Another way to spot a Bad or Irrational Argument, is when
Someone Attempts to Use an Untrue or Unverified Assertion or Assumption,
to Support a Preconceived Conclusion.
This is Favorite Tactic of Two Groups of People you wouldn't normally Associate with
each other: THE POLITICIAN AND THE PARANORMALIST.
WHY? Because Both often Have Preconceived Conclusions on Certain Subjects, and the Evidence Supporting such Conclusions is Usually Poor, or even Non- Existent. So To Distract the Reader or Viewer from the Fact that They Cannot Prove that These Assertions and Assumptions have any Basis in Reality, They Don't Even Try. The Truth of such Statements are Accepted without Cause, and are Then used to Argue for a Point of View or Opinion that has Little, if any, Credibility when the Rules of Logic and Critical Thinking are Applied.
Here in an Example Involving the POLITICIAN:
- The Politician who Attacks Social Programs as Being a Crutch for the Lazy andUnmotivated, who make up the Majority of the Recipients. This ASSERTION IS THEN USED TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT THESE PROGRAMS MUST BE ELIMINATED, FOR THEY ENCOURAGE FAMILIES TO PASS THIS WAY OF LIFE ONTO THE NEXT GENERATION.
Yet, when asked to Provide the Data that Supports the ASSERTION that the MAJORITY OF RECIPIENTS ARE LAZY AND UNMOTIVATED, WHICH INDICATES A DESIRE NOT TO IMPROVE THEIR LOT IN LIFE, THEY ARE NOTORIOUSLY SILENT. IN FACT, AN ACTUAL REVIEW OF THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION POINTS TO THE FACT THAT SOCIAL PROGRAMS ARE USUALLY TEMPORARY MEASURES FOR FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, THAT MOST RECIPIENTS USE FOR A BRIEF PERIOD OF TIME, AND ARE NOT A PERMANENT WAY OF LIFE.
HOWEVER, THE FALSE ASSERTION ABOUT THE MOTIVATIONS OF THE MAJORITY OF RECIPIENTS, IS USED TO CLAIM THAT IT ENCOURAGES GENERATIONAL DEPENDENCE ON SOCIAL PROGRAMS. THIS, IN TURN IS GIVEN AS A REASON TO ELIMINATE SUCH PROGRAMS.
It is Nothing Less than a Deliberate Attempt to Demonize a Segment of the U.S. Population, by spreading Lies and Falsehoods.