The line from his speech that commits a fallacy is this: Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house?
This is an example of the slippery slope fallacy. To put it in context, in this paragraph Patrick Henry is asking of the convention when will the colonies be strong enough to fight off such a powerful adversary as Great Britain. The sentence that I've used is suggesting that if the colonies don't do anything to fight back against Great Britain and simply continue telling themselves that they are too weak and will not win the fight, that everyone will inevitably, without argument, eventually become disarmed and have a British guard stationed in their house. This is, of course, not true, seeing as how if the colonies hadn't have fought back, there most likely would not be a complete disarming of everybody and there would not be a British guard in every house.
This speech is famous, of course, because it was what helped spur the colonists on to fight back against their oppressors, and we all know what that lead to. It's effective despite its fallacies because people simply see it as an incredibly persuasive piece and it has appeals to logos, pathos, and ethos, which adds to its persuasiveness just by covering a whole lot of ground. Plus, in this particular example, anyone who would have originally been listening to this speech would have been too startled by the thought of having a British guard in every house to notice that this line was a fallacy.
No comments:
Post a Comment