Non sequitur
- dejongistani
- Jul 5, 2017
- 2 min read
In my illegitimate argumentation series this post will cover the non sequitur, it is a common tactic used by politicians in interviews on TV news channels.
Definition: a statement (such as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said. Latin for "does not follow" (Merriam-Webster)
I found great examples on logically fallacious, a brilliant website with that I'm sure I will rely upon quite a bit for my series.
Recently when talking about illegal immigration left leaning liberals in the media make comments that immigrants make the US a great country when asked about illegal immigration. In the clip below on Fox the host, Tucker Carlson, asks the guest why he opposes a law designed to keep illegal immigrants out of the US and the guest argues that illegals that serve time in jail will eventually get out and can then cause problems for US society even though the premise is that illegals will be deported. The idea that once released they are free to roam US society doesn't follow with the premise that illegals will be removed from US society first via incarceration followed by deportation.
Other frequently heard non sequitur news articles focus on the Russian hacking scandal. The argument that the release of John Podesta's emails hurt Hillary Clinton, a claim she denies, and that Vladimir Putin didn't like her, and Trump's transition contacted the Russian's after the election translates into collusion by the Trump campaign to surreptitiously and stealthily convince the US electorate to vote for Trump is a non sequitur.
Firstly, Trump was competing for the job of US president against Hillary Clinton, that was not a secret, and asked for people to support him instead of her. A campaign for Trump president does not automatically mean collusion with those opposing other candidates, it can just be coincidental.
Then one must question why the Trump team would contact the Russians to setup communication channels after the election if they had been in regular communication to collude during the campaign.
Lastly, if the truth of the Clinton campaign rigging the Democratic primary against Bernie Sanders was so damaging so that Clinton could not possibly win why didn't the Democrats pull her as their candidate and run a candidate not tainted by the truth of their criminal activities?
