Hari Batti’s post on how to make corporations accountable linked to an interesting article by George Monbiot. In this, he says oil companies should set aside a portion of their profits to pay for the damage they cause to the environment and people’s livelihoods.
A certain type of person exists whose attitude towards anything regarding the environment is “Fuck it.” They usually share some of these traits:
- Non belief in Global Warming
- Believe in a god given right to excessive consumption of oil, wood, air, minerals or any other natural resource
- If they’re American, they’re probably Republican – and hate Obama for his “socialist” policies
- A sort of inability to look beyond their own nose at the damage their actions are causing to the world at large
Such people responded to Monbiot’s article in droves. There were many comments, but they essentially said the same thing. Here was one typical comment:
So – all oil companies are to put surplus money into a Pay For Future Liabilities account.
No dividends means no company means no oil means no economy.
I sometimes wonder where certain people think their food, transport, housing, clothes and everything else comes from.
Fair enough if you want to live in a cave and eat grass, but otherwise you have to explain how this miraculous world is going to come about.
I love this comment because it contains three different logical fallacies and is a wonderful example of the kind of rubbish that we hear all the time.
The first fallacy is the “False Dichotomy” where a person presents you with only two options and pretends that no other exists. In this case, the commenter is claiming that the two options are:
- Letting the oil companies continue as they are – or
- Driving them out of business
No attempt is made to examine how they can be taxed without driving them out of business. No attempt is made to examine a government takeover where profits will no longer be the only concern. There must be many many more options that are being ignored.
The second fallacy is the straw man argument more popularly known as “putting words in one’s mouth.” It occurs when a person attacks something that wasn’t said in the first place thereby hoping to distract attention from the main topic. The last two sentences attack something that was never claimed. The article didn’t mention anything about stopping the use of oil. If not spotted in time, the straw man argument can completely derail a discussion and sidetrack it.
The third fallacy is the “Argumentum ad metum” or “Appeal to fear”. It occurs when a person claims that something must be true because the alternative is too scary. Even if we assume that we have to drive the oil companies out of business and even if we assume that we have to stop using oil, the fact that the consequences are scary is by itself no reason to question the correctness of such a course of action.
Incidentally, people managed to live outside caves without eating grass even before oil came into widespread use in the industrial revolution. So the fear is actually a false fear – the worst sort.
Three different fallacies in just four sentences is quite a feat! Imagine you’re in a verbal debate – how does one manage to take an argument by the throat and dissect it properly then and there? That’s why I love the Internet where such tactics are in print and can be shown to be the nonsense they really are.
I bet that comment was by Sarah Palin…
In reply to Sraboney
It does sound like something she would say doesn't it? :D
Bhagwad I like your 'Spot the fallacy' series very much!! I think I too am going to try doing something like this.
I wonder if the speaker actually meant what was being said :/ And I too am grateful to the internet for similar reasons.
In reply to Indian Homemaker
The sincerest form of flattery :D …
And yeah, the speaker very much meant what was being said. And he/she wasn't the only one. Take a look at the other comments in the article. You'll see what I mean.
The internet is full of those who think like this :|