Logical Fallacies

410 Words1 Page

JD2

Logical Fallacies

In this editorial from the Citizen-times, we are considering some issues about Iran and their uranium enrichment program. The foreign minister of Iran said that it would be against the ‘ways of Islamic thinking’ to produce weapons of mass destruction. Well, it should be against anyone’s ways of thinking to produce weapons of mass destruction. There are only a few reasons to make uranium, and most of them have to do with the making of explosives and types of weapons that create havoc and mayhem. So I’d have to say that one of the logical fallacies in this passage has to do with the foreign minister of Iran tiring to get us to believe that just because it’s ’against Islamic ways of thinking’, I’d have to say he needs to give us a little more information than that. Iran keeps tiring to tell us that the nuclear activities are peaceful. If I am correct, and I believe that I am, that anything to do with nuclear ‘activities’ probably wouldn’t fall into the peaceful category. I’m not too sure about the quote, “ Foreign Minister Kamel Kharrazi told reporters. "Iran is a promoter of the elimination of nuclear weapons around the world and, based on our ideology, on our Islamic thinking, it is forbidden to produce and use nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction." I think that I’d have to label this as a logical fallacy. Some of this quote might be true, but if anything, I think that Iran is just trying to get us to believe them so we will get off their case. They have had weapons of mass destruction before, so why wouldn’t they have them again? Although Iran keeps trying to convince us of this, the state of this nation still is convinced by mister Bush that Iran is ’’the world’s primary state in sponsoring of terror’’. I don’t really know how true this statement is, but I’m pretty sure that Bush is proposing a logical fallacy here when he says this.

Open Document