It’s fake news! You have no right to criticize me! Why do you support violence?!
1. denial 否定
Person A: Did you read the news about the president’s controversial phone call to Country X?
Person B: Can you show me a recording of the president’s conversation? No, right? It’s fake news.
B: 你可以展示總統的對話給我嗎？不能，對嗎？ 那就是個假新聞。
Person A: Look at these articles on the brutal suppression of ethnic minorities in Country X.
Person B: How can you believe propaganda? These sources (the Associate Press, Wall Street Journal, BBC, Reuters, and NPR) are biased against Country X.
B: 你怎麼可以相信宣傳？ 這些來源（美聯社、華爾街日報、ＢＢＣ、路透社和NPR）對X國有偏見。
Explanation: This one is not a logical fallacy in itself because it does not attempt to progress the discussion. It is a form of psychological defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite overwhelming evidence. Complete denial is the most common tactic of negation used. The denier may even use fallacies such as ad hominem (personal attacks), and moving the goalposts (dismissing evidence to a claim by asking for some other unfulfillable piece of evidence) to justify his denial.
ad hominem (人身攻擊):
moving the goalposts (搬龍門):
2. tu quoque–You too! 你也一樣
Person A: Country X is violently suppressing minority groups.
Person B: Country Y is much worse. It starts wars everywhere.
B: Y國更糟。 它在世界各地挑起戰爭。
Person A: Candidate X lied about his assets.
Person B: So what if Candidate X lied about his assets? Candidate Y is rich.
Explanation: This is a form of ad hominem fallacy, and it is used to defend the problems with one’s own argument by pointing out that the other side made the same mistake(s). It is a fallacy because the moral character or actions of the opponent are irrelevant to the logic of the argument.
Tu quoque is a fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent’s argument by asserting the opponent’s failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).
Tu quoque (你也一樣)是一個謬論，以透過主張對手同樣犯了其所批評之錯，無法言行如一，來使其論述無效。
The renowned 20th century Chinese writer Lu Xun wrote on this specific fallacy in his article “Foreign Countries Have It, Too.” In the article, Lu Xun ridicules his country and claims that China could always blame other countries when criticized. Lu states, “Everything that China has, foreign countries have it, too. Foreigners say that China has many bedbugs, but the West also has bedbugs." In contemporary society, Lu’s bedbug argument is used to ridicule unscrupulous people who attempt to cover up their mistakes by pointing at the flaws of others.
3. red herring 紅鯡魚
Person A: What are the factors that caused the X people to protest? Millions of people are protesting.
A: 到底是什麼導致X國人抗議？ 數百萬人正在抗議。
Person B: Did you see the business that was just burned down by those people? They are not protestors. They are rioters!
Explanation: Person B does not address the causes of the protest. Instead, he focuses on the violent actions of a small minority of protestors to shift focus. Not all protestors support violent actions.
Person B 沒有對抗議的原因發表看法。相反地，他以專注於少數示威者的暴力行動來轉移對話焦點。並非所有抗議者都支持暴力行動。
The origin of the term red herring is debatable. One popular tale states that escaping convicts used the pungent fish to throw off hounds in pursuit.
Red herring fallacies are frequently used in public relations and political propaganda. Media and politicians often use new events or misinterpreting issues to shift the attention of the masses from core issues. The fallacy is often used with bandwagoning to deal with governmental or corporate crises.
There are many more logical fallacies like hasty generalizations (e.g. I never encountered persecution in Country X, so persecution does not exist) and straw man (e.g. Why should we give them freedom? Do you want to destroy our country?). If you are interested in learning more, please refer to the links below.
Logical Fallacies 邏輯謬誤:
Informal Fallacies. (2019, November 11). Retrieved November 21, 2019, from https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions.
Niolon, Richard (April 8, 2011). “Defenses". psychpage.com. Richard Niolon. Retrieved 2019-11-21.
Purdue Writing Lab. (n.d.). Logical Fallacies. Retrieved November 21, 2019, from https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/logic_in_argumentative_writing/fallacies.html.