When debate descends to the level of posting gore

How strange that I've never bumped up against the word "conflation" until today.

Going back to the thread The results of the seige of Fallujah, there was a series of six different pictures of injured people, with the following caption:


The unspoken argument was that these were innocent Iraqi civilians whose injuries were caused by the US. And of course this is a fallacy because 1.) We don't know when or where the pictures were taken, 2.) The injuries could have been caused by Iraqi fighters, and 3.) The picture that's posted twice shows a person of indeterminate age who very well could have been an Iraqi fighter. So yes, that was a fallacious argument, but maybe not for the reasons given.

If it's the website I'm thinking of (I don't want to click on it here at work), the 9/11 memorial website isn't an argument at all, any more than the Vietnam War Memorial is an argument. It may say "this is what we're fighting against," but there's nothing fallacious about that if you remember who was flying the planes. Sure, it tugs at the heart strings, but I think it's a good idea to remember what happened on 9/11 so we don't get too complacent.

Finally, you might want to check out Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies. This is one of the official mirror sites. You can click on the Table of Contents page to find the list of fallacies. The formatting of this website is very poor, because it puts each fallacy on a separate page. But you'll have to endure it, because Craven won't let me link to my vastly superior reformatted two-page website that has them all on one page. Anyway, Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misercordiam) is defined as "The reader is told to agree to the proposition because of the pitiful state of the author." So I suspect that's not the fallacy that's involved with posting those pictures. To use that fallacy, the argument would have to be something like "Look what the Americans did to these innocent Iraqi children. I've been crying all night about it."

As an aside, the definition of argumentum ad misercordiam as being about the pitiful state of the author is false.

Here are some fallacy websites:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

The first website has the same definition as in Stephen's Guide. The second one is different.

EDIT - That first website is from "The Atheism Web." I guess they want to gather weapons so they can have something to stab the Christians with.

It is funny - I don't think I actually SAW the words "How dare they not thank us for the wonderful things America has done for them!" until this morning when I was going through the thread for my posts.

Yeah, people are copying and pasting these definitions. The reason the definition is false is because the appeal to pity is most commonly used about situations that do not involve the author of the fallacy.

Draw a distinction between those who would use gory images as a crutch, or a substitute for a real argument, and those who post the images for what they are - reminders of the reality of war...something that is often lost in stoic diplomacy or partisan bickering.

Although it may have been a half-assed way of putting an argument forward, the general idea was that the suffering shown in the pictures has been caused, either directly or indirectly, by the American invasion of Iraq.

Whether or not a specific picture was shown twice, who inflicted the injuries, and exactly where they were takin is utterly irrelevent, and it doesn't change the fact that at least 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have died.

That was the point, homie. Just wanted to clue you in.

LOL!! Looks like it's you who needs the clue.



Thanks for restating my original point.

Uh, it is not a "fallacy" in the sense you're using it, then.

Which was my point.

I'm not sure whether you are consciously ignoring this fact, or whether your sheer intellectual bankruptcy prevents you from seeing it.

I think pictures are perfectly fine. It's reality and has nothing to do with a shock factor. If it shocks people than they shouldn't be supporting the things that caused the consequence.

I reject the term "Shock-Jock" and the so called "Shock Post" It's just a label put on a form of freedom of speech.

On the other hand, Able2Know is a private company who isn't bound by the 5th amendment. Neither are any of the radio and television stations. To the same affect, I don't think the FCC should be enforcing laws to prevent websites, and stations who do want to show this stuff from showing it.

Bottom line is, if you want to speak your mind with visual aids you have to create your own soap box and hope the feds don't censor.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with using visual aids in a debate!

The problem arises when people use visual aids as a substitute for debate.

Unfortunately, the people who make liberal use of such pictures are often unable to distinguish between an aid and a substitute.

In any case, you shouldn't need gory pictures to buttress your points.

If you need to decorate your argument with that type of color, then you need to re-examine your writing skills or your argument.

As long as they are used sparingly, and in the correct context, I have no problem posting graphic pictures that drive home the reality of war.

The only time I have ever done this was in response to a poster who insisted on downplaying and minimizing civilian casualties, and I used it as an afterthought to my argument, not as a substitute or even an aid.

You know what they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.

A picture is only worth a thousand true words when its context is known. We all know that photos can be used out of context to back up just about any point of view. There's a long history of that on this, other forums, and in other media.

They have a saying in Russia. "A picture is worth a thousand kopecks."

"A picture is worth a thousand kopecks."

These days, that would mean it's utterly worthless.

It is an old saying. Still, I'm not sure if the meaning you mention was intended. It wouldn't surprise me with russians.

Canadians, Russians, who's next?

You know what the Transylvanians say:
A peecture is vorth a tousand litres of blood...muahahahahaha!

It is eerie how they always say "Muahahahaha!" They use that interjection as much as Canadians use "Eh?"

"In Soviet Russia, a word is worth a thousand pictures!"