Generally, when people get their own way with others, they do it with words; they want others to agree with their point of view, give them what they want, do what they ask and buy what they are selling. From the car salesman's hard sell, the hammering of TV commercials, the relative's request for a loan, the doctor's diagnosis to the child's pleading to stay up late, the seduction and/or assault of words is continuous.
 
      In these verbal contests between one person's desires and another's, some people find they always lose, convinced they must be wrong, while others consistently win; their logic, their reasons are so powerful, so compelling, they almost force others to change their opinions, their beliefs and their behavior to comply with what's being asked.
 
      This enormous power is in the meaning of the words, what they mean to the person who hears them. Far more than simple communication, truth, falsehood and the infinite shades between them, words have the power to manipulate other people's thinking and behavior. These powers have been defined as fallacious arguments.
 
      There are 20 or so of these misleading and deceptive arguments. Their tremendous power lies in the fact that they elicit emotional responses in those who hear them. While the arguments appear to relate to the subject under discussioon, they do not. In most cases they have little to do with the subject at all.
 
      Their danger lies in the fact that decisions based on them are not based on truth, common sense, logic, legality, one's best interests or right and wrong but on emotions favoring those who put forth the more powerful arguments. They are designed to benefit someone else!
 
      As emotions are constantly changing, opinions and decisions based on them also change. They are not stable, dependable or consistent over time. At any moment, they can be overthrown by someone else's more compelling argument. Unknowingly making choices based on emotional appeals and logical tricks, one allows others to control their thinking, and their behavior, setting themselves up to be used for someone else's interests.
 
      Recognizing these arguments for what they are renders them ineffective and powerless. Knowing them to be false and self-serving, one can separate their emotional responses from the subject at hand, knowing they are not the same thing.

AD MISERICORDIAM

      Appeal to pity. This argument appeals to feelings of sympathy, pity and compassion. It also appeals to the ideals of fairness, to support for the under dog. Children are masters of this one. Their "Pleaseeeee" will get them almost anything from loving parents who feel heartless if they don't give in. Often, between men and women, the appeal is to compassion, and guilt, for the wounded egos and hurt feelings which will result from being refused. All charities appeal to feelings of pity, sympathy and compassion for those in desperate circumstances and to one's desires to help and/or guilt for not doing do. An argument to elicit compassion and collective guilt is also a defense attorney's summation to the jury asking for an acquittal on the grounds that his client's upbringing was abusive or under- privileged even though that would not make him innocent of the charges against him. This appeal is also used by groups who, basing their argument on past abuses, claim special treatment to make up for them. Special Pleading follows from this argument.
 
SPECIAL PLEADING

 
      Arguing for something in one case and not in another just like it is Special Pleading. To argue that one child should be admitted to college and not another with the same grade point average, economic status, social and educational background is Special Pleading. The Affirmative Action programs stem from Special Pleading.
 
AD VERECUNDIAM

      Appeal to authority. From childhood, children have been trained not to dispute their elders, the authorities in their lives, and that training continues to condition adults to do what authorities tell them to do without thinking about it. No more than what "My Dad said..." or "My teacher said..." could be wrong, can anyone else who is presented as an authority. Like parents, employers are considered authorities because of their power over employees; government, because of its power over the people. In personal disputes, one party will assault the other's opinions by claiming to be or quoting someone claimed to be an authority.
 
      In truth, however, there are remarkably few real authorities. A real authority in any field is a truthful, conscientious expert. Even that is no guarantee they're right. In criminal trials, it is not uncommon for both the defense and prosecution to present expert witnesses who give completely opposite opinions. In our culture, doctors are considered to be authority figures, so much so that few patients question their doctor's professional reputation, qualifications or credentials. Neither do they ask for a second opinion, question a diagnosis or dispute any advice regardless of how ridiculous it is. In TV commercials viewers hear "More doctors prescribe..., More hospitals use..., More dentists advise...." Or just an actor wearing a white lab coat will imply an endorsement by doctors and the implication is enough. Endorsements by Hollywood stars, sports figures, etc. imply both that they are authorities and that their saying so makes "this" the product to buy. Direct mail promotions rely heavily on endorsements by those who claim to be authorities.
 
APPEAL TO SECRECY

      If knowledge is power, to have knowledge others don't have is even greater power. Participating in a secret, having secret information, is the power of being up while others are down, being in while others are out. This power, real or implied, attracts people because secrets can become tools that they can use. When secrecy is used as a tool, however, it may be one of the most dangerous things on earth. Because of its nature, it is an essential condition for every abuse, every misuse of power, every crime, every lie.
 
      And secrecy sells. Some direct mail promotions promise the moon and stars but, sorry, we can't tell you what it is. The recipient, believing he may miss out on the opportunity of a lifetime, pays to learn the secret. And the con man, after gaining the confidence of his victim, imparts information which the victim believes to be secret. An implied loss for telling the secret prevents the victim from checking the information out but, had he done so, he would have found it to be false and the scam would have fallen apart.
 
APPEAL TO PARTIALITY

      These arguments are biased and totally one- sided. In disputes of all kinds it is common to put forth one's own case while denying the opposition has any case at all. Political speeches, written specifically to sway the voters, advocate only one party line while opposing arguments, if referred to at all, are presented as the viewpoint from hell. When the media also has a political agenda of its own, reporting is neither fair nor impartial but slanted toward one particular viewpoint. Only in the adversarial climate of political debate are both sides of an issue equally presented.
 
AD BACULUM

      Appeal to force/fear. When anyone threatens, "You'll do it or else........." and means it, they are using an Ad Baculum argument because compliance is not dependent upon whether it's the best thing to do but on what will happen if you don't. The power here is that the consequences are real; they can happen. Often, in personal relationships, the argument is unspoken and the threat is to withdraw love. If your landlord says, "No pets allowed," and the consequences are eviction, if you're threatened with extortion or blackmail and the consequences are exposure and/or prosecution, all are appealing to feelings of fear.
 
      Called "being on the horns of a dilemma," a choice must be made between the cost of complying and the cost of not doing so. In the McCarthy Senate hearings in the 50s, all those summoned to testify before the committee, guilty and innocent alike, were forced to implicate and incriminate their friends and acquaintances or be branded Communist and blacklisted themselves.
 
      The Ad Baculum argument is used extensively in advertising and sales. For selling life insurance..."How will your family pay the bills?" ...in sales of hospital insurance...."How will you pay the bills (if they will treat you at all)?" ...in sales of financial newsletters.. "When the crash comes you will lose all your savings if you haven't had my expert advice!" ....in sales of cemetery plots, smoke alarms, fire extinguishers, alarm systems, protective devices from pepper spray to air bags. Fear of loss is used by direct mail promotions that first raise recipient's hopes with promises of information that will cut taxes, save money, make money, sweepstakes and lotteries to win money, psychic help that will bring money, good luck, love, romance, etc. if they only pay a small (?) fee, and loss of it all if they don't. Even though they may not really believe it, many pay rather than take the chance.

AD HOMINEM

      Argument against the man. This is a personal attack on the person who presents or endorses a viewpoint and is often used as a last resort when the facts cannot be disputed. Called "poisoning the well," the argument is that to destroy the credibility of the person endorsing the viewpoint will destroy his argument. This argument is used extensively to discredit candidates for election by dirty-tricks campaigns that lay their private lives bare to public criticism.
 
      In the 1992 election, Ross Perot came under fire, not for what he was saying, but because of his manner, his attitude, his walk, his voice, his ears and his size. And in the debate between Gore and Perot, the administration openly admitted that they were trying to influence the vote toward NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) by making it's opponent appear ridiculous. Governments routinely act along lines of self- interest but sell their policies to the people with emotional appeals.
 
      Expecting unbiased reporting of the news, voters hear instead derogatory adjectives and outright personal attacks on candidates. Unfortunately, since they have few ways of knowing what the facts really are, they tend to believe what they read, see and hear in the media believing anyone in that position must be an authority and if it were not true, those being defamed would sue. This is not the case for at least two obvious reasons. The media is in business to sell and "public" figures have become fair game. The court has ruled that in choosing to give up their "private" citizen status to become a figure in the public eye, they must put up with everything short of outright slander and libel.
 
GUILT BY ASSOCIATION

      Very close to Ad Hominem is the Guilt by Association argument. If your spouse says, "You sound just like your mother!" and your mother is unpopular, the attack is aimed toward making your argument unpopular because she is. When someone says, "That sounds like something the Conservatives would say....." and their arguments are unpopular, the attack undermines your credibility by pointing to an unpopular cause you have endorsed. One commentator attempted to associate Elizabeth Dole and Hillary Rodham Clinton in the minds of voters by pointing out the similarities in their background and education.
 
TU QUOQUE

      Also allied to the Ad Hominem is the Tu Quoque, the "you, too" argument. This is the "Practice what you preach," two wrongs make a right argument; "If you can do it, so can I." What I do is justified because you do it. Teenagers use this argument a lot and couples use this one: "Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."
 
AD POPULUM

      Appeal to the people, the masses. The appeal is to the need to belong, to be accepted. The argument is that one should like what most people like; that if everyone likes it, it must be good. That one should do what everyone is doing; that if everyone is doing it, it must be right. The big assumption here is that most people do like it, that most people are doing it. Even if they are, does that make it the best thing for you?
 
      Children, learning to live in society, learn to conform to what "others" expect. Later on their appeals for bizarre clothing, late night parties and cars of their own are on the grounds that all their friends are wearing it, all the kids are going, everybody drives to school. The great anonymous "everybody" exerts enormous social pressure to conform. At election time, when one person is ahead in the polls, that will often be enough to swing voters in his direction. Voters persuaded to vote the Democratic ticket because "they" are for the "the blue-collar workers," to vote the Republican ticket because "they" are for the "the white- collar people" results from this argument. Members of Congress are pressured to vote their party lines and members of religious, ethnic and racial groups support their leaders simply because they are members of the group. Propaganda supporting mob rule and hate groups stems from this argument for the people but, in these cases, not all the people. Only one particular group of people is included and all others are outsiders.
 
      The unspoken premise that belonging, being accepted, follows from conforming to socially accepted norms is the drive that sends buyers flocking to diet programs, beauty aids, plastic surgeons and fashion trends, all sold to buyers who want to weigh what they "should" weigh, look like they "should" look, wear what they "should" wear. In direct mail promotions, testimonials stating that others endorse a product are used to convince prospects that they should buy it, too.

APPEAL TO TRADITION    (Sacred cows)

      This argument, very close to the Ad Populum argument, appeals to those ideas, ideals and principles that people claim to respect -- loyalty and friendship, patriotism, rights and freedom, profit and capitalism and the democratic form of government. "My country, right or wrong" exemplifies this argument. To challenge or disagree implies that one is against, not the argument, but what everyone holds dear. To disagree with the way the government is run will draw claims that one must be a fascist; to criticize the economic system will elicit charges that one is a socialist or communist. Using this argument, almost anything that makes a profit, even if harmful and destructive, is justified in the name of capitalism. Currently, Americans opposing the war in Iraq are called disloyal, un- American, charged with not supporting our troops.
 
      Individual rights is such a sacred argument. From the first governments, there have been conflicts between where individual rights end and the rights of society begin. In totalitarian governments, society has all the power and individuals have few if any rights; democratic and republican forms of government try to balance the rights of each person with the rights of all people - individuals have the rights that do not conflict with the rights of society. In anarchy, individuals have unrestrained rights and governments cannot control or govern. Out- weighed by the rights of individuals, society (law and order) is unable to protect itself (the rest of the population) from them. Eventually, the cumulative effects from many small incursions alters the fabric of that society. In the past, when democratic governments have collapsed into a state of anarchy, the people have succumbed to a dictator giving up all their rights in order to end the economic chaos, the terror and the crime.
 
APPEAL TO PRECEDENT

      This argument claims that since something has been done before it should be done again, and it should be done the way it has always been done. Legal decisions in most states rely heavily on previous decisions in similar cases. Likewise, if something has not been done before, it should not be done now. This is an argument, not only against change for change's sake, but change for any reason.
 
AD IGNORANTIAM

      Argument from ignorance. If something cannot be proved wrong, then it must be right and vice versa. Both opponents and proponents of the NAFTA disagreement were using this argument; the treaty was good/bad for the country because it could not be proven otherwise.
 
COMPOSITION

      Arguing that what is true of the part MUST be true of the whole. If it can be shown that some Americans are poor, the argument would claim that all Americans have a poor standard of living. Or that an increase in benefits for the extremely poor would benefit all Americans. Or that a tax break for the very rich would eventually "trickle-down" to everyone else.
 
DIVISION

      Arguing that what is true of the whole MUST be true of the part. If it can be shown that the United States has a high standard of living, the argument would claim that no American is poor. That if there are twice as many cars in the country as families, that every family has two cars. The claim that every person in the US owes an equal part of the national debt is as fallacious an argument as the one claiming that since we owed the debt to ourselves, there was no debt at all.
 
ACCIDENT

      This argument applies a general principle where, because of circumstances, it does not apply. One argument is that since America is the land of opportunity and opportunities exist for everyone, the implication is that the SAME opportunities are available to all. It is obviously untrue that the poor have the same prospects, the same favorable options available to them as the middle- class and the rich. The argument, however, suggests the poor choose not to improve their lot in life and trivializes both their obstacles and their accomplishments.
 
IGNORATIO ELENCHI

      Is an irrelevant conclusion, one that is completely beside the point. To argue that constructing levees to contain flood waters is unnecessary because it isn't raining is beside the point. Other kinds of irrelevances like red herrings (side issues) that attempt to divert the argument are included here. One might be the claim that, since a victim remained on the job, they wanted to be sexually harassed, or the rapist's defense that the victim wore a short skirt. Included also are diversionary tactics -- a lawyer's distracting the jury by flattering and amusing them or by diverting their attention from the guilt or innocence of the defendant to past inequities in the law, equality, opportunity, etc. The OJ case is a case in point.

SECUNDUM QUID

      Sometimes called "hasty generalization," this argument applies generalizations from too little evidence and is the basis for almost all stereotypical thinking. If the first five people one sees in a town are women, one might conclude that only women live there. If the first few birds one sees are blue, one might argue there are only blue birds in the forest. The first few experiences one has with another race or ethnic group tend to generalize to every person in the race or ethnic group.
 
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM

      Taking an argument to a ridiculous extreme. To claim that if abortion is legal, no babies will be born; if drugs are legal, all people will be addicts are examples of such arguments. Also, to accept nothing but perfection or to simplify issues to the status of all or nothing, black or white is a Reductio Ad Absurdum. Politicians making political mileage out of their opponents rely heavily on Reductio Ad Absurdum arguments. The way "politically correct" policies are applied are often reductions to the extreme, i.e. a man being forced to resign his job because he used the word "niggardly." (which means "stingy" by the way) Zero tolerance policies, as they are currently applied by some school administrators, are extreme applications of the Reductio Ad Absurdum argument, i.e. expelling a kindergartner for kissing a classmate on the cheek. More bizarre than that is a school that prohibits members of its band from shouting out the WORD "Tequila" because of their zero tolerance policy on alcohol. Another expelled a fourth grader for drawing a picture of a gun which, they claimed, he threatened his classmates with. And lately, expelling kindergartners for playing cops and robbers, pointing their fingers and shouting "bang!" Unbelievable!
 
POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC

      "After this, therefore because of this" is the False Cause argument. If one event follows another, it is argued that the first event caused the second. Claiming that in this century every depression was during a Republican administration or that every war was during a Democratic administration is to assign False Cause.
 
PEPITO PRINCIPII

      Is Begging the Question. The argument is circular in that it assumes what it tries to prove; the conclusion to be proven is the premise started with. That Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction is a circular argument, the Bush Administration assuming what the UN inspectors are trying to prove. Another often quoted argument is a proof for the existence of God which says that God caused the Bible to be written and the Bible says there is God. The same argument with the Koran has been used to prove the existence of Mahomet. A Tautology is circular by definition of the words as in "women are female."
 
STATISTICS

      The value of statistics as proof in argument depends upon their interpretation. It has been found that while small numbers tend to be overlooked, large numbers are impressive. From statistical figures, many use only those parts which support their case. The government unemployment figures given as percentages of the population are used to claim that those are the only persons still looking for work. It is, however, obvious these are people collecting unemployment compensation since they are the only ones that could be counted. Those not registered would not be included no matter how long they had been unemployed and actively looking for work. The claim is thus misleading and falls far short of the number of people actually unemployed.
 
POLLS, STATISTICS, AD VERECUNDIAM and AD POPULUM

      Statistics from polls are used to sway those who need the acceptance that comes from subscribing to the majority opinion. By presenting the poll as "proof" of what the opinions of the majority are, it becomes the authority (Ad Verecundiam ) which must be followed in order to be accepted as a member of the group ( Ad Populum ).
 
      Polls cannot be believed unless, at the very least, it can be shown the pool of respondents was representative of the populace at large and that the questions were not slanted in any way. In short, unbiased and not intended to support and promote a particular agenda.
 
      Using statistics generated by polls to convince the populace that "nobody cared" about the lack of moral authority in the previous whitehouse was a massive media manipulation on a nation- wide scale. It used the Ad Verecundiam and Ad Populum arguments to argue that "Nobody else cared; why should you?" It is my understanding that there were polls taken showing totally different results, but the statistics quoted, and promoted, by the media come from those polls where the psychographics of those polled were carefully predetermined to give positive results. In other words, deliberately biased and inaccurate, intended to deceive.
 
MISDIRECTION and DISINFORMATION

      Misdirection is a red herring. Though the argument may well be true, it's real purpose is to direct attention away from another issue. Leaping immediately to mind is the government's successful crusade against smoking. Arguments that cigarettes addict children, cause disease and death and raise health care costs has directed attention away from the far greater problem, illegal drugs. At an astronomical cost to the taxpayer, the government's efforts have failed leaving the human costs of crime, misery and death unchanged. Check out a book titled "Deep Cover" by Michael Levine.
 
      Disinformation is a euphemism for governmental lying. Although definition of the word indicates disinformation is a lie told by one government to another, that is not always the case. Governments lie to their own citizens. "All our POWs have come home, Agent Orange is not harmful, Gulf War Syndrome is only stress" come to mind. The Warren Report, issued to explain the Kennedy assassination to the citizenry, was widely regarded as a cover-up and, eventually, the word filtered down that the Report, while a misrepresentation of the facts, was actually issued to protect the citizenry from itself, to save them from the panic of believing Russia had done it. Considering that Kennedy's intention to withdraw from Vietnam died with him and Johnson, becoming President upon his death, escalated the war effort to full involvement, it may be the case that this country experienced a political coup d'état, unrecognized by the citizenry.

ON THE NATURE OF TRUTH

      Truth and non-truth are in the use of language. To speak the truth is to say that which conforms to reality. Reality simply "is." There is nothing true or false in it until something is said about it.
 
      Most people, aware they do not know what the reality is, speak "opinion," qualifying their statements with "I think" or "I believe." Those who speak falsely because they don't know the difference between reality and illusion are seen to be suffering from some mental defect or disorder. Those who do know what the reality is and speak falsely about it are telling an untruth; they are lying. It is my opinion that 99% of all lies are told to manipulate other people or to gain an unfair advantage over them.
 
     As well as the socially accepted "white" lies, this includes all manner of cover-ups, misrepresentation, disinformation and governmental propaganda. It has been claimed that any lie, told often enough, will come to be accepted as the truth. That Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is an excellent example of the BIG LIE becoming accepted as truth. Even in the legal sense, a not guilty plea gives the advantage to the accused and, unless the charge can be proven in court, the accused is acquitted as not guilty. In reality, though, this does not mean the acquitted is innocent.
 
      Since truth is reality based, it works in the real world. With truth as a basis, one's beliefs, actions and expectations conform to reality. To believe, trust or act on the basis of lies is to expect unreality to work in a real world.
 
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: BE SILENT AND CONFORM OR BE PUNISHED!

      Perhaps the greatest guarantor of truth that we have had in this country has been our First Amendment right - that of Freedom of Speech. I say "have had" because we have already lost much of it - and we have given it up voluntarily in order to be politically correct.
 
      "Political Correctness" is a manipulation so powerful it overpowers rational thought, ethics, morality, common sense; it's seen as more valuable than truth or freedom. And those who follow it rely on every other fallacious argument to convert and/or silence its critics making it a self-perpetuating manipulation. It has become an ideology so powerful it pressures all of society to conform, so pervasive even the law subscribes to it. "Political Correctness" looks like, sounds like, acts like brain washing!
 
      "Political Correctness" is a manipulation that not only uses fear but every other fallacy as well. One particularly insidious application extends the Ad Misericordiam argument to the extreme. The claim is that "feelings," a purely personal, affective state of one's own consciousness, must prescribe the course of group action, must be elevated to the level of national goals. NOTHING must be done or said that could, in any way, hurt somebody's feelings. Any reference to anyone's ethnicity or race is out! Not only are jokes taboo, but so is mentioning ethnicity or race when referring to statistical data. No matter how accurate and true the data, anyone putting it into words is seen to be racially and/or ethnically biased! And anyone thus perceived is subject to punishment by one's fellow citizens! Government involvement, when it is there, is deeply hidden.
 
      How has it happened that a country once peopled by moral, tough- minded and rational individualists dedicated to a "live and let live" ideology has so changed in less than half a century? I suggest that the character of America's people has changed in large part to the "Marketing" character described by Erich Fromm in "Man for Himself." Fromm claims this character type is a response to a market driven economic system, and that those with this character orientation see themselves as valuable, not as individuals with integrity and courage, but as marketable commodities who, to be marketable, must be approved and accepted by others (Ad Populum.) Mass conformity, then, to the lowest common denominator is its natural outgrowth, but that in itself would not account for the direction it's taken.
 
      Perhaps the question is not "have we" but "why have we" become the stepford wives on a national scale? Is it possible that an evolution in the national character could produce such an emasculated, maleable and submissive population without some driving force behind it? I don't think so. Manipulations of all kinds (especially those that reach this level of brain washing) do not happen accidentally; they are designed to benefit someone. This intense pressure to conform started long before 9/11, but now, the current administration claims protecting ourselves from the fear of terrorism makes conformity and the loss of personal freedoms necessary. If the political elite did not, in the first place, instigate the fear and conformity of Political Correctness, they have certainly taken advantage of the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
 
      Is it already too late to save our rights and our freedom? See the Patriot Act of 2001