real life examples of red herring fallacy

#Real life examples of red herring fallacy pro#

The term was made popular in February of 1807 after William Cobbett told a story that depicted dogs distracted by the smelly fish. But, more recently it has been determined that the practice was actually in relation to training horses by dragging a dead a cat or fox. They would follow the scent and learn through practice what they then put into use during an actual hunt. Originally it was thought that the phrase came from the very real practice of using a red herring, a kind of dried red fish, in order to train hunting dogs. The origins of the phrase “red herring” are slightly complex. A reader who engages too fulsomely with the distraction might be led to false conclusions about what a passage means or what is coming next in the story. The “red herring” in a story is an intentional distraction. When writers use red herrings a reader’s attention moves from the main characters/central drama to something peripheral and in the end meaningless. This technique is used most prevalently in literature where writers employ it as a dramatic device to increase the suspense and complexity of a work. 2A: I’m happy to have this conversation.This is done in order to purposely divert the reader’s attention from the main subject or real issue of a passage, poem, or book. I suppose I will have to use some OTHER arguments to make my case. Well I still think we should have some gun safety measures, but I guess it really isn’t a slippery slope fallacy. We also have direct evidence of current political leaders who have stated support for confiscation. 2A: It isn’t bologna, since we have precedent of gun control measures leading to weapon confiscations both in the US and in other countries. It is an actual slippery slope, or a Boiling of the Frog.

GC: But that’s a slippery slope argument! No one wants to take your guns. 2A: Because I know that this will lead to you wanting to take my guns. GC: Why won’t you compromise on the current gun control measure.

#Real life examples of red herring fallacy pro#

We’ll call them Pro Gun-Control and Pro Second Amendment, or GC and 2A respectively. That being said, here goes: Two opposing people are having a debate. If you want to argue about it, there are several subreddits where that would be appropriate. It’s an example, and I am only using it for illustrative purposes. I don’t care what side of my example you are on. Sure, the steps along the way don’t necessarily lead to a boiled frog, but if they continue that direction (and you have proof that it’s happened before, or has happened the same way somewhere else) eventually the frog boils.īefore I list an example, I only want to state that I AM NOT HERE TO ARGUE. For this reason, I like to say that the counterpoint to the slippery slope fallacy is Boiling the Frog - gradual change leading to an eventual bad end. It's not about judging a thing on its origins, more about judging based on its past meaning or status.Īnother important thing about the slippery slope fallacy is that it isn’t a fallacy when there is precedent for the steps already have taken place somewhere else. I know OP didn't create this, but just to make sureĮDIT: came back to this post and saw the genetic fallacy. It's supposed to be 'appealing to popular viewpoint'. (Also if the slippery slope seems logically inconsistent, but has been shown to occur nonetheless in related areas or with related ideas, it may not be a fallacy either).Īlso the ad-populum one is simply incorrect. There's an arguable link, which could be pointed out, whether you agree with the statement or not.

It's a vague fallacy and many people tend to think claiming a link between a certain chain of events must be an example of this fallacy.įor example, it's not specifically a fallacy to state that 'allowing self-driving cars could lead to the eventual removal of human-guided cars from the roads'. It's important to note that the 'slippery slope' fallacy is only a 'fallacy' if the steps claimed in moving down the 'slope' do not relate logically, or cannot be argued to relate logically.