Appeal to Anger

At 3:50 O'Reilly exlaims "See I'm more angry about it then you are!" in a classic appeal to anger. At 2:08 O'Reilly engages in a reverse argument from popularity (i.e., your view is unpopular therefore it is false) calling Glick's position "far left." In the full clip he goes on to call Glick's position "a marginal position in this society." Also notice the blatant red herring at 4:01. The clips from later days show O'Reilly straw-manning Glick's views.

At 1:40 Glick says "our current President now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically and situating geo-politically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and murder of my father and countless of others..."

In case you doubt this you may want to read this interview with one of Obama's current advisors and Carter's previous National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski where he discusses how the CIA trained radical Muslims in Afghanistan in order to lure the Russians into "the Afghan trap" to give "the USSR its Vietnam war."

At the end of the interview he is asked; "do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?"

To which he replies: "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"

Stirred-up Moslems... Needless to say this interview was conducted prior to 9-11.

Stanford Prison Experiment: Interview #1

Circumstantial Ad Hominem

In Richard Clarke's book 'Against All Enemies' Clarke claims that the Bush Administration turned a blind eye to warnings that could have helped prevent the attack on 9-11. He served as Bush I's, Clinton's and Bush II's Counter-Terrorism Adviser until his retirement in 2003.

Needless to say this claim did not sit well with the Bush Administration. In this clip we see an apparently orchestrated attack on Clarke's integrity ("Flack") through the use of the technique of Rhetorical Explanation/Circumstantial Ad Hominem.

In particular it is asserted that the reason that Clarke made this claim is because (1.) he is "auditioning" for a role in the Kerry administration and (2.) he just wants to sell books. Of course, this is essentially a Red Herring that distracts away from the real issue: What is the evidence for or against the claim that the Bush Administration was negligent?

[Note: In this clip from the documentary 'Outfoxed' the additional charge is made the Clarke contradicts himself in his book. It may be the case that the editors of this film (which is of course biased and thus subject to all of the normal suspicion one would cast upon an interested party) eliminated these more substantive charges. Nevertheless, the use of the rhetorical devices cited above is well documented.]

Strawman/Selective Editing

MSNBC's selective editing making gun rights activists look callous and inconsiderate.

The original clip:

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/did-the-media-blatantly-mischaracterize-video-of-newtown-father-being-heckled-by-gun-nuts/

The clips side by side:

Gay Marriage: Foolish Reasoning

http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2012/05/10/jon-stewart-makes-fun-of-north-carolina-and-ice-cream-marriage-video/

Linguistic Spin (Slanters) and Scare Tactic

At 5:42 O'Reilly says that he thinks Bush should put the FBI on two 911 Truth researchers in a classic scare tactic. Along the way are a selection of circumstantial ad hominem attacks (rhetorical explanations), personal ad hominem attacks, rhetorical comparisons, dysphemisms and proof surrogates.

FLAK--Circumstantial Ad Hominem/Rhetorical Definiton

In Richard Clarke's book 'Against All Enemies' Clarke claims that the Bush Administration turned a blind eye to warnings that could have helped prevent the attack on 9-11. He served as Bush I's, Clinton's and Bush II's Counter-Terrorism Adviser until his retirement in 2003. 

Needless to say this claim did not sit well with the Bush Administration. In this clip we see an apparently orchestrated attack on Clarke's integrity ("Flack") through the use of the technique of Rhetorical Explanation/Circumstantial Ad Hominem. 

In particular it is asserted that the reason that Clarke made this claim is because (1.) he is "auditioning" for a role in the Kerry administration and (2.) he just wants to sell books. Of course, this is essentially a Red Herring that distracts away from the real issue: What is the evidence for or against the claim that the Bush Administration was negligent?

[Note: In this clip from the documentary 'Outfoxed' the additional charge is made the Clarke contradicts himself in his book. It may be the case that the editors of this film (which is of course biased and thus subject to all of the normal suspicion one would cast upon an interested party) eliminated these more substantive charges. Nevertheless, the use of the rhetorical devices cited above is well documented.]

George Carlin: Euphemisms

Consequentialism: Ford Pinto

Evaluating Sources: Mannerisms

Evaluating Sources: Height

Begin at 6:00.

Evaluating Sources: Appearance

Implications for Autonomous Vehilcles

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

https://plato.stanford.edu/

Philosophy Bro

http://philosophybro.com/

Free Speech and the Harm Principle

Free Speech Wall

Interview

The Milgram Experiment: Update

Experimental Results

Milo Nails It: Free Speech and Incitement

"The progressive left in America have been obsessed with conflating ideas with action."   Spot on.

What is Milo saying?  Example:

Free Speech

Any notion of free speech that doesn't include a specific acknowledgment that those that oppose your position need to be protected and allowed a voice is incoherent. 

Ape with AK

Intro to Mind-Control

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cBvqG9uIjc

Post-Truth/Alternative-Facts circa 2004:

“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re  studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new  realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s  actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Alternative Facts

Matters of Fact versus Matter of Opinion:

It used to be the case that the right-wing were not very sophisticated in their use of rhetorical techniques, unlike the left, (almost borderline *stupid*). Now they are getting good at it. They are *blending* a swirling mix of techniques that comes at you quite quickly.  If one is not adept at seeing what they are doing you might get lost, confused, and/or seriously misled.

Of course, this becomes all the more problematic in a post-fact, echo chamber.

As Critical Thinking teachers we have two serious missions:

(1.) Teach students how to evaluate arguments.

(2.) Teach students how to spot mental manipulation/mind-control.

This is my previous blog to which this is a new sister.  ;)

https://criticalthinkingexamples.blogspot.com/