Red Herring Fallacy

Red herring

Park is under criticism for posting on his blog photos that the other eight commissioners deemed “obscene materials” and had them deleted from the original blogs. He is attempting to blur the focus of the debate by crying freedom of expression.

The expression “red herring” means not only a smoked herring but also “something that distracts attention from the real issue,” according to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Derived from the practice of drawing a red herring across a trail to confuse hunting dogs, a red herring, in logic, means diverting public attention to something that is not at issue.

One red herring method is to launch a character attack. For instance, when Christian doctrine is up for debate, one can negate it by referring to a pastor’s unethical behavior. Park said he obtained U.S. citizenship to avoid mandatory military service. The main opposition Democratic Party is under fire for having appointed him commissioner of the communications watchdog. To criticize Park’s draft dodging when the photos of genitals are issue, however, is a red herring-style character attack. Whether an American citizen has the right to tell Koreans what to do on a sensitive issue is a different matter.

The logical fallacy of a straw man is to bring up a topic far greater that the point at issue. For instance, the fallacy is committed when one rebuts an argument for the liberalization of beer consumption by saying any society that allows unlimited access to addictive materials will collapse. In this case, comprehensive addictive materials are used as a straw man for beer.

The issue involving Park is the violation of the principle that a commissioner has to accept a majority decision even if he opposes. Freedom of expression is a far more comprehensive issue. Different discussions can be made depending on whether the issue is an object of art. A red herring is frequently used in agitation.

Stormbringer's Thunder: Logic Lessons: Genetic Fallacy and ...

I'm a bit of a cowboy. Here are my straightforward, often blunt views on various topics. Evolution is a lie. (See what I mean?) Philosophy, psychology, Christianity, personal productivity, Tibet, men's issues, women, computer things, Conservative politics, annoying those who detest the truth, other religions — whatever I get in a mood about. If you don't like a topic, keep going. Something else will come along. Feel free to drop me a line. The e-mail address is in the Profile link. Buon giorno. I have a pair of ad hominem fallacies for you, where the person is attacked rather than discussing the ideas presented on their own merits. This pair works well together, and sometimes the distinctions are blurry (even some of my sources disagree, since the ad hominem can merge with the "red herring" distraction). Since I have been subjected to this kind of "reasoning" lately, I can draw from my own experiences. First, the Poisoning the Well fallacy. To "poison the well", someone wants to discredit a person and ignore whatever he or she is about to present; a pre-emptive strike, if you will. You look bad before you even begin to speak. When discussing Creationism and showing the flaws in evolution, people have said that "Your Creationist sources are all disproved". Also, my news sources in other articles have been rejected out of hand because they are by Christian organizations, or Fox News. My references are not even examined by most of the critics, and they poison the well against anyone else who may have been considering checking them. Meet its cousin, the Genetic Fallacy . This says that something is true or untrue because of its source, instead of its merit. It is a kind of red herring argument, because the user seeks to distract from the points being raised. Two points to make this more confusing: It is not always a fallacy to question the source of an argument or proposition, and sometimes the Genetic Fallacy is an ad hominem , but not always. To stay with the Creationism example, I have had my arguments rejected simply because I am a Creationist. Also, my statements have been rejected because I am a Christian. Both Poisoning the Well and the Genetic Fallacy are often used as manipulations in an argument. Watch for them, and call "Foul!" because good reasoning, presentations, ideas and logic are rejected.

A Concise Introduction to Logic

Invitation to Public Speaking

Critical thinking, consider the verdict

Critical Thinking, A User's Manual

Relevance in argumentation