Skip to main content

False Dilemmas

I'm sick of this informal fallacy. Unfortunately, false dilemmas present themselves to the public and myself a fair amount of times, especially when it comes to politics and religion.

What is a false dilemma? It's when two options are given in a situation, where more than two options reside. For example, when the war on terror started, former President Bush exclaimed, "You're either with us or you're against us!" That is a prime example of a false dilemma, but they're everywhere. Liberal vs. conservative. Blue state or red state. Win or lose. Pass or fail. Rejection or dating. Rejected or hired. True or false. Heaven or hell. God or Satan. Good vs. evil. War or peace. Republican or Democrat. Right or wrong. The list continues.

Why does it have to be this way? Why must we go one of two ways, one of two extremes? Why is one labeled a liberal or conservative, when in fact, most people reside somewhere in the middle of the two extremes? Why is it said that if one does not go to heaven after they perish, they go to hell or vice versa?

As most studies will suggest, there is almost never a 0% or 100% certainty level with anything. The final conclusion resides somewhere between the 0 and 100. Must we simplify things? Is it a crime to allow more than two options, so that people can think more critically and come to a more concise conclusion?

There are many reasons why I preferred essay exams over any other, especially true/false tests. It allowed the students to think critically and use all the information they gathered from that semester to interpret and answer the question in whichever way they saw fit. True/false exams spell everything out for the student and he or she only has one of two routes to travel. The wording can be tricky and one must read over the question very carefully, to look for words such as "not," "never" or "always." Come to think of it, people (especially politicians) often times use false dilemmas as tricky wording to deceive and manipulate the public.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"