Pineapple Fallacies
One day, at the local pizzeria, a pineapple pizza enthusiast named John engaged in a heated discussion with his friend, Sarah. John firmly believed that pineapple belonged on pizza, and he wasn’t shy about expressing his views. Sarah, however, was a genuine pizza traditionalist and strongly disagreed.
John, in his fallacious attempt to win the argument, resorted to an appeal to force. He told Sarah, “If you don’t agree with my opinion that pineapple belongs on pizza, I’ll break your phone!” Sarah, feeling threatened, reluctantly conceded, “Fine, pineapple belongs on pizza.”
As word of this argument spread throughout the town, it reached the ears of the local pineapple farmers who relied heavily on the pizza industry for their livelihoods. These hardworking farmers were genuinely struggling to make ends meet.
John, the champion of pineapple on pizza, started evoking pity from the community. He said, “Think about the poor pineapple farmers who rely on the pizza industry. If you don’t support pineapple on pizza, they will go bankrupt!” His emotional plea swayed many, and the town decided, out of sympathy for the farmers, to put pineapple on pizza
With the decision made to include pineapple on pizza, the pizzeria saw an influx of customers. Long lines formed at the door as everyone wanted to try the new topping. John, seizing the opportunity, declared, “Everyone loves pizza with pineapple! Just look at the long lines at the local pizzeria when they offer it as a topping.”
In a classic appeal to the people, he persuaded others, saying, “You should love pizza with pineapple too!” The townsfolk, deluded by the mob mentality, joined the pineapple pizza craze with euphoria.
Amidst this pizza frenzy, a renowned economist named Professor Smith, known for his thoroughgoing research on economic policies, voiced his concerns about the financial implications of pineapple on pizza. He argued that it might negatively impact the local economy.
John, in a two-bit attempt to discredit Professor Smith’s argument, resorted to an argument against the person. He said, “Well, you’re a vegetarian, so you don’t really understand anything about the economy. Your opinion doesn’t matter.” This ad hominem attack incited anger, but John’s fallacious reasoning prevailed.
As the popularity of pineapple on pizza soared, it began to spread beyond the confines of the town. People started believing that if it worked here, it could work everywhere. They pointed to the success of pineapple pizza as evidence that no speed limits were needed for safe driving.
They argued, “The Autobahn in Germany has no speed limits, and it’s safe there. Therefore, it’s safe to drive without speed limits everywhere!” This hasty generalization about road safety was a fallacy of accident.
The town’s chief executive officer, Mr. Johnson, concerned about the dire straits of the local economy, tried to redirect the discussion towards a more pressing issue: the need to invest in renewable energy sources to reduce carbon emissions.
But John, skilled in the art of missing the point, seized the opportunity to shift the focus. He showed pictures of wind turbines and solar panels, evoking a sense of environmental responsibility. Then he concluded, “Therefore, we should build more wind turbines and solar panels to create jobs.”
In this fallacious argument, John skillfully diverted the conversation away from addressing the economic concerns towards a vaguely related issue.
Amidst all this chaos, a concerned citizen named Mary tried to bring the discussion back to the urgency of addressing climate change. She said, “We need to address the issue of climate change urgently.”
But her neighbor, Bob, who had a penchant for delicious seafood, wasn’t interested in discussing climate change. He jumped in with a red herring, saying, “Speaking of climate change, did you know that there’s a new restaurant in town with amazing seafood dishes?”
Bob’s diversion tactic was clear – he wanted to talk about something he was passionate about, completely ignoring Mary’s plea to focus on the real issue at hand, demonstrating yet another fallacy in their ongoing debates.
