ï»żHey whatâs up Thinkers! Kathy Gibbens hereâŠ
I just wanted to start off with a quick review, which came from Mary as a comment on facebook. She said: âTeaching our kids critical thinking is one of THE most important things we can do! It is a game-changer in a world where the cards are heavily stacked against them. You go girl!â Thank you Mary! And I couldnât agree more! Iâm very thankful so many families are realizing how important this is and Iâm so honored to get to help! Can I just ask you a favor? If you havenât left a review for the podcast wherever you listen to it, would you just pause for about 10 seconds and do so now? You could leave a 5-star rating or take a minute to write a review. It would mean so much to me, and it helps the show get traction with new listeners. Thank you so much!
Ok, so todayâs new fallacy is one that I just recently learned about and it made me laugh as I was studying it. Itâs called the âIf by whiskeyâ fallacy, and Iâll tell you in just a minute the history and how it got itâs name. The âIf by whiskeyâ fallacy happens when someone argues both sides of an argument in a way that both people for the argument and people against the argument will agree with them! Itâs typically used in politics to support both sides of a particular issue. WHAT?! How is that possible?
I think giving you an example will help explain it best. So, hereâs where the fallacy comes from. In 1952, a Mississippi politician named Noah âSoggyâ Sweat, Jr gave a speech in which he supported both sides of prohibition. Itâs not long, but it is hilarious, so Iâm going to read this speech to you:
My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey:
If when you say whiskey you mean the devilâs brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.
But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentlemanâs step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, lifeâs great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.
This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.
You guys, how hilarious is that?? This dude totally supported both sides of the argument and did it in a, dare I say, masterful way. If you werenât listening carefully, it would be easy to just hear the part where he agrees with whatever you believe and assume heâs on the same side of you. But is he really? Did you come away from this speech really knowing where he stands? No! But when your biggest goal is to stay popular and relevant and get re-elected, maybe coming out strongly either for or against a hot topic wonât help you be popular.
The issue with the âIf by Whiskeyâ fallacy is that the person committing this is refusing to take a side. Theyâre just trying to be agreeable to everyone. Theyâre being totally lukewarm on a particular stance, not really saying anything at all. Itâs a form of the Relativistic Fallacy, which we covered just a few episodes agoâŠand it can also be a form of equivocation, as in this speech, where he certainly changed the meaning of the word âwhiskeyâ and used both definitions to make both sides of his point.
And the reason this often works is because words matter. The wording we use to describe an issue affects peopleâs perception of it. Think about it, if you were going to try to get 500 peopleâs opinions on euthanasia, imagine if you asked half of them what they thought of âdoctor-assisted suicideâ and you asked the other half what they thought about âdeath with dignityâ. The two different groups will have very different answers simply because of the wording that was used!
Politicians often commit this fallacy when they change their messaging to appeal to the beliefs of the group theyâre speaking in front of. For instance, if they think their audience prefers âgreen energyâ theyâll talk about how they support solar & wind energy sources. If they think their audience prefers more traditional energy sources, theyâll talk about coal & gas sources.
Question to ask yourself: âWhat does this person really believe?â *repeat*
Remember: When you learn HOW to think, you will no longer fall prey to those who are trying to tell you what THEY want you to think and it all starts with asking one simple question: âIs that really true?â
