From: Polarhound on
On 7/30/2010 11:15 PM, PatsSox wrote:
> "Polarhound"<polarhound(a)> wrote in message ...
>> On 7/30/2010 6:07 PM, PatsSox wrote:
>>> "Polarhound"<polarhound(a)> wrote in message ...
>>>> The obnoxious anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh has been a rare voice
>>>> arguing that the spill � he calls it "the leak" � is anything less than
>>>> an
>>>> ecological calamity, scoffing at the avalanche of end-is-nigh eco-hype.
>>> Why, oh why does anyone give credence to anything this man says?
>>> He's an entertainer... he is not an expert on ANYTHING. He is there to
>>> make you laugh at his foolish and outrageous statements. Come on...
>>> when
>>> did he become an expert on the effects of oil on the eco-system? The
>>> freakin' guy dropped out of Southeast Missouri State University... and
>>> according to his mother, he flunked everything! Why do people listen
>>> to
>>> this freakin' idiot?
>> Fallacy: Guilt By Association
> Pardon me? The fallacy is in what this man spews daily hoping to get
> fools to listen to him and hopefully, believe his lies. This fool is a
> college drop-out who has too many people believing that he knows what he's
> talking about. It's a cruel joke being played on the American people.


Fallacy: Red Herring

Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase.
Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in
order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to
"win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to
another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic
A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic
of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.