Illogic - Propaganda Techniques

Universal Statements

universal statements include words like:
(in the positive) all, every, always, everyone
(in the negative) none, nothing, no one, never, ever

to be true, a universal statement must be valid
for the entire set at all times
(i.e. all dogs are mammals)

however, in illogic and propaganda
universal statements are frequently used invalidly
(i.e. every person always wants to do what is right)
(i.e. no person ever wants to do what is wrong)

recognize when inappropriate universal statements are used

unless the entire premise you are presenting
can be proven with a certainty
avoid using universal statements in your premise

do speak the universal statements that God states
(i.e. for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God)

Illogic - Propaganda Techniques

recognize and refute, and avoid using...

The Non-Sequitur

this is Latin for 'does not follow' (is not in sequence)

it is a conclusion or statement
that does not follow from
or is not clearly related to, or related at all to
the previous statement, premise, or argument

note: the conclusion or statement itself
may be true or it may be false
but this does not matter
if it has nothing to do with
the previous statement, premise, or argument
it will still make the argument null and void
(fallacious - based on a false belief, a non sequitur)

~

(expanded)

example:

We're having vegetable soup for dinner tonight. So surely it will rain tomorrow.

note: the conclusion (surely it will rain tomorrow)
(which itself may or may not be true)
does not follow, is not related to, has nothing to do with
the previous statement (having vegetable soup for dinner tonight)

note: some people use non sequiturs
as comedic devices
by saying something that lacks any meaning
and has nothing to do with anything preceding it
merely for the purpose of being absurd and funny

Illogic - Propaganda Techniques

(new series - Illogic - Propaganda Techniques)

recognize and refute, and avoid using...

The Straw Man

a. this is when someone restates something falsely
(changing the facts - misrepresenting the facts)

b. to knock down their own new (false) statement
(rather than try to knock down the original statement, since perhaps they can't)

c. often creating fear by exaggerating bad consequences they say will follow
(their new false statement)

note: this process takes the focus off the original statement

note: if the hearers are listening carefully
and have knowledge of the truth (the original statement)
they should catch that the original statement was changed or misrepresented
making the straw man unsuccessful

~

(expanded)

example:

(what is actually said by the first person - the fact):
I am pro-life.

(second person restating it falsely):
You oppose women's rights regarding their own bodies.

(knocking down their straw man):
You are wrong to deny women's rights in this.

(exaggerating):
And you don't care at all what happens to women with difficult pregnancies.


and now the truth...

(what was actually said - the fact):
I am pro-life.

(recognition and refutation of their straw man):
I don't oppose women's rights regarding their own bodies (as in what department store they take their own body into, or what garments they clothe their own body with, etc.).

I oppose women's rights to harm other people's bodies - the baby's.

(addressing their exaggeration):
I care very much about women with difficult pregnancies.