A Distraction Fallacy

(click the picture to enlarge)

Cute, right? But while rhetorically true - the best argument defense is a good argument offense, Drabble wins the argument (for now) because he committed three rhetorical fallacies, which his wife did not catch.

Fallacy one: The Red Herring.

Known in Latin as "Ignoratio Elenchi" or "ignorance of refutation" (perhaps refutation through ignorance gets the sense better).

This the fallacy of distraction, at its best. It works by introducing something irrelevant, basing the conclusion on the irrelevancy. When an argument gets off topic, odds are someone's thrown a red herring across the trail. (The term "red herring" apparently comes from fox hunting, in which "a dried smoked herring" is dragged across the fox's trail to throw the hounds off the scent.)

In this case, Drabble is in trouble with his wife, and wants to distract her. Actually, Drabble's wife (I think she's only called "Honeybunch" in the comic) has committed the first fallacy. Her question commits the fallacy of a "loaded question," defined as follows: "A question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition." (Definitions are from fallacyfiles.org.)

The most famous "loaded question," at least as an example, is "Have you stopped beating your wife?" This requires a yes or no answer, either of which implies something negative.

Honeybunch's question puts Ralph Drabble in a tight spot. He can't answer honestly (because she's good looking), so he has to use a red herring, a distraction, to get out of trouble.

It's important to note that a loaded question doesn't itself make an argument; so it can't make a fallacious one. "Rather, loaded questions are typically used to trick someone into implying something they did not intend." Or in this case, to admit something that would be uncomfortable, embarrassing or get him in trouble.

So to get out of trouble, Drabble employs a "red herring," distracting his wife. A Red Herring is also known as a Smoke Screen or a Wild Goose Chase. It works by introducing an irrelevant topic in order to divert attention from the original issue. You "win" when you've distracted your opponent or the audience, diverting their attention from the original argument and onto another topic. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html)

Fallacy two: Redefinition

Redefinition is not always a fallacy. Sometimes it helps us use terms more precisely. Sometimes it helps us sharpen the focus of our logic, or the argument itself. But when it's used to confuse the audience or to cloud the issue, then it's a fallacy. Redefinition is a subcategory of Equivocation, which is itself a subcategory of Ambiguity - all fallacies of language, as opposed to fallacies of reasoning.

Note that Drabble redefines the job by making it seem more important. He elevates the status, making the work, and the person performing it, more abstract. That's what he wants, of course. A weather girl has attributes not connected with reporting the weather. A meteorologist has a position of importance.

Used to obscure or homogenize, this kind of rhetorical moves goes from being an amusing fallacy to a deliberate deception. It's the stuff of euphemisms, a topic for a different post.

The person remains the same. Drabble's perception probably remains the same. And Honeybunch's question remains as relevant as when first asked.

So to "win," Drabble needs the third fallacy, the one that shifts the blame from himself to her.

Fallacy three: Ad Hominem Abusive or Personal Attack

Ralph Drabble concludes by attacking his wife's choice of words, saying, "How dare you call her a weather girl! That's demeaning!" This fits the definition of the Ad Hominem Abusive fallacy: A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims." (see the nizkor.org/features/fallacies site; see also: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html)

Drabble claims that his wife is insulting the "meteorologist." When she admits to that, her question is "defeated" - no longer a topic of discussion. Of course, she's ignored the fact that Drabble has committed the same fallacy of which he accuses her: He says she's committed an Ad Hominem Abusive, when he's the one who's done that.

Of course, if Honeybunch knew anything about logic and fallacies, Ralph would have to be more careful with his expressions.

But then, it wouldn't be a comic strip and we wouldn't have had an exercise in Just Rhetoric.