Actually I lied. Please don’t.

Maybe it stems from the auditor inside of me or just habit from having to cite all my college papers back to primary sources, but I rarely read something without doubting it. “Really? Is that true?” That is the first thing that comes out of my mouth, and it should be the exact same thing that comes out of yours. I despise hearing people back up their claims with articles written by pundits, news people, or the worst of all: commercials.

I was super-pumped up to write this blog until the last day of my training in Florida. You know what it was? Research. And pffffhhhh there went the air from my sails. Blah blah primary sources, blah blah. So I’m going to give the cliff’s notes version, then use it in an example, and then call it a day. I was just going to skip it, but then I thought ummmm yeah it’s important because some people probably didn’t learn these things in school like I did.

Okay so when you read or hear something in the news, that does not mean it is true. Usually people manipulate facts to fit around stories they are trying to sell (Yep that’s right, sell. As in for money. As in they need to pay the bills so they write articles). Most claims can be traced back to primary sources, including court cases, bills, records, etc. A good article will cite these sources, though most do not. So when you’re looking at an article, the first step is to check out their sources. Another step would be to check out the author. Are they impartial? Are they someone you could or should trust? How much of their own opinion are they inserting into the argument?

An additional thing to watch for when you are reading articles, is the argument the person is presenting. There are a lot of fallacies that people will use to persuade the audience of their position. Let me present a few of them, and you can tell me if they sound familiar (a good expanded list with definitions can be found at The Virtual School and an ever larger list is available through sources linked through wikipedia):

• Argumentum ad baculum / Appeal to force: to force or the threat of force in order to try and push the acceptance of a conclusion. Example: “… Thus there is ample proof of the truth of the Bible. All those who refuse to accept that truth will burn in Hell.”
• Argumentum ad Hominem is literally “argument directed at the man”: instead of trying to disprove the truth of an assertion, the arguer attacks the person or people making the assertion. This is invalid because the truth of an assertion does not depend upon the goodness of those asserting it. Example: “It is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. How can you argue otherwise when you’re quite happy to wear leather shoes?”
• The slippery slope argument: This argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the first event.
• Appeal to emotion: uses the manipulation of the recipient’s emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument.
• Appeal to fear (also called argumentum ad metum or argumentum in terrorem): a person attempts to create support for his or her idea by increasing fear and prejudice toward a competitor. The appeal to fear is extremely common in marketing and politics.

Does this make you feel manipulated by marketers, politicians, and news people? Good because it should. We are presented with so many fallacies on a day to day basis that it is easy to become oblivious to them. I’m sharing these because it’s important for people to recognize them when they’re presented. Then take it to their own accord to find out the truth.

Let’s look at an example (geeze can you tell I’ve been in classes all week?). This Yes on 8 Commercial. That’s right I am soooo going there. I won’t post it here because I don’t want that playing through my blog. But basically it’s the princess marrying a princess commercial.

First let’s talk about the main fallacy: Appeal to Fear. If you don’t vote yes on prop 8, our children are all going to come home wanting to marry princesses. Sounds pretty ridiculous when you look at the logical fallacy doesn’t it? Okay so now that we’ve identified that, let’s look at the primary sources and do some thinking for ourselves for once.

Let’s first examine the court case that started this entire movement in California In Re MARRIAGE CASES. It is long. But how could you make a decision affecting so many other lives solely based on a thirty second commercial? I highly, highly suggest you read it. Especially the first several pages. But if you don’t want to, here I’ll help. Basically the idea is:

Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.

For me, that is enough. But for others, it’s not. So here are some other passages of interest:

Finally, affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.

Now back to the commercial that claims that children will come home from school having learned that some people do marry people of the same sex. Apparently teaching children about equality and tolerance is a task that is far too daunting for some. Parents are more concerned with who is sticking their who-ha where than about teaching our children to grow up to be informed and understanding individuals. So let’s try to figure out why this Massachusetts case is being promoted all around California and how in the world it would affect California (you can read that as well if you like). There is also the entire California Education Code available for you to read at your leisure.

In January 2005, when Jacob Parker (“Jacob”) was in kindergarten, he brought home a “Diversity Book Bag.” This included a picture book, Who’s in a Family?, which depicted different families, including single-parent families, an extended family, interracial families, animal families, a family without children, and — to the concern of the Parkers — a family with two dads and a family with two moms. The book concludes by answering the question, “Who’s in a family?”: “The people who love you the most!” The book says nothing about marriage.

And that is what we’re complaining about? Wow.

So what’s going on here in California? This is taken from the California Education Code.

51933. (a) School districts may provide comprehensive sexual health education, consisting of age-appropriate instruction, in any kindergarten to grade 12, inclusive, using instructors trained in the appropriate courses.
(b) A school district that elects to offer comprehensive sexual health education pursuant to subdivision (a), whether taught by school district personnel or outside consultants, shall satisfy all
of the following criteria:
(1) Instruction and materials shall be age appropriate.
…
(7) Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.

Respect.. now what is wrong with teaching our children something like that? I know I could have used that growing up. Instead I believed that being gay was something you were “tricked” into. Yep, that was poor little sheltered me. Wouldn’t it have been nice to just understand that they are people who love another person. I have never been so happy in my life until I got married. I would never want to prohibit someone else in this world that kind of happiness. No matter the color of their skin, their religion, or their orientation. We were a nation founded on the belief that there should be a separation between church and state, that there should be no establishment of religion. Unlike what many would like to think, “Under God” was not added to the pledge until 1954. Just something to ponder.

Now this is a commercial I like.

So my agenda in writing this blog is to just challenge you to question anything you read. Don’t automatically pick and choose the articles that cater to your beliefs. I used Prop 8 as an example because that is the argument in which I see the most fallacies. Obviously I am a proponent of No on Prop 8. I guess I could just go the nice way and ask you to vote “No”, but of course it’s wouldn’t be Stephanie if she didn’t try to teach you a few things in the process.

Normally I would say okay go fight it out in the comments if you have a decent argument, but not this time. I’m just including this disclaimer because it’s something I’ve learned about myself throughout this specific election. I cannot prevent myself from judging anyone who spouts Yes on 8 agendas. I just can’t. So you can leave what you want in the comments, but really all I think is “what a bigot” when I read anything regarding that side of the argument. Sure it’s wrong to judge someone like that, but if the shoe fits…

And now as I try to end this on a note that both emphasizes my point and lightens the air, a video from the well-renowned SNL. Maybe you can identify some of the fallacies in it. Ohhh homework. I’m so mean.

Tags: Important Stuff

If you like what you've read, you may subscribe at the RSS feed. You can also follow any responses to this entry through the Comments feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.