The first logical fallacy is known as the "red herring." The "red herring" occurs when someone is discussing a question or topic, but the other person has sidestepped it by bringing up an irrelevant topic to divert your attention. People often end up debating this alternative, irrelevant topic instead of the original one. Often, people employ this strategy without consciously recognising it. Either the person does not think logically by nature, or it is an inbuilt defence mechanism. Otherwise, it is a cunning diversion to get you off track. In a debate, a participant might use a red herring to avoid discussing a topic for which they don’t have a well-developed position, or their position could make them look bad to the audience and media.
The trick is to recognise the bait-and-switch change of subject and return to the original topic as soon as possible.
Examples:
Secular Example:
Son: Why can’t I see the movie Saw 3 with my friends? Dad: Isn’t there some other kind of movie you could see instead?
Some are harder to see. For example, "Colgate is the best toothpaste for reducing tooth decay. Dentists say that the biggest dental problem is tooth decay." The two sentences are just separate statements. The second sentence does not support Colgate as the best product to use in any way. The discussion could then debate whether or not dental decay is the biggest problem, rather than which product to use.
Kingdom Example:
Theists say that in order to be moral realists, we have to believe in God. Objective moral values can only exist if God exists. But look at the Bible. God commands the Israelites to commit genocide and He’ll send people to Hell if they don’t believe in Him. Surely their reasoning is flawed. (Supplied by Apologetic Thursdays) The original question was that for objective morals to exist, God must exist. The red herring is to take you into history without context and a judgement upon God.
Fallacy Comments