet very ineffective. As for what I learned from this movie, I think I became more aware of the fact that arguments don't necessarily have to be ethical to be good, legitimate arguments. It has somewhat pulled me away from some of my more idealistic views in that respect.
-Mollie B
In the movie Thank You for Smoking, many fallacies are argument can be found present. False Authority is offered by Rob Lowe’s character as a way to reintroduce smoking and its sex appeal; and as Nick points to a child is being falsely informed by her mother and not a doctor. Nick is constantly begging questions leading to circular arguments when he asks if anyone was unaware of the dangers of smoking, and points out how it is not the manufactures, but the parents’ duty to inform children of any subsequent health problems that may arise from smoking. Near the end of the movie, a few red herrings are brought forth, such as cheese and how it is killing America due to its artery-clogging properties.
The movie helped me see the rationales behind the arguments at present. I am now more aware that even though both sides exist, truth in the matter is so easily hidden behind the strong sense of self-righteousness. I think keeping in mind that the essays are more intended to persuade than inform or educate.
~Amanda Hall
Nick Naylor is clearly good at what he does and uses fallacies in nearly every argument he makes.
Ad Hominem: When at the Senate hearing, Nick points out that cholesterol is the number one killer in America and that the Senator is from Vermont, with Vermont Cheddar Cheese. He argues that the skull and crossbones should be added to Vermont Cheese because of the danger of cholesterol.
Ad populum: Again, when at the hearing, Nick uses parenting as an example. He himself is a parent and informs the Senators that parents and educators shouldn’t have to rely on images to get a message across, but on their own skills as parents and educators. He says that he teaches his son of the dangerous in our world so that when he is older, Joey can make his own decisions in a way that could be seen as correct. Another example of this could be when Nick tells the news crew that smoking cigarettes saved his life because of the kidnapping. The public reaction to the kidnapping put their favor, temporarily, towards cigarette companies.
Bandwagon Appeal: The only example of this that I can think of, where the images shown of the Marlboro Man ads. People would see these ads and want to be like him. Another example would be putting cigarettes into hit movies to make them appeal sexy.
----------
Many people may view fallacies as a dirty trick in arguments, but they are legitimate methods in arguments. If you use Ad populum in an argument, your invoking peoples emotions. Some may say this is unethical, because an individual’s emotions take a very large role in the decisions and choices.
Nick Naylor uses many fallacies like: False Analogy, Hasty Generalizations, and Red Herring just to name a few. Perhaps the best argument put forth by Nick was when he used the False Analogy to compare cigarettes and the health effects associated with them to the Vermont cheese and the health effects it presents. It may not be a traditional way to argue but it does point out that there is some type of similarity between the two. Obesity, heart attacks, and numerous other health problems are derived from unhealthy foods like cheese. It makes the Senator look just as bad or even worse than Nick in this case. I learned that you can use rhetoric to argue very successfully in many situations and how these arguments are built to do so.
Brandon Harrison
During the court testimony for the cigarette skull and cross bone label, Dr. Herrera used a post hoc fallacy when he stated that the writing of the cigarette warnings were in English; therefore, the government/big tobacco corporations want the foreign speakers to get a smoke related illness. (I would like to believe that that was not intended, although possible in a twisted way of thinking.) Also, Naylor uses the ad populum fallacy in many of his arguments. In one particular case he mentioned support of tobacco farmers. He was trying to gain sympathy from the people for all of the “little people” who would be hurt indirectly from the lack of tobacco sales.
Naylor displayed an excellence in using rhetoric in this film, using very appealing language to deter people from the subject at hand, smoking is harmful to your health. He displays that even though the subject to which you are arguing may not have the best stance, but by appealing to the public, you can “win”. The class can use his passions for argument while considering what stance to take on their rhetorical essays. Also, outlining the fallacies, will help to tear apart some of the author’s arguments.
During the court testimony for the cigarette skull and cross bone label, Dr. Herrera used a post hoc fallacy when he stated that the writing of the cigarette warnings were in English; therefore, the government/big tobacco corporations want the foreign speakers to get a smoke related illness. (I would like to believe that that was not intended, although possible in a twisted way of thinking.) Also, Naylor uses the ad populum fallacy in many of his arguments. In one particular case he mentioned support of tobacco farmers. He was trying to gain sympathy from the people for all of the “little people” who would be hurt indirectly from the lack of tobacco sales.
Naylor displayed an excellence in using rhetoric in this film, using very appealing language to deter people from the subject at hand, smoking is harmful to your health. He displays that even though the subject to which you are arguing may not have the best stance, but by appealing to the public, you can “win”. The class can use his passions for argument while considering what stance to take on their rhetorical essays. Also, outlining the fallacies, will help to tear apart some of the author’s arguments.
In the movie “Thank You for Smoking,” Nick Naylor uses red herring fallacies. Naylor uses red herring throughout the whole movie, but especially in his debate with the Senator of Vermont by bringing up the state’s well known cheese and how cholesterol is harmful. Rhetorical analysis is helpful in proving a person’s argument, and making the other person wrong.
alreed1
Fallacies are used by many different characters throughout the movie. For example, Senator Finistirre uses Ad Hominem against Nick Naylor. Naylor openly states that he will give his son the choice whether he wants to smoke or not when he turns eighteen. By doing this, Finistirre attacks Naylor on a personal level.
Post Hoc is another fallacy used in the movie. Senator Finistirre wants the poison symbol to appear on every package of cigarettes. By marking cigarettes with this symbol, it gives people the impression that if you smoke, you will die. It can be argued that smoking alone will not kill you. However, the effects of smoking, such as emphysema and lung cancer, can be fatal.
Caitlin Weaver
The movie's full of fallacies not just from the central character. Some of the fallacies that I thought I noticed were "post hoc" and False Authority by use of a movie connecting smoking with sex which according to Nick had been used in the past. As learned in some of my classes many researchers bias a study to come up with the results that the researcher wants. So Non-sequitor night fit with movies Department of Tobacco Studies they work for the tobacco companies, so they would want the results to support cigarettes.
Can fallacies be used in legitimate arguments? It does seem that arguments that some to be against the norm uses fallacies to influence or distract the audience from issue. But legitimate is really dependent on the stance one is on.
I don't know that the movie helped a lot, because I saw a lot of miss leading going on in the movie.
In the film, fallacies are everywhere, but one in particular seem to be prevalent. Confusing cause and effect was used by the anti-smoking organization to try to make big tobacco look completely guilty. Throughout the movie,Naylor and his associates were repeatedly blamed for the deaths of millions of people.In actuality they use that cloud of blame to avoid obvious facts . I believe that it is fair to say that minus the cigarettes, the "victims" were most likely not all in tip-top shape and more than like had other health issues that factored into their deaths. The movie has given me a better understanding on persuasion and expressing logical viewpoints that may even go beyond "ethical" boundaries. I also learned that when I right I'm right and if I'm wrong I'm still right as long as I argue correctly.
Post a Comment