"A fallacy is a statement or argument that presents itself as soundly reasoned when it is not" (Mayfield 266).
Hello Class,In your first discussion thread this week, we will examine fallacious reasoning. When writing effective argument or persuasive reasoning, it is important that writers avoid false reasoning in his or her text. This pseudo logic can undermine the effectiveness of the author's entire paper. Why? Because fallacies "fan the smoke of fear, pity, or prejudice; they distract from the issue, play with language, and assume what they should prove" (267). In short, fallacies are convenient distractions from proving, pursuing, or seeking truth.
This post has two parts:
First: click the title to watch the excerpt from Thank You for Not Smoking. Listen to Nick Naylor's testimony before a Congressional Comittee. Identify and define the fallacies Naylor uses to in defending his position?
Second: examine the Joe Camel image, what fallacies does the image use to promote the cigarette brand?
The Joe Camel image is borrowed from: http://www.artofsmoking.com/joe-camel.jpg
67 comments:
Hi Class and Ms. Wanzo,
After watching the excerpt from “Thank You for Not Smoking,” Nick Naylor’s testimony before a Congressional Committee, Naylor uses the following fallacies to defend his position that smoking has effects to human beings.
First, he uses the fallacy “Pointing to another wrong” that manipulate through distraction which distracts attention by claiming the similar action went unpunished. He says priorities are not affecting him like campaign contributions which do not affect senators.
Second, he uses another fallacy “Circular reasoning” that manipulate through distraction which repeats a conclusion, cigarettes are harmful to human health. This conclusion pretends that no supporting reasons are needed and is proved.
Third, he uses another fallacy “Red Herring” that manipulate through distraction which does not offer reasons to support the reminder of the dangers of smoking cigarettes. Instead, he diverts attention to the death toll from airline and automobile accidents that are irrelevant.
For the Joe Camel image, which is shown on the post I guess, it uses the fallacy “Appeal to false authority” that manipulate through emotions to promote the cigarette brand. It seeks to persuade by trying to say that if a herd is headed in one direction that must be the right direction. The image shows people that smoking benefits them a lot. He or she who smokes will become a handsome or beautiful person, and the nice car at the back represents the better position when they are smoking.
When I think about this image, I look at all the fallacies at the book on page 267. It should not be the fallacies that manipulation through language because all fallacies are related to words. The only word on the image is “CAMEL,” which is only the name for Joe.
Please correct me if I make any mistake or miss some of the fallacies.
Thanks,
Andrew
In the excerpt from the movie “Thank You For Not Smoking”, Nick Naylor made a testimony before a Congressional Committee. He used many fallacies in defending his position for not putting warning signs on cigarette cartons.
His first fallacy was ‘pointing to another wrong’ when he responded the question if the financial backing of cigarette companies affected research priorities: “No. Just as, I’m sure, campaign contributions don’t affect yours.” Naylor diverted the attention from his wrongdoing by pointing that similar actions were made by the senators that went ‘unnoticed and unpunished.’ They both did their work with the monetary support of an interest.
His second fallacy was ‘appeal to false authority’ when he pointed out that “I just don't see the point in a warning label for something people already know.” He also asked that audience who doesn’t think smoking is bad. By doing this, he tried to persuade people by citing the people in the room as authority and making a bandwagon that putting a warning label on the cigarette carton is tedious.
His third fallacy was ‘red herring’ when he diverted attention into other issues instead of proving his claim. He diverted the issues that are death hazards, such as flying a plane and driving a car, should have a “skull and crossbones” to warn people too. He also goes further into how Vermont Cheddar Cheese clogs the arteries of Americans too.
In the Joe Camel image, there are some fallacies the image uses to promote the cigarette brand. The image is using ‘appeal to false authority’ by displaying Joe Camel as cool and hip. It shows the Camel with sunglasses, big biceps, and in front of a classic car. This gives men an image of what they want to have. Joe Camel is used as a popular public figure to attract people’s emotion in a positive way to their product.
I see that we used similar examples for fallacies in the film excerpt. The only difference is that for the second example, I said that it is 'appeal to false authority.' I think that you are right that he is using 'circular reasoning.' I am unsure if I am right because I do not know if the audience in the courtroom is considered 'false authority.' Does anybody think it is?
This is my post that didn't show up:
In the excerpt from the movie “Thank You For Not Smoking”, Nick Naylor made a testimony before a Congressional Committee. He used many fallacies in defending his position for not putting warning signs on cigarette cartons.
His first fallacy was ‘pointing to another wrong’ when he responded the question if the financial backing of cigarette companies affected research priorities: “No. Just as, I’m sure, campaign contributions don’t affect yours.” Naylor diverted the attention from his wrongdoing by pointing that similar actions were made by the senators that went ‘unnoticed and unpunished.’ They both did their work with the monetary support of an interest.
His second fallacy was ‘appeal to false authority’ when he pointed out that “I just don't see the point in a warning label for something people already know.” He also asked that audience who doesn’t think smoking is bad. By doing this, he tried to persuade people by citing the people in the room as authority and making a bandwagon that putting a warning label on the cigarette carton is tedious.
His third fallacy was ‘red herring’ when he diverted attention into other issues instead of proving his claim. He diverted the issues that are death hazards, such as flying a plane and driving a car, should have a “skull and crossbones” to warn people too. He also goes further into how Vermont Cheddar Cheese clogs the arteries of Americans too.
In the Joe Camel image, there are some fallacies the image uses to promote the cigarette brand. The image is using ‘appeal to false authority’ by displaying Joe Camel as cool and hip. It shows the Camel with sunglasses, big biceps, and in front of a classic car. This gives men an image of what they want to have. Joe Camel is used as a popular public figure to attract people’s emotion in a positive way to their product.
The fallacies that Naylor uses to defend his position are personal attacks, red herring, and circular reasoning. Personal attacks are attacks that have nothing to do with the issue. Mr. Naylor uses this when he states “…..slap a skull and crossbones on a Boeing airplane and all Fords.” He then says “…..clogging the nation's arteries with Vermont Cheddar Cheese.” Red herring is away of distracting the attention into another subject. The examples are the same as the personal attacks because bringing up those diverted the conversations that started about cigarette smoking to airplanes, cars, and cheese. The last fallacy that Mr. Naylor uses is circular reasoning. It is when he repeats the conclusion without using evidence to support it. The Joe Camel image is using false authority. The image is a distraction to the how smoking can affect your health. It is a false authority because they divert the audience by using the issue of how cool you will be.
Caresse Fong
Regarding to the excerpt “thank you for not smoking,” Nick Naylor’s use’s the following fallacies to defend his testimony before the congressional committee.
The first fallacy that is used is, “Red Herring” which offers no reason to support its conclusion, but diverts attention to other issues that are irrelevant. For instance, when he states that airlines and automobiles are a great danger to society; in which the Senator replies “it’s a ridiculous statement, and does not even compare!”
In addition, pointing to another wrong. For example, Senator Finistirre who resides in the state of Vermont which produces Vermont cheddar cheese. Naylor, states that the # 1 killer in America is Cholesterol, and Cheese is a source that contributes to this disease.
Furthermore, straw man fallacy: Naylor’s reply to Senator Finistirre, no! Just as, I’m sure, campaign contributions don’t affect yours!
Finally, after examining the Joe camel image, I can honestly say that Appeal to false authority would best fit this image. Adverting psychology research has shown that consumers can be manipulated into equating a positive figure with a product; then the consumer will assume that owing the product will mean owning the positive attributes!( pg 276)
Thank you,
Francisco
Hi David,
I agree what you said in your post for the first and the last point of view. However, as you said in your respond, we have different fallacies.
I think my guess is right because when I looked at the respond from Caresse Fong. She states the circular reasoning.
I find out that the Joe Camel image is quite interesting, and the fallacies are not only useful in readings. All fallacies are used in all areas, speaking, pictures, or readings.
What do you think? Feel free to respond.
Thanks,
Andrew
Andrew,
We both picked the same fallacies, however instead of "pointing to another wrong" I chose persoanl attacks. I see how that fallacy fits too. I also agree with the fallacy you picked for the Joe Camel image. I chose the same one.
Caresse Fong
Hi Caresse Fong,
Yes, I understand your point of view. Let's see more discussion later on to make a better conclusion.
I think the Joe Camel image contains lots of meaning, but it depends how we look at or see.
Thanks,
Andrew
In "Thank You For Smoking", Naylor uses "Red Herring" (attention), "Pointing to Another Wrong" claims similar actions go unpunished), and "Circular Reasoning" (repeats conclusion instead of proving).
In the image, the misleading part it of one who thinks that the image is cool, even though one should know that smoking is bad for the individual. Red Herring is diverting the attention to images of coolness rather than actual issues at hand.
Caresse,
I agree with everything you said. I actually didn't think of personal attacks until I read your post.
-Cameron
YASAMAN KAZEROOONI said...
What Naylor uses a lot in his conversation is “Pointing to another wrong”. When he is asked about cigarettes, immediately he draws the attention to first Boeing airplanes, Fords, Vermont Cheddar Cheese. By that, Naylor draws the center of attention to another possibly wrong issue that is going on in the society so that he can claim that there are many other wrong things that are happening everyday without even being noticed and he is not the only one who is guilty. So he manipulates his audience by distracting them with another irrelevant issue.
On Joe Camel image, we will see that a masculine, good looking, perhaps healthy camel “Man”, who has stood up in front of a nice red car, has a cigarette in his mouth. This gives us a false message that with this cigarette, you will look healthy, sexy, rich, powerful and handsome in the others’ eyes whereas in reality cigarettes are bad for your health and can cause many health damages to people which can ultimately leads to their destruction instead of succession.
Yasaman Kazerooni To David Nguyen said..
David, I think I learned a lot from your post. You have come up with a great detail breakdown of the article. Actually many of things you said I did not notice. For example when you said the camel is wearing sunglasses in front of a classic car “This gives men an image of what they want to have”, I think you are really right. Good eye!
One was Naylor saying about reminding people of danger of cigarettes we can put warming labels on airplanes and all Fords; automobiles in general. Both of these two are dangerous but does not compare to the all negative effects of cigarettes; he is manipulating through the distractions of pointing to another wrong. Another fallacy was comparing tobacco cigarettes to Vermont cheddar cheese, another pointing to another wrong stating the number one killer in America is cholesterol, and clogging nation’s arteries with Vermont Cheddar Cheese; it can also seen as the red herring manipulation. Naylor suggest both cigarettes and Vermont cheddar cheese should have warning labels since cholesterol kills leading to heart attacks however cheddar cheese is a food and cigarettes are not.
There was one fallacy that was manipulative, and that was talking about children involving cigarettes. Naylor prove value points on the education provided by the school and parents to teach their children the dangers of the world including cigarettes. Once they are old enough they can choose for themselves, and also he answers to Senator Finistirre’s question when Naylor’s son turn eighteen what will Naylor do when his son turns eighteen, and responded “if he really wants a cigarette, I’ll buy him his first pack.” This is very deceivable since he is saying he has no problem when his son smokes once he is at legal age despite the danger and awareness of cigarettes. Nick Naylor probable have said that in a way to defend his position using circular reasoning. Looking at the Joe Camel image, the fallacies that manipulate emotion is being used in the image to promote cigarettes. The image is shown of a Joe Camel standing in a standing position with sunglasses a car behind him, black T-shirt, arms crossed, and with a cigarette in his mouth. Joe Camel possibly represents Joe Camel himself, making it seem that if you smoke, you might end up like a cool camel like Joe Camel. Perhaps the image probably represents circular reasoning that the conclusions if you smoke you look just like Joe Camel looking cool and popular. It can also be shown as false authority since it seeks to persuade people appealing them with what can happen if you smoke like Joe Camel.
The fallacies Naylor uses to defend his position are “red herring, personal attack and circular reasoning.” Red herring is pointing the attention into other issues. Red herring is similar to personal attack because a personal attack is irrelevant to the issue. For example, Naylor states, “clogging the nation’s arteries with Vermont Cheddar Cheese. If we want to talk numbers, how about the millions of people dying of heart attacks? Perhaps Vermont Cheddar should come with skull and crossbones.” Naylor changes the subject by talking about Vermont cheese instead of focusing on the real issue which is cigarettes. Naylor uses circular reasoning because he repeats the conclusion without proving his evidence. Mr. Naylor did not use any statistics to show why cigarettes are harmful to people. If Naylor supported his ideals with any types of facts or show some type of chart or graph. Naylor argument would be stronger. The Joe Camel image is using “appeal to false authority” because this image is seeking to persuade their audience by making Joe Camel look cool with a cigarette.
In the excerpt from “Thank You for Not Smoking, Nick Naylor uses fallacies to defend his position.
At the beginning, he uses “Red herring” which makes claim that minimizes the issue or diverts attention into irrelevant issue. He diverts attention of cigarettes to planes and cars which should have warning labels. Then he uses “Pointing to another wrong” to claim similar actions went unnoticed and unpunished by saying that the number one killer in America is cholesterol, and clogging nation’s arteries with Vermont Cheddar Cheese. Finally he uses “Circular reasoning” to repeat conclusion instead of giving evidences. He states that it is teachers and parents’ responsibilities to warn children of all the dangers in the world, including cigarettes; in addition, children can choose for themselves if they smoke or not as they grow up. And he adds that he will buy his son a pack of cigarette if he wants a cigarette.
The Joe Camel image uses misleading euphemisms to make smoking seem good things as when you are smoking, you will look cool as Joe Camel. In addition, it diverts people’s attentions from the serious issue that smoking is harmful for health to the coolness of smoking.
Thank you
Cameron
I agree with your post because we were thinking about the same fallacies. Also, the Joe Camel is misleading to many people; especially to the younger children who do not understand what the image is really representing which is a death trap.
In the excerpt “Thank You for Not Smoking,” Nick Naylor uses many fallacies to defend his position that cigarette is unpunished and it is no need to put warning symbol on the package of cigarettes in his testimony before a Congressional Committee. First of all, Nick Naylor uses red herring to divert people’s attention into other issue when he states that “If we want to remind people of danger why don't we slap skull and crossbones on all Boeing airplanes, Senator Lothridge”. He uses this fallacy to divert people’s attention and in order to support that warning symbol does not require to post on the package of cigarettes to remind smokers. Second, Nick Naylor uses Vermont Cheddar Cheese as an example in order to distract public’s attention and claims that cigarette is unpunished. In this part, he uses pointing to another wrong. At last, Naylor uses circular reasoning because he only repeats the conclusion in different words, and he does not provide supporting evidences.
From Joe Camel image, we can see that Camel wears sunglasses and black T-shirt. It stands beside the red car with arms crossed and it smokes. This image use fallacy in order to show us that a guy with cigarette in mouth is cool. This image distracts public’s attention that cigarette has negative effects on health, and it tries to persuades people to smoke.
Hi David Nguyen,
I like your response about that “Nick Naylor used many fallacies in defending his position for not putting warning signs on cigarette cartons.” I agree that he use pointing to another wrong, appeal to false authority, and red herring to distract people’s attention. Nick Naylor tries to persuade that cigarette is unpunished and he claims that teachers and parents have responsibilities to warn their children. I also like your interpretation of the image of Joe Camel. It is true that this image wants to use “cool” to promote the cigarette brand.
Annie Steiner
Fallacies in argument are crafted using rhetorical devices to obscure or mislead the audience. Aaron Eckhart in Thank You For Not Smoking uses many fallacies to draw attention away from his cross examination. He uses Hasty generalizations wherein he disregards expectations by making claims that cheese poses an equal threat as cigarettes. He states that America has a cholesterol problem, cheese causes cholesterol and therefore cheese is a killer and should have the necessary warnings if cigarettes are required to. The cleverness is in comparing cigarettes to cheese, an obviously false analogy. This is an example of a Red Herring. It is an unfounded claim which diverts attention from a real or pressing issue.
The Joe Camel campaign is controversial because its emblematic cartoon camel was argued to be targeted to children. The cartoon caricature represents virility and masculinity, and because a child can identify Joe’s association with cigarettes, they are also unconsciously associating cigarettes with a large and masculine figure. This was a dangerous and false misconception.
Hi Michel Huynh:
I embrace your statement regarding Joe Camel. so, if you smoke you will look just like Joe camel, cool and popular1 Great point!
Thanks,
Francisco
Francisco, I wanted to say that I thought your Joe Camel response was well put and had insightful evidence. I agree with your position that as consumers we really just like to see "positive" associations with our products. Or we unconsciously react well to those associations. It made me think about other positive associations made for seemingly dangerous products, can you think of any?
From the excerpt "Thank You For Not Smoking", Nick Naylor described a couple fallacies to defend his point that cigarette isn't being punished with that it isn't necessary to label warning signs and icons in his testimony. He used an comparison on one of his fallacies that Vermont Cheddar Cheese is as deadly as smoking a cigarette where if a cigarette were needed to label warning signs, cheddar cheese should be treated equally the same.
From Joe Camel image, it distract our attention from the negative effect of smoking a cigarette but instead make a person sexy and attractive. If I were to guess why they picked a Camel as the mascot, it would be because Camel can stand heat which is the intention of describing someone being hot as a metaphor!
After reading the excerpt, “Thank You for Not Smoking”, Nick Naylor uses various fallacies to defend his arguments. First, Nick Naylor uses “circular reasoning” to repeat the conclusion that smoke cigarettes over time can lead to lung cancer and other diseases such as emphysema. He claims, “I just don’t see the point in a warning label for something people already know.” In addition, Nick Naylor uses “red herring” to divert attention into other issues such as airplanes. He states, “Well, if we want to remind people of danger why don’t we slap a skull and crossbones on all Boeing airplanes.” Nick Naylor continues to use “pointing to another wrong” to claim the similar actions went unnoticed and unpublished. He argues, “Well, the real demonstrated #1 killer in America is cholesterol.” The Joe Camel image uses appeal to false authority to show that smoking is cool. The image is not true because smoking is something that can affect people’s health.
After I watched the excerpt from “Thank You for Not Smoking.” Listen to Nick Naylor's testimony before a Congressional Committee. The fallacies Naylor uses to in defending his position by the following:
First, he uses pointing to another wrong that distracts attention from a wrongdoing by claiming that similar actions went unnoticed and unpunished like claim the priorities of cigarette with the campaign contributions of senator.
Second, he uses poisoning the well by seeking to prejudice others against a person, group like call people “show of hands for who out here thinks that cigarettes aren't dangerous?” that show he try to seek to prejudice of senator against him about the dangerous of the cigarettes and he try to not to admit the danger of the cigarettes by saying that “I just don't see the point in a warning label for something people already know.”
Third, he uses red herring that instead of proving a claim, diverts attention into other issues like he try to divert attention of the danger of the cigarettes to the danger of airline and automobile. By saying that “why don't we slap a skull and crossbones on all Boeing airplanes. And all Fords.” He also shows the danger of Vermont Cheddar Cheese to divert attention of the danger of the cigarettes by saying that “I regret to say, clogging the nation's arteries with Vermont Cheddar Cheese. If we want to talk numbers, how about the millions of people dying of heart attacks? Perhaps Vermont Cheddar should come with a skull and crossbones.”
Finally, he uses straw man that misrepresent, or caricatures an opponents position, then refutes the false replica created; also attacks a minor point in an argument, then claims this maneuver invalidates the whole argument like he saying that “It is the job of every parent to warn their children of all the dangers of the world, including cigarettes, so that one day when they get older they can choose for themselves. I look at my son who was kind enough to come with me today, and I can't help but think that I am responsible for his growth and his development. And I'm proud of that.” When the senator ask him about the “warning labels are not for those who know but rather for those who don't know. What about the children?” He also says that “If he really wants a cigarette. I'll buy him his first pack.” When the senators ask “You seem to have to have a lot to say about how we should raise our children. What of your own? What are you going to do when he turns 18?” to protect his right is the cigarettes are not dangerous.
Examine the Joe Camel image, The fallacies the image use to promote the cigarette brand is appeal to false authority in manipulation through emotions that seek to persuade by citing a fake or inappropriate authority about the cigarette. It shows that the cigarette will bring a lot of benefit to who are smoking like man become stronger, handsome, and have a nice car when they are smoking the Joe Camel cigarette.
Hi Francisco,
I like your response because the fallacies seem clear. In addition, I like what you describe about the Joe Camel image that, “consumers can be manipulated into equating a positive figure with a product; then the consumer will assume that owing the product will mean owning the positive attributes.”
In the excerpt from “Thank You For Not Smoking”, Nick Naylor uses many fallacies to defend his position before the congressional committee. First, Nick uses the fallacy of red herring to divert attention into other irrelevant issues instead of proving his own claim. He points out that “If we want to remind people of danger why don’t we slap skull and crossbones on all Boeing airplanes” Instead of support the danger of smoking cigarette directly, he actually diverts people attention to the plane and cars. Second, the fallacy of appeal to false authority is persuading by using a fake or inappropriate authority. He says “I just don’t see the point in a warming label for something people already know.” The last fallacy that Nick uses is circular reasoning, which is to repeat the conclusion without giving any evidences or reasons to support it. He stated that “It is called education. It doesn’t come off the side of a cigarette carton. It comes from our teachers and more importantly our parents.”
The Joe Camel image is using the misleading euphemism manipulation to promote the cigarette brand. This manipulation is staples of commercial and political propaganda. They can makes the bad seems good and good seems bad. Similar to the Joe Camel image, the image shows that cigarettes are not bad as what people think they are. Also, it demonstrates that smoke can make individual look cool and more attractive.
Francisco, I like how you used the example of page 276 to describe the image that manipulate people's mind. I do agree that "consumer does assume that owing the product will mean owning the positive attributes". It would be like owning a pair of Air Jordan shoes make me play basketball as good as Jordan. (NOT! but it makes me feel that way!)
Hi Ruiqi, I find out that we almost have the same fallacies that Nick uses to defend his position before the congressional committee. I never realize that Nick has used the fallacy of pointing to another wrong in the debate. Quiqi, thanks you for provide such a great information. In addition, I agree with your about the Joe Camel image uses misleading euphemisms, because the image shows positive things about smoking. It shows individual will look cool same as Joe Camel in the image.
Hello Tony,
I agree with you that Nick Naylor used an comparison on one of his fallacies that Vermont Cheddar Cheese is as deadly as smoking a cigarette, but you don't identify and define the fallacies Naylor uses to in defending his position. In addition, he is also use the accident of plane and car to compare with the dangerous of smoking a cigarette. I am also agree with your comment about the Joe Camel image.
In the video, Nick Naylor uses several fallacies to defend his position.
First, when Senator Finistirre mentioned the cigarette companies, Conglomerrated Tobacco who is the provider of the Academy of Tobacco Studies, Naylor seems to be fear to admit this because it may threaten the credibility of his position, so he uses “for the most part, yes” to accept it in front of Senators. Here, it’s Misleading euphemisms. Later on, Naylor use “Red herring” to divert attention to planes and cars when talking about the warning label for cigarettes. Furthermore, he also makes an example about Vermont Cheddar cheese to support his idea, and it is the use of Pointing to another wrong.
At Naylor’s position, he claims that teachers and parents have the most responsibility to educate and warn children all the dangers of the world, including cigarettes. However, when he is asked if he would share a cigarette with his 18 year old child, he replies, “If he really wants a cigarette, I’ll buy him his first pack.” He already loses his position here.
In the Joe Camel image, appeal to false authority is used. The camel looks pretty cool with sunglasses and a cigarette in mouth. It is wearing a T-shirt to show strong arms. The image is more of a poster advertising that cigarettes can make people look better and feel better. But it’s not true, because smoking is harmful for health. Therefore, what the image shows is a false authority.
In the excerpt from the movie “ thank you for not smoking”, the main character Nick Naylor use a few fallacies to defend his testimony before the congressional committee.
First, he uses fallacy “ Pointing to another wrong” when he answered the question if the financial backing of cigarette companies affected research priorities: “ he said : “ No, just as, I’m sure, campaign contributions don’t affect yours.”It dirert attention from the issue by making attacks that would lure another to focus on self-defense.
Second, he uses “ red herring”. In the congressional committee, he said : the airles and automobiles are a great danger to society. Then, the senator replies: it is a ridiculous statement and do not even compare.” The red herring fallacy diverts our attention from the question at hand and throw us off track into irrelevancies.
Finally, he uses “ circular reasoning” that is the assertion or repeated assertion of a conclusion with out reasons begin given to support it.
In the Joe Camel image, it is a fallacy to promote the cigarette. The image is using “ Appeal to False Authority”. It displays Joe Camel is really cool and strong with smoking. It attract the consumer’ attention. Appeal to False Authority is an argument whose chief or only support is a false, questionable, or vague authority.
I think you identify the fallacies well; Red herring and Pointing to another wrong, and you even state specific words they say to determine these fallacies. But what fallacies are used in the image, in your second part, I don’t see it. However, you read the image well and have a good understanding; “This image distracts public’s attention that cigarette has negative effects on health.” I think this is a really good point.
I agree with you that Nick Naylor uses several fallacies to defend his position such as Naylor use “misleading euphemisms” about the cigarette companies, uses “red herring” about the accident of planes and cars to represent the dangerous of smoking, and uses “pointing to another wrong” to the example about Vermont Cheddar cheese. Also, it is interesting that you show how Naylor lose his position. In addition, I agree with your about what the Joe Camel image shows is a false authority.
Hello, Caresse
I enjoy reading your post and I like your point that Mr. Naylor uses personal attacks when he states “…slap a skull and crossbones on a Boeing airplane and all Fords.” The definition of personal attacks is helpful for me to understand how it applied to Mr. Naylor’s fallacy. Actually, I didn’t realize that is personal attack which is one kind of manipulation through emotions.
Thank you
I really agree with you that In the Joe Camel image, it appeals to false authority is used. The camel looks pretty cool with sunglasses and a cigarette in mouth. It is wearing a T-shirt to show strong arms. The image is more of a poster advertising that cigarettes can make people look better and feel better. And I also agree with you that is not true, because all of us know that smoking is harmful for health. This kind of advertisement has banned for a long time.
In the excerpt from Thank You for Not Smoking, Nick Naylor uses many fallacies to defend his position. First, he uses “pointing to another wrong” to distract attention. He states that “why don't we slap a skull and crossbones on all Boeing airplanes and all Fords”, he uses the death toll from airplanes and automobile accident to compares with the negative effect of cigarette. Second, he uses “red herring” by diverting attention to Vermont Cheddar Cheese; he states that “the number one killer in America is cholesterol and the clogging the nation’s arteries with Vermont Cheddar Cheese”. He does not show any claim or evidence to support his point. Third, he has uses “circular reasoning”. When he is asked about the children, he states that it is the responsibility of teachers and parents to provide education to the children, but not the cigarette companies. It shows that he just repeating the conclusion, but he does not provide any support reasons.
In the Joe Camel image, it is using the fallacy “appeal to false authority” of manipulation through emotions to promote the cigarette brand. The image shows Joe Camel is wearing a sunglass, standing in front of a nice car, and smoking a cigarette. It shows people that smoking is a benefit to them. Also, when people smoke cigarettes, they will look more handsome or cool and have a higher level position than the nonsmokers.
First off, I like to say I enjoyed watching that clip of American Rhetoric: Movie Speech Thank You For Smoking. I thought it was very entertaining and yet educational. I felt like Nick Naylor used great fallacies to defend his case of smoking cigarettes. A great example of fallacies he used was to draw the audience's attention. He asks the crowd who thinks that cigarettes are dangerous, but the congressmen did not like the fact that he was doing that. He also did a great job with proving his point that smoking cigarettes is not the number one cause of death. He says the number one death in America is cholesterol and that people should know that there are warning labels on cigarettes. One great reason he used to defend himself was when he said heart attacks are killing people and that Vermont's cheddar should come with a label for cross and bones.
Examining the Camel logo, I feel like it is a method that is utilized to target the kids. First of all it's a camel in a cartoon drawing, and there's a car in the background. When kids see that picture they think it's "cool". Especially with the cigarette in the camel's mouth.
In the excerpt “Thank Your for Not Smoking” Nick Naylor uses some fallacies to defend his position. One of the fallacies he uses is Straw man when he answers Senator Finistirre: “No. Just as, I am sure campaign contributions don’t affect yours.” Another Fallacy Naylor uses is Red Herring. He diverts attention into other issue when he talks about Boeing airplanes and automobiles. Moreover, he uses pointing to another wrong. He claims that Vermont Cheddar Cheese contributes to increase cholesterol.
In the Joe Camel image the fallacy the image uses to promote the cigarette brand is red herring. The image diverts attention into other issues. The camel smoking the cigarette looks nice, and it can make people think that smoking can make you look more attractive, so they do not think about the effects of smoking.
I strongly agree with your points. I also think that you made a great point when you said "it is the responsibility of teachers and parents to provide education to the children, but not the cigarette companies". I really thought that it was a strong statement. And also Joe Camel is a target for young children too. It's a cartoon character that looks and dress cool, and kids like that.
The excerpt from “Thank You for Not Smoking”, Nick Naylor uses several fallacies to defend his position. First, he uses “red herring” fallacy to divert attention into other issues which is digressive and not relate to a warning label on cigarettes such as slapping a skull and crossbones on all Boeing airplanes and all Fords. Second, the “pointing to another wrong” fallacy is used to distract attention form a wrongdoing by claiming that Vermont Cheddar Cheese causes cholesterol which is demonstrated #1 killer in America. Finally, he uses circular reasoning fallacy assumes by repeating the conclusion which is no need to support. He assumes parents and teachers should educated their children and students to know the dangers of the world, including cigarettes, and one day they get older they can choose for themselves. By examining the Joe Camel image, the appeal to false authority is used to advertise the cigarette. Because the picture shows the false, and vague image after smoking and sunning side of the product which is looking cool, hip and has a strong body as camel’s picture but its ignore the danger to health.
I like your explanation about the Joe Camel image. I also think that the image distract our attention from the negative effects of smoking cigarettes by presenting an image of someone who looks attractive. I like the explanation you give about using a camel as a metaphor.
I like your explanation about the Joe Camel image. I also think that the image distract our attention from the negative effects of smoking cigarettes by presenting an image of someone who looks attractive. I like the explanation you give about using a camel as a metaphor.
After watching the excerpt from " Thank you for not smoking", Nick Naylor uses many fallacies to prove his point.He uses manipulation through distraction like " pointing to another wrong", like when he compares the death from cigarettes and airplanes/automobile accidents. Secondly, he uses " red herring" when he diverts attention to the millions of people that have heart attacks due to low cholesterol. He states that eating American chesse is dangerous just like cigars. Third, he uses " cicular reasoning" when he is ask about children and cigars. He states that it starts with education and teachers and parents should inform the dangers of the world including cigars.
The Joe camel image is false advertisement. It shows a camel in sunglasses and in a nice car, it shows if you smoke cigar " you're cool".
In the excerpt from “Thank You For Smoking” Nick Naylor uses several fallacies to express his position. One of the fallacies he uses is “Red Herring” he uses this by diverting attention away from cigarettes being harmful with saying the number one killer in America is high cholesterol and that, Vermont Cheddar Cheese is clogging the nation's arteries and millions of people are dying of heart attacks. He also uses ‘Pointing to Another Wrong” by stating Boeing and Ford should have a skull and cross bone label attached to them. He also uses ‘Circular Reasoning” when he speaks about children, he also states that it’s the parents and teachers job to teach children about the harmful affects of cigarettes and not the responsibility of the tobacco companies. He just repeats his conclusion and does not provide any information to support his reasoning. The Joe camel image is using the fallacy “appeal to false authority”. It is doing this by showing Joe Camel as being a cool and handsome character that has everything he wants by smoking cigarettes.
To Yat Fat,
I liked your explanation on the Joe camel image. I liked when you stated," they will have a higher position then non smokers".
One of the fallacies he made used the fallacy of personal attack. When Nick Naylor was asked whether it would affect the priority of the cigarettes companies, he did more than answering the question. He answered “No. Just as, I'm sure, campaign contributions don't affect yours”. This is a personal attack to Senator Finistirre. Not only did he answer the question directly, he also discredits Senator Finistirre who made the argument.
Secondly, he used the fallacy of red herring. When he was questioned about the consequence of smoking, he tried to make the audience thinks that “smoking will have harmful effect” is a well known fact. In fact, he did not have anything reasoning but he diverts the attention to the audience by requesting the audience to show hands. This makes the audience think about the question as the attention was transferred to the audience.
He also used the fallacy of point to another wrong when he made the argument about the first killer of Americans which is cholesterol. He immediate point at eating cheese that makes Americans have high cholesterol and lead them to death. He offer no reasons to support why not to have the label but point at cheese so as to avoid answering the question.
Joe Camel image has fallacy that makes the audience have a wrong concept towards smoking. As Joe Camel is portrayed as very strong and handsome, people would tend to think that smoking makes everybody become this way. It gives people false ideas and directs the audience to the wrong track.
Hi David,
I agree with the way you say Joe Camel is portrayed. “Joe Camel is used as a popular public figure to attract people’s emotion in a positive way to their product”. I also feel this has a big impact on kids because they see Joe as being cool and hip and want to be just like him.
After reading your post, I see your point in the first fallacy he made as you said. However, I still think that that one is more personal attack rather than point to another wrong. It is because Nick Naylor was pointing at Senator Finistirre at that moment. He wanted to discredit him to make the audience not to believe the senator anymore. Would you agree with that? What do you think?
In the excerpt from the movie “Thank You for Not Smoking”, Nick Naylor reminds people how danger the cigarette is. He pointed that cigarette is danger and need a warning sign for it by comparing the danger of smoking cigarette to Vermont Cheddar Cheese and a skull and crossbones on a Boeing airplane and all Fords. Also, Nick Naylor said “I just don’t see the point in a warming label for something people already know.” But I think people already cigarette isn’t good for health and when we smoke it will affect people around us. And, how can we teach our children that cigarette is dangerous when we are the one using it.
From Joe Camel image, a man with sunglasses, big biceps, in front of a classic car and smoking cigarette that is so sexy, attractive, powerful and rich. They want to make people think cigarette make people look cooler so people will forget about the bad side of it.
I agree with you that the cigarette company target young people because the picture looks "cool" especially with the cigarette in the camel's mouth in order to encourage youth to smoke and it can lead to addiction and disease among young people.
Naylor uses various fallacies to defend his position. First of all, “Circular reasoning” is used by repeating cigarettes are dangerous in order to support the statement, which is Naylor’s position of that the dangers of smoking cigarettes are well known so that no need to label the danger sign on it. Secondly, “pointing to another wrong” is used by distracting people’s attention from the dangers of smoking cigarettes by claiming the dangers of other issues, such as airplane, car, and Vermont Cheddar cheese, which dangers are known but not unlabeled. Moreover, Naylor uses “red herring” by diverting attention from the need of warning label into parental education about the danger of cigarettes, instead of proving the his claim. Naylor put all responsibilities of educating children to not choose cigarettes on parents. He also use himself as an example.
I think the Joe Camel image uses fallacy of “appeal to false authority” to promote the cigarette brand. It use the cartoon character to present an positive image of smoking cigarettes in order to attract the consumers.
hi Chun Wing Wan (Andrew),
I disagree with your idea of Naylor's position is that "smoking has effects to human beings."
Adversely, I think his position is avoiding to put warning sign on cigarette.
I agree with you that the target is children and exactly that target is teenager. By using the cartoon to advertise, it will be easy to get young people's attention.
In the excerpt from “Thank You for Not Smoking,” Nick Naylor uses a lot of fallacies to defend his position. First of all, he uses the fallacy of pointing to another wrong. He uses “red herring” to divert attention to other problems. He states that “If we want to remind people of danger why don’t we slap skull and crossbones on all Boeing airplanes.” He uses this example to support his idea on warning symbol should not require to appear on cigarettes package to remind the danger of smoke. He believes that saying something that people already know doesn’t help. In addition to that, he also argue that eating cheese that makes Americans have high cholesterol, and that cholesterol is actually the first killer of Americans. Second, Naylor uses the fallacy of circular reasoning, because also states that teachers are parents should have the responsibility to educate children about the danger of smoke, but not cigarettes companies. He repeats this conclusion in different words and many time; however, he didn’t come up with any credible evidences.
In this Joe Camel image, Camel represent strong, cool and it stands with a red car. This image shows a false authority that smoking is cooling. This image gives the audience a wrong concept that smoking looks cool, and try to get people smoke.
Hi,
I agree with you that Nick Naylor uses fallacies to defend his position. As he uses the fallacy of "pointing to another wrong", and "circular reasoning" to defend his position. Moreover, I also think that Joe Camel image is using "misleading eupemisms", because it did make smoking become a cool things, so that people want to smoke.
Thank you.
Hey Francisco,
Thanks, the image does show Joe Camel making it look like it result it popularity and attention if you smoke cigarettes.
Thanks again.
Hi Simin Liang,
I clearly understand your respond to my post that "smoking has effects to human beings."
Yes, you are right. How you think that his position is avoiding to put warning sign on cigarette? Would you like to explain little more for me.
Thank you for pointing this error for me.
Now, I am clear.
Thanks
Andrew
In "Thank You for Not Smoking", Mr. Naylor uses many fallacies in his speech. First, he said even cigarettes can cause lung cancer, airplanes accidents can make many people die too. Whey they don't ban the airplanes.Second, he "point to another's wrong",He said "the real demonstrated #1 killer in America is cholesterol. And here comes Senator Finistirre whose fine state is, I regret to say, clogging the nation's arteries with Vermont Cheddar Cheese".The image to promote the cigarette is smoking is cool. Naylor is so strong on his ponit. He feel there is nothing wrong with smoking.
Hi, Jingrong.
I agree you that Naylor said it is parents reponsibility for education children to avoid cigarette, but he loss her point when he said he would buy a pocket to his son when he want to smoke in 18 birthday. From here, we can see maybe he is not a good father,or he is lying of all above information.
The fallacies Nice uses to defend his positions are:
1. He says he informs the public of all the research performed in the investigation on the effects of tobacco. He actually never talks about how cigarettes are horrible and will kill you, whenever that topic comes up he diverts the situation.
2. On the issue of having a warning label on cigarettes carton, Naylor compared it to other deaths that Americans know very well. He gave examples of airplanes, cars, and cholesterol. Yes, it is true that all of these in some way can result in death, but they are all preventable. Cigarettes slowly kills.
3. Naylor also states that there is no need to add warning labels on cartons because it is education and education is the job of our parents and teachers to teach us. That may seem like it is always true, but it is not because there is so much our parents and teachers can do. The other half is from our own experiences and our own reasonings.
4. Naylor also says that if he son wants a cigarette when he is eighteen he will buy it for him, but that is not also true, he is only saying that to help him get his job back. He will deal with the consequences later, but for now fight to the death for cigarettes.
The image uses a cartoon drawing of an actual camel, for the brand, smoking a cigarette, smiling, arms folded, standing against a slick red car, to represent smoking is cool. This ad manipulates through emotions by appealing to pity, and false authority. The camel is hairy and muscular to show that smoking is masculine and usually masculine guys who are muscular and cool looking get all the girls, so it also can show that smoking get you all the girls.
I have seen this movie last year in my English 1A class and it is a really good movie. The whole movie is really funny, but after closely examining the movie there are many noticeable, but not really noticeable thing. The title is very catchy, but if you watch the movie, during the whole movie from beginning to end, no one actually holds a cigarette to smoke. One guy was seen holding a cigar to smoke, but that only one time, he was actually on his death bed. A mind blowing movie that is highly recommended to be seen.
To kailin cheng:
I agree with what you said about how Naylor is so strong to his point that he believes that there is nothing wrong with smoking. But if you watch the movie it is kind of a whirlwind. The excerpt Ms. Wanzo told us to read was after he was fired from his job. He was a mess and couldn't do anything because he felt like he had no power left. So for the last time he went into that court room and used his gift of persuasion and persuaded everyone the smoking does not kill and is actually good. But afterwards his boss gave him back the job and he actually told him that he did not want it anymore. In the movie smoking actually saved his life, it is mind bottling, but he only thought smoking was good for his career, but when he looked at the people he loved and where he will be years from now, he realize what he is doing he do no want to continue to do.
Hi Diane,
I really enjoy reading your post because your format is very clear and your points are good too.
I have a question for you. Based on your post, you saw a movie last year in your English 1A class. Would you like to tell me the name of that movie? I really want to watch it.
Thanks
Andrew
Hi Anne Steiner:
Thank you very for reading my post. to answer your question on any more positive associations. Perhaps, we can look at the energy drinks, such as Monster, and the most popular one the five hour energy drink.
Apparently, this is suppose to energize you, and make it through the day with out getting tired. However,if constantly consumed for a period of time; i can only assume that it would have a negative impact on the immune system!
Ms. Steiner, i hope that this answered your question.
Again, thank you for the reply!
yours,
Francisco
Xiaoying Cen & Pho ( Tony) Luong:
Thank you both for responding to my post. I'm glad that you seen something there that interest you!!
Thanks,
Francisco
To Chun Wing Wan (Andrew)
Hi. You know the little excerpt we had to read about Nick Naylor? The excerpt is from the movie "Thank You For Smoking" i highly recommend seeing it because it is pretty awesome. Thanks for your interest Andrew!
Post a Comment