Ever since the dropping of the nuclear bomb on Japan, the question of whether the U.S has been justified in its action or not has been up to debate, with many arguments on both sides of the issue. Although unstated anywhere in the excerpts the author, James Webb, is of the opinion that the U.S was justified in following the only course it had available to it at the time that is dropping the bombs. In not clearly stating his position on the matter the author has committed his first of many fallacies staining the excerpts.
Beginning with the first paragraph one can note the first fallacy the author has committed, that of his windy preamble, with his bit about Albert Einstein. Which can also be read, combined or viewed with the mention of the mayor of Nagasaki’s words, as a weaseler. Einstein’s words and the mayor’s serve no purpose and have no relevance to the argument the author is trying to make. Unless he was attempting by mentioning the mayor’s words, to sow indignation in the reader (assuming they are all Americans) by saying they have been compared to the Nazis.
Another weasler in my opinion is giving the number of casualties after both bombings. Again the numbers are useless facts because they are not even used in comparison to how many the Japanese have killed when they bombed Chinese cites.
The numbers are giving to us in the second paragraph where the author commits other fallacies. The first is “Two wrongs don’t make right.” By insinuating the high casualties from the droppings of the nuclear bombs evens the score since the Japanese have also killed many people with their bombs. The author’s other mistake is his voicing of a popular assumption, “…if Japan had had nuclear weapons, it would have used them.” Without giving facts or reasons of such an assumption.
In the third paragraph the most noticeable is the ‘Proof surrogate,’ fallacy. Giving us the opinions of experts without giving us the number of the experts or their credentials. Not even how they have arrived at their conclusion. More subtle fallacy is the use of words that has an emotive force behind them. “…U.S historians…” as compared to “…some historians…” without giving them a nationality. As if saying no U.S historian would hold to the same opinion. Also his appeal to popular belief by writing “,more U.S historians…” is another fallacy in the same paragraph.
In the fourth paragraph the author commits the fallacy of composition and division. Finding the larger population guilty of the crime committed by the less representative and much smaller Japanese army.
Along with the noted fallacies above the author has also committed perhaps his most noticeable fallacy, innuendo. The whole excerpts is full of it, with at least one in ever paragraph.
Beginning with the first paragraph one can note the first fallacy the author has committed, that of his windy preamble, with his bit about Albert Einstein. Which can also be read, combined or viewed with the mention of the mayor of Nagasaki’s words, as a weaseler. Einstein’s words and the mayor’s serve no purpose and have no relevance to the argument the author is trying to make. Unless he was attempting by mentioning the mayor’s words, to sow indignation in the reader (assuming they are all Americans) by saying they have been compared to the Nazis.
Another weasler in my opinion is giving the number of casualties after both bombings. Again the numbers are useless facts because they are not even used in comparison to how many the Japanese have killed when they bombed Chinese cites.
The numbers are giving to us in the second paragraph where the author commits other fallacies. The first is “Two wrongs don’t make right.” By insinuating the high casualties from the droppings of the nuclear bombs evens the score since the Japanese have also killed many people with their bombs. The author’s other mistake is his voicing of a popular assumption, “…if Japan had had nuclear weapons, it would have used them.” Without giving facts or reasons of such an assumption.
In the third paragraph the most noticeable is the ‘Proof surrogate,’ fallacy. Giving us the opinions of experts without giving us the number of the experts or their credentials. Not even how they have arrived at their conclusion. More subtle fallacy is the use of words that has an emotive force behind them. “…U.S historians…” as compared to “…some historians…” without giving them a nationality. As if saying no U.S historian would hold to the same opinion. Also his appeal to popular belief by writing “,more U.S historians…” is another fallacy in the same paragraph.
In the fourth paragraph the author commits the fallacy of composition and division. Finding the larger population guilty of the crime committed by the less representative and much smaller Japanese army.
Along with the noted fallacies above the author has also committed perhaps his most noticeable fallacy, innuendo. The whole excerpts is full of it, with at least one in ever paragraph.
No comments:
Post a Comment