Fallacies Blog Entry

Our Moral Footprint
By VACLAV HAVEL
Published: September 27, 2007
OVER the past few years the questions have been asked ever more forcefully whether global climate changes occur in natural cycles or not, to what degree we humans contribute to them, what threats stem from them and what can be done to prevent them. Scientific studies demonstrate that any changes in temperature and energy cycles on a planetary scale could mean danger for all people on all continents.
It is also obvious from published research that human activity is a cause of change; we just don’t know how big its contribution is. Is it necessary to know that to the last percentage point, though? By waiting for incontrovertible precision, aren’t we simply wasting time when we could be taking measures that are relatively painless compared to those we would have to adopt after further delays?
Maybe we should start considering our sojourn on earth as a loan. There can be no doubt that for the past hundred years at least, Europe and the United States have been running up a debt, and now other parts of the world are following their example. Nature is issuing warnings that we must not only stop the debt from growing but start to pay it back. There is little point in asking whether we have borrowed too much or what would happen if we postponed the repayments. Anyone with a mortgage or a bank loan can easily imagine the answer.
The effects of possible climate changes are hard to estimate. Our planet has never been in a state of balance from which it could deviate through human or other influence and then, in time, return to its original state. The climate is not like a pendulum that will return to its original position after a certain period. It has evolved turbulently over billions of years into a gigantic complex of networks, and of networks within networks, where everything is interlinked in diverse ways.
Its structures will never return to precisely the same state they were in 50 or 5,000 years ago. They will only change into a new state, which, so long as the change is slight, need not mean any threat to life.
Larger changes, however, could have unforeseeable effects within the global ecosystem. In that case, we would have to ask ourselves whether human life would be possible. Because so much uncertainty still reigns, a great deal of humility and circumspection is called for.
We can’t endlessly fool ourselves that nothing is wrong and that we can go on cheerfully pursuing our wasteful lifestyles, ignoring the climate threats and postponing a solution. Maybe there will be no major catastrophe in the coming years or decades. Who knows? But that doesn’t relieve us of responsibility toward future generations.
I don’t agree with those whose reaction is to warn against restricting civil freedoms. Were the forecasts of certain climatologists to come true, our freedoms would be tantamount to those of someone hanging from a 20th-story parapet.
Whenever I reflect on the problems of today’s world, whether they concern the economy, society, culture, security, ecology or civilization in general, I always end up confronting the moral question: what action is responsible or acceptable? The moral order, our conscience and human rights — these are the most important issues at the beginning of the third millennium.
We must return again and again to the roots of human existence and consider our prospects in centuries to come. We must analyze everything open-mindedly, soberly, unideologically and unobsessively, and project our knowledge into practical policies. Maybe it is no longer a matter of simply promoting energy-saving technologies, but chiefly of introducing ecologically clean technologies, of diversifying resources and of not relying on just one invention as a panacea.
I’m skeptical that a problem as complex as climate change can be solved by any single branch of science. Technological measures and regulations are important, but equally important is support for education, ecological training and ethics — a consciousness of the commonality of all living beings and an emphasis on shared responsibility.
Either we will achieve an awareness of our place in the living and life-giving organism of our planet, or we will face the threat that our evolutionary journey may be set back thousands or even millions of years. That is why we must see this issue as a challenge to behave responsibly and not as a harbinger of the end of the world.
The end of the world has been anticipated many times and has never come, of course. And it won’t come this time either. We need not fear for our planet. It was here before us and most likely will be here after us. But that doesn’t mean that the human race is not at serious risk. As a result of our endeavors and our irresponsibility our climate might leave no place for us. If we drag our feet, the scope for decision-making — and hence for our individual freedom — could be considerably reduced.

Appeal to Force: This article doesn’t contain any Appeal to Force relevance fallacies. This is because these fallacies use force, threat, or some other unpleasant backlash to make the audience accept a conclusion. The author uses the complete opposite of this; he calmly exposes his reasons and writes in a very persuasive and convincing way.

Genetic Fallacy: Considering genetic fallacies are types of fallacies that claim an idea, product, or person must be untrustworthy because of its racial geographic or ethnic origin this article does not relate at all with this type of fallacies either. For the contrary the author expresses that we are all equal and that our resources are limited for everyone no matter the race, ethnic origin etc. He said that when they are all over they will be over for all of us. And that we all waste them for equal and are not contious.

Personal Attack: A personal attack is generally when the author is praising the people who make an argument, rather than discussing the argument itself. This doesn’t happen in text, considering that the author is very general about the topic, he not only addresses one person but the whole world. He is not pointing any person or group of persons but instead is making the world realize the damage it is doing to itself.

Abusive: Abusive fallacies argue that proposals, assertions, or arguments must be false or dangerous because they originate with atheists. This goes completely out of the theme because in this article the author doesn’t involve any religious group. I think it is very good because it makes it not-biased, or inclined towards one position or religious view.

Circumstantial: Once again this text doesn’t contain Circumstantial Fallacies, which are fallacies that include person’s circumstances in their lives. The author expresses his point of view that is very clear. But he doesn’t involve any personal circumstances or events.

Argumentum ad Populum: This kind of Fallacies is very common, they give when feelings and enthusiasm arouse from the multitude instead of building a solid and strong argument. I don’t think this occurs here, because he does state the point of view of other people like scientists etc. But he does build a solid argument to I think the Argumentum ad Populum fallacy would half-apply to this text.

Bandwagon Approach: This is when the majority of people believes an argument or chooses a particular course of action, the argument must be true, or the course of action must be followed, or the decision must be the best choice. I think that this kind of fallacy could certainly be applied to this article because the author says that we have to make the world better and it is our one and only choice, and that this is the action we all must take. Also most people believe this, so it applies perfectly to the kind of text.

Patriotic Approach: This argument is about when certain stance is true because it is somehow patriotic, and those who disagree are unpatriotic. Personally this doesn’t apply to the text, considering in no part of the text the author mentions one single country. He is not specific he just talks about the world in general.
Snob, Approach: It is a type of fallacy his name explains it all. It says that all the best people are doing it. Once more the author doesn’t mention any names or social classes therefore it does not apply.

Covering Oneself in a Cross: This is when a certain political or denominational stance is true or correct because it somehow is Christian. I don’t think this occurs in this text simply because as I said before the author doesn’t involve religion in this case.

Appeal to Tradition: It asserts that a premise must be true because people have always believed it or done it. In part this is true because the author explains that for many years now people have been trying to be more careful and “reserved” with the world issues. He says that many studies have been done therefore this is what people must do because “The human race is at a serious risk”.

Appeal to Improper Authority: This type of fallacy attempts to capitalize upon feelings of respect or familiarity with a famous individual. It also often mentions movies and famous people. This doesn’t happen, because the author is just focusing in making the world realize the damage it is doing to itself, and he doesn’t he off topic.
Appeal to Biased Authority: When the authority is knowledgeable about the subject. This doesn’t happen again because he doesn’t involve any specific person, either the authorities.

Appeal to Emotion: When the argument is from pity and emotional appeal, often feelings are involved. This certainly happens in the text, because he is using feelings to make us realize the world issue we are having right now.

Connecting 3 Myths With Gilgamesh (10)

Myths Read: 1.Nisus ans Syclla 2. Echo and Narcissus 3. Meleager and Atlanta

Nisus and Scylla: Nisus was the king of Megara and Scylla was his daughter. The problem was that Scylla was in love with King Minos, who was the King of Crete. Crete and Megara were in a war at that time so they couldn't be together. One day Scylla escaped from the palace and went to King Minos with the keys of his fathers castle and told him that she loved him and would betray his father for him. At the end Minos rejects her and she and her father are turned into eagles.

• I dont think there is much relationship between this myth and Gilgamesh considering the two main "topics" of this myth are: betrayal and love. And in Gilgamesh none of these are manifested.

Echo ans Narcissus: Echo was a nymph that was in love with Naricissus. But she could only talk to him if he talked first. But he never did, one day he talked to Echo but rejected her, after she died. Then Narcissus fell in love with himself, thinking it was another person he loved himself and didn't understand why "that other being" didn't talk to him. He died thinking that that person didn't love him.

• I think this myth I can relate it not with Gilgamesh but with human kind. We love who doesn't love us, and don't love the person who really loves us. We are never happy with what we have and want more and more. It is like a vicious cycle in which we are not content.

Meleager and Atlanta: Meleager is a warrior who's destiny is written and since little they said he is going to die young. One day when goes to war, Meleager encounters with Atlanta, a beautiful girl that is going to war too. They love truly in love, but at the end as destiny was written Meleager dies.

• This is a perfect relation to Gilgamesh because as Enkidu Meleager dies. And Gilgamesh and Enkidu ans Meleager and Atlanta are both soul mates and need each other. But at the end sadly one of them has to die.

Connecting 3 Myths With Gilgamesh (9)

Myths Read: 1. Midas 2. Bausis and Philemon 3. Vertumnus and Pomona

Midas: This myth treats about a king called Midas who was granted a wish, anything he could possibly think of would be given to him. He decided he would wish that everything he touched
would be turned into gold. At first he thought it was very fun because very rich and all of his possessions were gold. But as time went by he realized that he couldn't eat beacuse the food he touched turned into gold. So he was starving. At the end they don't specify what happens to him, but they comment that many generations after his story was told.

• I can relate this to Gilgamesh because like Midas Gilgamesh was a king, and also to gain more power and fame,m he put in risk Enkidu's life by exposing him to Huwawa. After he died because the Gods decided it that way. They both asked for unnecessary things they didn't need and got bad consequences.

Bausis and Philemon: Bausis and Philemon were a happy couple that were very poor and humble. They were very kind and one day some visitors came over to their house saying that they didn't have any shelter and asked them if they could spend the night in their hoose.They off course agreed ans accepted their company. While they were serving the wine, they realized that it was renewing itself in the pitcher. Suddenly they realized who their guests were: the Gods! The Gods told them that considering that they had been so kind they should leave their house and take their belongings. They, later named them keepers of the temple.

• This myth relates to Gilgamesh because as Bausis and Philemon Gilgamesh was a good and kind man and wanted the best for everyone.

Vertumnus and Pomona: Is about a man called Vertumnus who loves a nymph called Pomona. She loved to grow apples, trees, plants etc. Vertumnus insists her but she doesn't want anything with any man. So he decides to disguise himself as an old woman and go to her garden considering that no men can enter to this garden. So she dresses up as an old lady and starts telling her that she should pay attention to Vertumnus. She even tells Pomona a story about a man and a woman in a similar situation. At the end the disguise falls and his true identity reveals.

• The one relationship I can see with Gilgamesh in this myth is that in Gilgamesh is that in Gilgamesh there is also a goddess that is in love with Gilgamesh but he doesn't want anything with her. Instead in this myth it is the woman who doesn't want anything with the man. How contradictory!

Pardon poor Larry Craig

Pardon poor Larry Craig
By Frank Rich

This article is about the recent problem senator Larry Craig from Idaho , had in a restroom at the airport in Minnesota . The fact was that this senator apparently was making sexual insinuations to a man that really was a policeman, he was not uniformed. Senator Craig made some signs with his hands and also stood in a ccertain way that let the other man (the policeman) that he wanted to have sex with him. He was arrested and now he is in serious risk of loosing his seat in the Senate of the United States.

My analysis of this article is that it touches so many aspects of human ethics that are very imoportant. To begin with it has a lot of blame to this man, every one has been feeling free to judge him guilty for doing inmoral acts in a public place, in fact he felt so guilty (PATHOS) that at first he confessed these acts and offered to abandon his political position, he was not assesed by a lawyer at that point. Moral values are very much important too, because homosexuality has never been openly accepted in our society and many times considered to be bad, even though the law in the United States does not consider anymore ilegal sex between two persons of the same sex if it is a consensual act between two adults, if we see from this point of view, he did nothing wrong, as the author says , the onle thing he could be condemned of is to be flirting , which is also very common in a gay bar for example. (Logos)
The article is based in a fact that is happening in the present, but could have repercusions in the future of the gay community.
The author also tells the opinion of other members from the gay community and tells us that this man has been used maybe as a political tool to talk against Republicans, and the hypocrisy not only in general population but also in the government, because in the last years many gay scandals have been in the news, also some other kind of sex scandals involving prositutes hired by politicians that defend the family and marriage as the center of our society. "Being in the closet" is still the conduct of many homosexual politicians, because unfortunately society does not accept them and would not let them have a successful political carrer. All these facts are demosnstrative of the hypocrisy taking place in the government of the United States according to the author. (Ethos)
In the next days there will be a hearing of the arguments of the senator thet will give the basis for deliberating and taking a decision, the decision is going to be at all levels, legal, political and to the public opinion that in some way will have to decide about the acts of the Governor, because a person may not agree with someone action but it doesnt mean necesarilly it is a law offense or make s him unsiutable for a public position.(Ethos)

Fallacies Entries

To make a fallacie entry, I first needed to know what a fallacie was, this is what I found:

• A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply "arguments" which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true.

Bibliography: nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

An example of a Fallacie that I found in the New York Times was an article by Paul Krugman here is the page but I am going to give the main points and summarize the article a little bit: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/opinion/21krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin.

The article mainly talks about that politically it is now possible for all American to have assured medical health inssurance. He sais that people have overcome the fear that they had to Clintons failed plan. Kruger sais to consider Hillary Clinton's evolution and her new plan for medical enssurance. Right on that moment I found an example of a fallacie when they ask Clinton how is she going to handle the costs she answers the following:

“It depends on what kind of system you’re devising. And that’s still not at all clear to me, what the body politic will bear.”

I dont think this is politically correct and it is an example of an inductive fallacie., which states that the person arguing doesnt have enough information. Also in several part of the text, Kruger defends Bill and Hillary Clinton´s ideas without even knowing them well or explaining the main concepts.

At the end Kruger finalezes his article woth this sentence:

"It’s good to know that whoever gets the Democratic nomination will run on a very good health care plan"

Tjis is another example of Fallacies mainly it is an inductive fallacie. beacuse along the text he didnt give enpugh support and arguements to justify this. But it could also be a deductive fallacie beacause it conatins some premises right and has a false conclusion.

In conclusion this text contains a lot of Fallacies. I think that Fallacies arent wrong or right but people should be more carfel to not show their political possision or any possission they have when writing an article for an important newspaper. Somrtimes it is very biased and it is evident that Kruger is a democrat who wants to justify both Clinton´s actions. Withput knowing if they will turn out right he is saying that it is the best choice for everyone.

Connecting 3 Myths With Gilgamesh (8)

Myths Read: 1. Orion 2.Aurora and Tithonus 3. Acis and Galatea

Orion: Orion was a hansdome guy and was a hunter. He was in love with Merope, but Merope's father didn't agree with this, and started watching them closely. He noticed that Orion tried to gain possession of the maiden with violence. So one day he cast him and blinded him. After this Orion got a guide to guide him and tell him where he was going. This way he met Diana the huntress. Apollo his brtoher (Dianas brother) didnt like Orion. But Orion and Diana were about to marry. So Diana decided to kill him, but then she regreted him and honored him for the rest of her life.

• This myth is similar to Gilgamesh because like Orion, Gilgamesh thought he could do as he pleased and the truth is that he couldn't. Beacuse they were kings or important persons they thought they can do whatever they want without getting any consecuences. A clear example is when Orion tries to make Merope fall in love with him by violence. Also when Gilgamesh sais something, he thinks it has to be done inmediately.

Aurora and Tithonus: Aurora was the Godess of dawn, and she liked mortals a lot. But especially she liked Tithonus, son of the king of Troy. They met, married, and eventually had children. But when Tithonus started getting old Aurora rejected him and turned him into a cricket, and locked him up in a tower. They had a child called Memnon who became a Trojan warrior. His mother always watched from the sky, but she was always worried about him and that something would happen to him. One day he died ans she remained unconsolable for the lost of her son.

• I think this myth DIFERENCES from Gilgamesh beacuse in most of the myths I have read so far I have seen that most of them deal with love and couple issues. Two people that love each other mostly a woman and a man. But in Gilgamesh it is about two frinds that love each other. In resume each myth has different kinds of love. Though most of them deal with this feeling.

Acis and Galatea: It basically talks about two women called Galatea and Scylla who tell their stories to each other. Scylla had many admirors and they all went after her. And she didnt want anything with anyone. Instead Galatea didnt have anyone and really wanted a person who she could spend her life with. Acis was in love with Galatea, but again she didnt correspond her love to him. I think the qoute "No one is happy woth what they have" totally applies to this situation, because neither Galatea or Syclla are happy with what hey have.

• This relates to Gilgamesh beacuse like Galatea and Sycclus they are not happy with what they have. Gilgamesh is not happy with just killing Huwawa, he wants mora and more. Also Galatea and Syclla are not happy with what they have.

Connecting 3 Myths With Gilgamesh (7)

Myths Read: 1. The Sea-Monster 2. The Wedding Feast 3. Pegasus and the Chimaera

The Sea Monster: Perseus was flying one day and landed on the country of Ethipoans, were Cepheus was king. Cassiopeia was his queen and she was very beautiful. But she dared to claim herself as "more beautiful than the sea-nymphs". Mad and discouraged the nymphs sent a sea-monster. Cepheus was told by the oracle that his daughter Andromeda should be exposed and devoured by the monster. Perseus saw her chained and sad and came to give her support. But then the gigant monster appeared. Perseus defended Andromeda and fought with the monster. Finally he killed him, and in return won fame honor and Andromeda.

• This myth is simalr to Gilgamesh beacuse they both deal with heroes that kill a monster and in return gane great things, In this case Perseus fought the beast and won fame, honor, and the girl. And in Gilgameshs case it was Gilgamesh and Enkidu, they fought Huwawa and became famous and recognized.

The Wedding Feast: Perseus and Andromeda were going to get married, and they were in their wedding banquet feast. But as in every myth or real life story, there had to be a but. Suddenly Phineus entered raged and shouting saying that he was the one who should marry Andromeda. Cowardly Perseus run and hid. The guests started fighting and it was a commmotion. At the end Perseus turns into a mass of stone.

• I can compare this myuth to Gilgamesh beacuse as I was reading this myth I came to realize that in most of the myths I have read, no one ends happy or with the person they loved or wanted to be with. A great example is that Gilgamesh and Enkidu didnt end up together and neither did Perseus or Andromeda. Also in most of the stories there has to be a BUT that ruins it.

Pegasus and Chimaera: Pegasus was a winged horse that was formed when Perseus cut off Medusas head. Chimaera was a fearful monster, breathing fire and his body was composed with that of a lion and a goat. The king Iobates decided that his on-in law was the perfect to destroy him. He wanted him dead beacuse he was jealous of him. His name was Bellerophon, and they told him that for this mission he needed Pegasus. He went and looked for him, and he did. They became good partners and when it was time to fight Chimaera it was a piece of cake and they killed him. Iobates was very mad, so he assigned him several missions for him to get killed but it was impossible he was very strong. Then he gave Bellerophon his daughter in marriage. After they killed Pegasus and he died misserably too.

• This myth is similar to Gilgamesh beacuse like most warriors, Bellephorus had a companion, which was Pegasus, he was there for him in good and bad times and always helped him in everyting. In Gilgamesh the companion was clearly Enkidu, they fought together and did everything together, they where great friends. Also a good comparition is that they both died when their partner died. Maybe Gilgamesh did not die textually, but he died in soul. And so did Bellaphorus who died when Pegasus died.