American Warmonger

Learning To Read - Fallacies And Misleading Language

Reading the English language has been taken advantage of for way too long in this country and I need to say something about it. People who understand how it works are duping people into thinking one thing or the other. I really feel sort of sorry for them. Imagine, the language you learned as a child coming back at you to take your money, weasel its way out of an insurance claim or even turning you into a political lackey. I believe its high time someone explained how the English language works and I'm may be just the guy to do it.

May

Since I just used this word in my last sentence let’s start with may. By using a direct definition it means, "there is a possibility of". The word may is quite possibly the easiest word to use when you want to make yourself an escape route out of a potentially sticky statement. You can even use it to incriminate someone without actually making an accusation. Lets try a few:

Soldiers at Gitmo may have flushed passages from the Koran.

Well, it's possible. I don't think it to be true myself, but it may have happened.
Let's try another:

This post is also available at Blogger News Network.

Ogre may have had an intimate relationship with a llama named Rusty.

Do I know for a fact that he did? No. I don't know for a fact he didn't do it either. There is an astronomically miniscule possibility that he did.

Last one:

You may have just one ten gazillion dollars!

...and then again, so may have ten million other people who got the same letter in the mail.

Does that just about do it for everyone? Do we understand how we can weasel in and out of the word may now? Good. We can now move on the next lesson class.

Passive Induction

(Note, passive induction is my term for it. There may be another, more fitting definition out there.)

This is where you include a piece of information in a statement that is used to make an association when, in fact, none has been made. It's used all the time and there's actually a logical fallacy that ties directly into this. It's called style over substance.

Probably the most recent example of passive induction is what is going to happen tomorrow when Moveon (Please) dot Org puts out their multi-million dollar commercial comparing Tom Delay to Darth Sidius, aka The Emperor. Does this give any facts? No. Does it give you the impression that Tom Delay is an evil man? Yes, that's how it works. They throw up some graphics and make some accusations but don't present any facts.

Here is my all time favorite ones, courtesy of Darth Cheney...er..Vice President Cheney:

[Iraq has]...the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.

Now that was well scripted. Did you miss it? Yeah, I know. Alot of people did, including the news agencies. Lets break it down.

"Iraq had a geographic base of terrorists that have had us under assault for some time now."

This does not imply that the terrorists came from Iraq. Lets split this up another way:

...the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.

Hey! What happened to Iraq? Where did they go from the statement? Yeah, many people still don't get it. *sigh*

Cheney made a tie between the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda and Iraq. He then made a separate tie between Al-Qaeda and 9/11. He did NOT make a direct tie between Iraq and 9/11. If that's what you thought you have been used and abused by the English language.

Equivocation

(This is actually a fallacy of Ambiguity. Go HERE for more on fallacies.)

This is where there are two meanings to a word and you assume one or the other, only to be wrong. It's another form of creating a loophole in your arguments. You need to watch this one. Pay attention to Rumsfeld with this one. He's the king at using it.

Here's the first example from one of my articles:

The Dyson Vacuum Really Sucks!

Did everyone catch the double meaning there? You can either use the word to say that it is a crappy product or to say it can pick up a lot of dirt. Even those that can't read without moving their lips should have got that one.

Moving on to a statement from Rumsfeld, I can't find the source or the exact quote, but it was in reference to the guy from the Defense Department that stated the Russians moved the nukes to Syria.

...he spoke out of turn and has been spoken to about making claims the Defense Department is not prepared to authenticate.

Did he lie or just speak out of turn? Will the Defense department authenticate it at a later date? Notice Rummy didn't deny anything the guy said, only that he wasn't prepared to back the statement. It is a world of difference from making a direct statement against him.

Thank you for reading along and hopefully learning a few nuances to the English language. If you feel I am wrong feel free to tell me all about it in the comments. Who knows, you may be right!

Posted by aakaakaak at May 19, 2005 05:10 PM