John 7:24 “Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment.”

Appeal to pity, like an appeal fear is just a propaganda technique. Often we will see this in advertisements. Propaganda in its various forms can be very powerful. In one sense there is nothing wrong with propaganda if it is used rightly, like in advertising about our product.

Propaganda is any strategy for spreading our beliefs or ideas. Writing these articles and sending them out to subscribers as my weekly letters or putting them on Facebook I am using propaganda in the sense of spreading my ideas.

Propaganda can be found in political speeches, TV commercials and shows, movies, radio, newspapers, advertisements and many other places. There is nothing wrong with propaganda if we do it honestly. The problem is that many times people buy into a product or idea because it appeals to emotion instead of to clear thinking.

For example: A truck dealer might try to get us to buy his truck because it looks tougher, not necessarily because it is tougher. The lawyer in the court room will try to persuade the jury to feel (emotion) that his side is right. Even the evangelist or preacher tries to persuade the audience through emotion rather than challenging them to think things through clearly. Not that our emotions necessarily are bad and incorrect, but when making decisions it is always good to have clear thinking.

Manipulative propaganda is used when someone plays with our emotions in a way designed to make us agree with him without thinking through the matter carefully.

We have already seen the “appeal to emotion through fear,” but now through the “appeal to pity.” This pity appeal is when someone tries to get us to do something because of pity for the person or something that he is associated with.

The “appeal to pity,” like the appeal to fear is an appeal to our emotions, our sense of compassion. This appeal is trying to get us to accept something, do something, or believe something based upon our emotions instead of good and careful reasoning.

When it comes to giving money we often see the “appeal to pity.” We might see starving children, homeless people, or areas where a storm might have swept through and left many homeless. Since this is a technique that is often used by con-artists we need to be able to think clearly and concisely to ensure that this is a legitimate need and the one appealing to our emotions is a reputable person or organization.

As Christians we have to be careful because an “appeal to pity” can counteract another Biblical principle like TRUTH. In other words, we are to “love our neighbor,” but not at the expense of truth. An example of this is found in the following verse: “Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger when he is starving. Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold, though it costs him all the wealth of his house.” (Proverbs 6:30-31)

Might God give us clear, critical, Biblical thinking in these days when “truth and error walk the same highway,” as A.W. Tozer so eloquently said. ‘We live in days of great deception and discernment is a great need.’

Proverbs 10:13 “Wisdom is found on the lips of the discerning, but a rod is for the back of him who lacks judgment.”

Proverbs 18:6 “A fool’s lips bring him strife, and his mouth invites a beating.”

“Appeal to fear” is a propaganda technique. “Appeal to fear” is used when someone makes you fear the consequences of not doing what he wants. Often we will find a prosecuting attorney addressing the jury and urging John Doe to be convicted and put away where he would never commit another crime, because you might be his next victim.

It is never good to act out of fear. However, fear is a great motivator. When people fear something they tend not to think matters through. Appeal to fear is often used in advertisements. I am sure if we took the time we could think of many commercials that use fear to get their product out.

When someone fears something or someone, he often makes decisions which he might not make in calmer situations. Sometimes the appeal to fear is referred to as an appeal to force. Although appeals to force are not, at times, attempts at persuasion to change our beliefs but are simply attempts to change our behavior. However, some individuals or organizations do try to change people’s way of thinking merely by resorting to force. This sort of practice can be labeled “thought control,” something that was used during the Spanish Inquisition as well as the Maoist regime of China.

This type of fallacy overrides truth with fear. Some scholars have called this type of fallacy “appeal to intimidation.” We must always keep in mind that the statement is true or not irrespective of how we feel about it. In other words, no amount of punishment for dissent can transform a false claim into a true one.

Since we use the word “fear” in different roles, it is important to make some distinctions. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.” (Proverbs 1:7) This type of fear means reverence, awe and respect. It means a regard for the holiness of God and the sacredness of God’s law. In the sense of respect and reverence or principle in their life all of us have this type of fear for somebody.

However, parents disciplining their children do use the “appeal to fear” especially for those who refuse to learn through instruction. The Bible says, “He who withholds his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him diligently.” (Proverbs 13:24)

In the Bible we find many instances of people using the appeal to fear or force in order to persuade. When he tried to get an answer from Jesus Pilate said, “Do you refuse to speak to me? Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?” (John 19:10)

We see this smear campaign coming out that aim to frighten anyone who might oppose different groups like the homosexual lobby, Planned Parenthood, racial pressure and special interest groups etc.

It is important for us to recognize these fallacies and to stand on the truth.

Proverbs 15:28 “The heart of the righteous weighs its answers, but the mouth of the wicked gushes evil.”

The definition for ‘assumption’ is something taken for granted, or accepted as true without proof. How often we make assumptions without even being aware of them.  When we have an argument over something it might actually be because we have different assumptions. If we understood one another’s assumptions then we might understand why we disagree and why we may be wrong.

In one sense we need to have a healthy sense of ‘suspicion’ of everybody, including ourselves. I do not believe that anyone can be completely objective. Along with assumptions we need discernment. A.W.Tozer said: “Among the gifts of the Spirit scarcely one is of greater practical usefulness than the gift of discernment. This gift should be highly valued and frankly sought as being almost indispensable in these critical times. This gift will enable us to distinguish the chaff from the wheat and to divide the manifestations of the flesh from the operations of the Spirit.”

Nathaniel and Hans Bluedorn on recognizing bad reasoning give three suggestions on how to be objective.

1. Listen. Every time we listen to someone else’s viewpoint, we give ourselves the opportunity to become un- deceived.
2. Evaluate our assumptions. It is important to recognize that everyone has a bias, and that we need to understand and to manage our own biases. We need to be aware of the assumptions which we are making. Keep asking, “why do I think this is true?” There is nothing wrong with having assumptions, just as long as we have the correct assumptions.
3. Evaluate other people’s assumptions. We should be alert for clues in what people say which may indicate their assumptions. This will give us insight into why they believe what they believe.

In the midst of a debate or argument it is easy to make assumptions that something is correct when in reality it is not. Something might be presented to us in an either-or situation when in reality there might be a third, or even a fourth option.

Most of the arguments within families are due to, I believe, wrong assumptions. We presume or assume something that is not true as far as the other person is concerned, in either what they say or what we think that they should do.

In studying and writing about these different fallacies the one thing that is coming to me is the reality of knowing the Word of God and applying it to my life, my walk and my talk. Proverbs tells us: “Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.”

Proverbs 4:24 “Put away perversity from your mouth; keep corrupt talk far from your lips.” Proverbs 6:2 “if you have been trapped by what you said, ensnared by the words of your mouth.” Proverbs 14:3 “A fool’s talk brings a rod to his back, but the lips of the wise protect them.” Proverbs 15:2 “The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouth of the fool gushes folly.”

“Tu Quoque” in Latin means “you too.” This is the type of argument that is used in dismissing someone’s viewpoint on an issue because he himself is inconsistent in that very thing. In other words, “you too.”

In this type of argument someone might come to another person and say that they should not do a particular thing (whatever it is) but the response from the person is: “But you do it too.” What the person is telling them not to do might be something very bad for them, but they do not listen because of the inconsistency of the other person telling them not to do it.

For example, an older person might come to a teenager and tell him/her not to smoke because of the bad health consequences of smoking. However, the teenager does not really listen because the older man himself is smoking. To think that way is to fall into fallacious thinking. Whether the person giving you the advice smokes or doesn’t is beside the point. The point is smoking is bad and it is bad for your health.

People who commit this fallacy often have guilty consciences, and it makes them feel better somehow when they shift their guilt onto someone else. This fallacy also happens when somebody claims that two wrongs make a right.

So the question is, why should we listen to someone who is not consistent with his or her own argument? There are two good reasons. First, we must always allow people to change their minds through experience.

When faced with such a challenge the famous economist John Maynard Keynes once put it quite nicely: “When I find out that I’ve been wrong, I change my mind – what do you do?”

The second reason is that we should not look at the credibility of the person offering his opinion, but the merits of the argument that he is making.

For example, the older man through experience understands what smoking really has done to his own health and this has caused him to form the opinion that he is giving to his younger friend. He has changed his mind about smoking. In other words: Smoking is bad.

Proverbs19:20 “Listen to advice and accept instruction, and in the end you will be wise.”

The fallacy of the “Strawman” is changing or exaggerating the opponent’s position or argument to make it easier to refute. What this does is to distort the opponent’s argument just enough to make it weak, because the original argument was not as easy to knock down.

We should always take the time to hear, think and try to understand about the opponent’s belief in what they mean and say. This is especially true with children. A mother or father might say to the son/daughter that they are spending too much time on video games and the child comes back and says, “Should I throw away hundreds of dollars of video games just to go and do something else?”

This child introduced a “strawman fallacy.” That is not what the father or mother said, but by introducing the strawman makes it easier to refute the original argument. This fallacy is like the ‘red herring’ in the sense that it introduces something irrelevant to the position that one is taking or by taking the opponent’s argument and presenting it in an inaccurate light.

A “red herring” fallacy argument distorts from the main issue, but the “strawman” argues against a position that is not the position at all.

Some of the more politically correct textbooks use the term “straw-person” rather than “strawman.”

We see this approach being used against conservative Christians when what they say is constantly being lumped together under names like “homophobes,” for their “hate speech,” etc. We, who are evangelical Christians say that homosexuality is wrong and repentance is called for, but the opponents try to change the position that is not a position at all. We do not hate homosexuals nor are we engaging in hate speech, but by distorting what we believe it is easier for them to tear down what we believe. One can see in our society how successful this has been. In one sense the “strawman” fallacy reveals the fallen nature of man. Instead of facing the facts or truth, the tendency is to turn the truth into a caricature.

When recognizing that the opponent’s position has some merit to it, a “strawman fallacy” shows intellectual cowardice and unwillingness to face the truth.

The “strawman fallacy” relies heavily on psychology and propaganda rather than truth. We see the “strawman” fallacies coming out with many atheists – like Richard Dawkins in how they paint a false caricature of who God is. Often they read passages in the Old Testament, like in the Book of Joshua when the children of Israel came into the Promised Land, and bringing out how vicious and cruel He was.

The character of the “strawman” is one who wants to win an argument no matter what. He is not interested in doing the study, the discipline of learning what the opponent is actually saying or meaning. Often he lacks the humility to face the truth.

In dealing with “strawman fallacies” we must counter by bringing out the error. We must keep our “strawman” honest by bringing out what is really meant and showing that the issue has not been addressed properly.

However, in all of this we must be much aware of the danger of creating our own “strawman” of our opponent. We must be able to understand and express our opponent’s argument better, or at least as well as he does. This takes time, study, reflection, etc.

As Christians we must first discern the actual facts, and then contrast the “strawman fallacy” against the truth.

Exodus 23:2 “Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd.”

This is another fallacy that we often see being used. “Appeal to the people” is when we claim that our viewpoint is correct because many other people agree with it. This is very similar to the faulty appeal to authority. The only difference is appealing to authority figures while the other is to the people in general. The general public is very seldom a proper authority on anything.

For example: We hear often about abortions, gun control, etc. that the reason we are for or against is because of what public opinion might or might not be. For example, some will say that abortion is murder although public opinion might be that 76% of the people do not believe that. We need to keep in mind that murder is murder no matter what the public says or thinks.

Another example: I will hear that someone’s book is one of the best because it has been on the best-seller list for months. This might or might not be true, but it is also another appeal to the people.

One of the things that we often hear today in these uncertain economic times is that we should not be concerned because the majority of people believe that the economy is improving. Again, this is an appeal to the people.

Along with this fallacy is what is known as the ‘bandwagon.’ This is where we jump on the bandwagon and do what everybody else is doing. This is where peer pressure comes in for us to conform or do what others are doing.

We see this type of fallacy coming out in advertisements. We need to buy this or that article or thing because we are told millions are buying it and we need to join the millions. In other words, get on the bandwagon.

When it comes to the nightly news we might be told that majority of people get their news from the ABC, but does that mean that ABC gives us the best news??

We will often hear our teenage child asking to go someplace or to see something (like a movie) and when the parents say “no” they will come back and say, “But everybody is doing it or seeing it.” This is again that bandwagon fallacy.

The issue in this is not whether everybody is doing it, but the real issue is: Is it right or wrong? Is this a good movie to see and is ABC actually the best source of the news or guidance?

In other words, if all of the people in the world are going to the same place or doing the same thing it is no reason for us to follow suit. The important issue is: Is it right, or wrong?

Proverbs 2:6 “For the Lord gives wisdom, and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.”

Proverbs 15:2 “The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouth of the fool gushes folly.”  Proverbs 15:28

“The heart of the righteous weighs its answers, but the mouth of the wicked gushes evil.”  Proverbs 16:10

“The lips of a king speak as an oracle, and his mouth should not betray justice.”

This is another fallacy type of personal attack. It is called “genetic” because it addresses the genesis, or the beginning of something. It is different from the Ad-hominem because it does not attack the person making the argument but the place where the argument comes from.

In other words, the “genetic fallacy” is condemning an argument because of where it began, how it began, or who began it.  A good example of this would be Sigmund Freud in trying to explain why people believe in God. His hypothesis is that when people do not have a good experience or a relationship with their father they wish for and imagine a God who can offer them the things that they missed. He would go on to say that a belief in God who was created out of people’s wishes could not exist. It is very difficult to argue with somebody when he uses this fallacy because no matter what you say they will always claim that it is because of your difficult past and therefore everybody can ignore what you say.

If an argument was made up by a bad person or a bad historical event it does not mean that the argument is necessarily bad itself. An example of this would be in the presidential election of Clinton and Trump. Clinton won the popular vote, but Trump won the electoral votes. The electoral college, which is the system of the Constitution, laid out for choosing the president may have been created by people with bad motives (as some claim, although I do not think so) does not necessarily mean that the electoral college is bad itself. Although some would claim it is.