[morganm01]

So in this book for my logic class, it takes every example possible to use either a NRA or a political right speaker to make examples of fallacies of logic. Here's an example, anyone articulate/knowledgable enough to find a fallacy, please jump in. I'll complain to the school if I can get a good concrete example of bias or fallacy of the book and explain it well enough.

"Guns are not the issue. Hate, what pulled the trigger of violence, is the issue. --Vikki Buckley, secretary of the state of the Colorado, speaking at the 1999 NRA annual meeting in Denver, a few weeks after two teenagers had killed 15 people, including themselves, at a high school in Littleton Colorado.

Does this strike you as a false dilemma? "

[Pilgrim]

Eliminate guns and hate will disappear?

Pilgrim

[Ant Mod]

Not a false dilemna that I can see.

First situation is that guns caused the shootings.
Second situation is that hate caused the shootings.
And I dont really see how there is another cause that she left out.

Maybe your book is saying that niether of these caused the shootings, maybe something else like guilt or a bad childhood. Because a false dilemna occurs when only two choices are given when there really are three, if I remember from my Business Communications class.

It comes off as sounding anti gun but I dont think it is. I think the book is merely pointing out the fact that there was maybe more to do with the shootings than just guns and hate.

[Mark Tyson]

The speaker seems to be saying: either guns or hate are responsible for Littleton. I think the book is suggesting(not telling) that there could be another explaination, or some combination of the two.

Obviously the classic example is that old horse: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Guns don't go around killing people by themselves, but criminals use guns to kill people.

The right thing to do is assign responsibility for crime to criminals, and not inanimate objects, but that's another issue.

[Standing Wolf]

The right thing to do is assign responsibility for crime to criminals, and not inanimate objects, but that's another issue.

Not found in many college text books, I'm sure.

[Baba Louie]

"Guns are not the issue. Hate, what pulled the trigger of violence, is the issue. --Vikki Buckley, secretary of the state of the Colorado, speaking at the 1999 NRA annual meeting in Denver, a few weeks after two teenagers had killed 15 people, including themselves, at a high school in Littleton Colorado.
Does this strike you as a false dilemma?"
I gather that is a quote from said "Critical Thinking" textbook?
If so, I think its a good basis for some "Critical Thinking with some applied Logic".
My answer would be, NO its not a false dilemma - false being "contrary to fact or truth" and dilemma being "a choice between courses of action that are equally difficult or unpleasant."

I'm too obtuse to understand what the difficult courses of action contained therein are and which part of the statement is contrary to fact or truth.

Is the author/editor implying that "guns ARE the issue?" Or disagreeing w/ Ms Buckley's statement that "Hate... pulled the trigger of violence"... being the issue or the fact that the NRA held a previously scheduled annual meeting in Denver immediately after two very disturbed angry little boys created mayhem in a nearby High School? Or all three?

I'm sure that much thought was given by the NRA directors as to the meeting location due to Littleton... they faced a dilemma. I'm sure that Ms Buckley faced some form of political dilemma when considering to speak at that meeting soon after the tragedy, yet they both did what they'd said they'd do... no falsehood there.

I agree w/ Ms Buckley that Guns are not the issue, it was illegal for these two to own them anyway, let alone take them to school, let alone commit murder, or build ineffective bombs and leave them scattered about...

But I have a hard time equating the above quote to either being false or a dilemma... worthy of critical thinking, yes. Applied logic (I wish I knew more about the reality of Logic... the classes I took focused on forms of mathematical matrices) by someone smarter than me, Mr. Spock say, might reveal some Vulcan Universal truth that would get right to the heart of the matter... whadda I know?

Learn what you can from the book/class, good or bad. Keep your mind open, barf back whatever it is your professor wants, make your grades and teach your children well.

Adios

[abaddon]

It is a false dilemma. My logic textbook defines a false dilemma as the use of a premise that unjustifiably reduces the number of alternatives to be considered. Since it seems possible that maybe guns and hate could be the issue, it seems like this is a false dilemma.

This is not to say I think guns are the issue, despite the way it is phrased this argument still has truth to it. It seems obvious to me that taking away guns would not eliminate violence, but taking away hatred would. The fact is, there are a lot of arguments people use in popular culture that have truth to them - even if they wouldn't stand up to the standards of a logic textbook.

Jeff

[Double Naught Spy]

Whether the dlilemma of the example is true or false is not relevant to the suggestion that somehow the textbook is anti-gun. The status of the dilemma alone does not justify or refute a contention of being pro or anti-gun.

Since the discussion is critical thinking and logic has been interjected here, do note that the thread title itself. morganm01 is making an appeal to emotion in order to solicit biased responses. Any 1911 person on this board would be pro gun and so by making a claim of something at anti gun, he tries to rally the troops.

He has also tainted the query with the emotional title and prejudiced the responders. He makes a statement of fact in the title about the book being anti-gun and then wants to know if his example fits and anti-gun bias because if it does, then as a fellow RKBA, pro gun person, he wants to fight for/with us on the issue. This also then falls to a sort of mob appeal. Imagine if the prosecution could have asked, "Is the murderer, Orathol James Simplson, the murder of Nicole Brown Simplson?" while being tried for her murder. There is a reason that is not allowed. "This anti-gun textbook, is it anti gun?"

I am glad to see the mob appeal aspect did not appeal to the members here.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

There are many layers to the onion, apparently. Some see the base question of the contributor, others see the bait of the anti-gun skewing, while others see the NRA meeting in Littleton as a statement. So we have the statement in the book, the context of the class in critical thinking, the context of the CO Secretary of State, wrapped up in the meeting of the NRA to discuss a tragedy. Topped off with a question of the motive of the requestor. I am in too deep.:banghead:

[Idaho]

It is a false dilemma. Certainly not everyone who is pro-gun is pro-logic, and vice versa. It could also be argued, however, that the text is anti-gun, if all of the examples of "faulty" logic are pro-gun, and examples of "effective" logic are anti-gun.

In this case, abaddon was correct in his comment:
My logic textbook defines a false dilemma as the use of a premise that unjustifiably reduces the number of alternatives to be considered.
..but I feel he didn't go far enough in the explanation. In the example cited, the means by which the number of alternatives is limited is through the use of an either/or construct. Not only does this limit the world of possibilities to the two offered, but it also sets up the thesis as a choice between two possibilities, negating the possiblity that they are both valid choices.

The author quotes:
Guns are not the issue. Hate ... is the issue
A reader must choose between guns or hate being the issue, the way this is written. Most people would concede that hate is a more root or basic cause, encouraging them to conclude that guns are, therefore, NOT the issue. It's presentation precludes the possibility that both or neither are the issue. This is a false dilemma, as clearly there are other issues related to violence, and it is also clearly arguable that guns and hate are important issues related to violence. Many here would minimize the importance of guns in relation to violence, but the fact is they are involved in instances of violence whether we like it or not.

[lazhuward]

Hmm... I guess the focus of the debate here is two sentences: "Guns are not the issue. Hate, what pulled the trigger of violence, is the issue."

My question would be: What is "the issue"? Can we determine if the statement is logical or not if "the issue" is not defined?

[benEzra]

If I understand his point correctly, he is saying that all of the textbook's examples of bad logic are from pro-gun or politically conservative speakers. Each individual example may be a case of a logic disconnect, but by presenting fallacies only from the mouths of conservative speakers, the book is definitely biased.

[SemperFi83]

Most institutions of "Higher Learning" long ago gave up teaching anything approaching critical thinking.

[another okie]

The answer to the question "Is this a false dilmenna?" is yes, it is a false dilemma, which means forcing you to choose between two alternatives when a third choice is available. And here is your chance to explain the third choice to the class: the person pulling the trigger is responsible.

[morganm01]

The answer to the question "Is this a false dilmenna?" is yes, it is a false dilemma, which means forcing you to choose between two alternatives when a third choice is available. And here is your chance to explain the third choice to the class: the person pulling the trigger is responsible.

This is the conclusion I have come to as well. The choices are being limited to "hate" or "guns", when in fact there are more causes.



00Spy-- "morganm01 is making an appeal to emotion in order to solicit biased responses."
"....he wants to fight for/with us on the issue. This also then falls to a sort of mob appeal."

You know more about my intentions than I do. Where you got all that inference I am unsure. You seem to have extrapolated very far. I posted here because I wanted UNBIASED responses. I mentioned that there were MANY references throughout the book of using the pro-gun side in examples that show fallacy of logic. Another thing I will learn to use is the ignore list.

BenEzra hit it spot on.
If I understand his point correctly, he is saying that all of the textbook's examples of bad logic are from pro-gun or politically conservative speakers. Each individual example may be a case of a logic disconnect, but by presenting fallacies only from the mouths of conservative speakers, the book is definitely biased.

Of course the one example doesn't prove anything. That one just had me a little confused. And thanks to all for their reply. I thought that if that one example was proven not to be a flase dilemna as it was portrayed in the book, that perphaps I could persuade the educators to use a different book. A simple "they always use conservatives for the bad examples and never the lib's" would not fly. Definite proof of bias would be needed and this example does not by itself prove to be a flaw in the book.

The book has a picture and quote of Rush's in every single chapter. There are few such examples of any left leaning orators or advocates throughout the text. Each example points to a fallacy of logic. Reading the book you would think that only right leaning people/organizations use deceptive reasoning. There are other examples of the NRA, but none from the VPC or other anti-group that illustrate fallacies in logic.

[morganm01]

For clarification, the statement "--Vikki Butler.....Colorado" is an editors caption from the book. What the shootings have to do with anything I am unsure.:confused: But this is the message throughout the book. There is another example where a republican makes a stament about gun control. The author says that the republican

"...has not given a valid reason for supporting gun control, not that gun control wouldn't be a solution. He just has not justified it here."

Do you see a trend? Wish I could go over every example, but I can't, there are a lot.

[Nightfall]

Reading the book you would think that only right leaning people/organizations use deceptive reasoning. There are other examples of the NRA, but none from the VPC or other anti-group that illustrate fallacies in logic.
Sounds like propaganda, pure and simple.

[Doug S]

Speaking from experience, it seems that a lot of college text books speak of critical thinking. Unfortunately this seems to mean "thinking critically" of anything out of the mainstream PC popular thought.:(

[hso]

If a false delimma is a logical fallacy based on an "A or B" argument made to force the acceptance of one positon. If the book is asking if the quote represents a false delimma the possible correct answer is Yes. The problems behind the Columbine shootings (or any such incident) is complex and isn't as simple (black OR white) as presented. It isn't Guns or Hate that could only encompass the problem. Kids underage getting the guns, straw purchases, unreasonable reaction to adolescent torment, improper parenting, lack of proper firearms socialization, poor security at the schools, inadequate LE reaction, and on and on.

On the other hand - the correct answer could be, No it isn't a false delimma, because it doesn't directly come out and say Guns or Hate.

The point may be to look at how the book presents false delimmas and decide if it's looking for the answer in the structure of the argument or if it's looking at the nature of the argument.

False Dilemma

Definition:

A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator.

Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common instance of this fallacy.


Examples:

(i) Either you're for me or against me.

(ii) America: love it or leave it.

(iii) Either support Meech Lake or Quebec will separate.

(iv) Every person is either wholly good or wholly evil.


Proof:

Identify the options given and show (with an example) that
there is an additional option.

[Destructo6]

Is this the one that uses gun control to illustrate the fallacy of the slippery slope? IIRC, it used a quote from a KKK speech. Incidentally, the slippery slope prediction of the speaker had come to pass for the most part.

[ksnecktieman]

"critical thinking?" I will take issue with the first five words "Guns are not the issue. " Maybe the response you are to come up with is that guns are the issue? Critical thinking means you are to justify disagreement with the statement? I disagree with it, and guns are the issue, at least the lack of guns, if the teachers, even one, or the principle, had been armed, this crisis could have been averted or diminished. The fear of armed response may even have kept it from happening at all?

Did my train run off along the wrong track here? Or is this what you wanted from us? Is what you want an argument with the logic of this statement? It is becoming more common for us gun lovers to just accept the antis opinion that guns are bad, and not even consider a challenge to them on that. The criticism I propose here is that the gun is only a tool, not good, not bad, just a piece of steel waiting for direction.

A gun is no more dangerous than a suv with a bottle of bourbon on the front seat. Neither the suv, or the bottle of bourbon is guilty if someone drinks it and drives and kills someone.

[MoNsTeR]

The question is trying to get you to realize that it's possible that "hate" and "guns" are both issues. The fact that "guns" are not, in this case, actually an issue, is a moot point from the perspective of analyzing the speaker's logic.