Ask The Nuwaupians, What is a Red Herring Fallacy?

User Rating: 0 / 5

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive
 

Question: What is a Red Herring Fallacy?

Answer: They don't know, yet they use it when attempting to address a skeptical view of the Malachi York doctrine.

The name of this fallacy comes from the sport of fox hunting in which a dried, smoked herring, which is red in color, is dragged across the trail of the fox to throw the hounds off the scent. Thus, a "red herring" argument is one which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy. This frequently occurs during debates, it applies to any argument in which the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. 

Description of Red Herring:

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Topic A is under discussion.

Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).

Topic A is now abandoned in favor of debating topic B. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

 

A Red Herring Fallacy, is a fallacy in which someone introduces a new topic/argument that distracts from the original topic. For example... 

 

Me: Mom, can I go to a party tonight? 

Mom: How can I be sure you won't drink alcohol? 

Me: Oh mom, how can you even think that when I've been doing homework all day! 

This is a red herring fallacy, because my doing homework has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I'll drink at a party, but I tried to change the focus of the conversation by making it sound like it does. Therefore, my comment about the homework is a red herring

 

Nuwaupians use this Red Herring tactic to evade questions, here's an example,

Question: Ask a Nuwaupian, where is the evidence in textual Sumerian, Akkadian or any Mesopotamian literature that mentions the Anunnaqi or Igigi mining, collecting or gathering GOLD for the reasons given by Malachi York?

Answer: If looking at the evidence of ancient gold mines in South Africa, you'll see evidence that there are ancient mining tools, and these are tools that scientist say were used for digging deep in the earth for gold, we are an ancient people (Nubuns) and we are the first created, so gold is part of our Nuwaubian culture, this is seen all over Egypt, gold belongs to us, not just gold, the GOOD gold.

 

This is typical reasoning of the Nuwaupians, they put up Red Herrings as a method of avoiding a direct question, in this case he brings up a South African gold mine, when South Africa, Egypt nor Nuwaupian culture was ever questioned.  Whenever debating a Nuwaupian or one of their supporters, always keep them on the issues and never allow them to put up these diversions from answering direct questioning.

 

An excellent short video of the Red Herring Fallacy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exdK7Lirngg