The False Dilemma as a Type of Fallacy
False dilemma is a type of false fallacy, which involves the reduction of an argument into one or two options while more exist. This was with the intensions of convincing my judgement. To command a particular level of persuasion, the options provided in cases of false dilemma are not to the extreme sides of the issue. This makes it sound believable, hence, proving to be accurate in the act of persuading someone. It is also important to note that the options are extracted from a spectrum of possibilities. The false choice presentation is a deliberate action to eliminate additional actions that are likely to neutralize the issue and bring it back to a middle ground. Such an experience, therefore, is likely to hurt the victim on later realizations. However, it is possible to detect, overcome, and weaken a fallacy. This can be achieved through exploring and considering other possibilities. Such an act leaves minimal chances for a dilemma, as knowledge is considered to be the most powerful solution.
In one instance, the false dilemma fallacy was applied to me regarding drugs. The specific topic of discussion was the use of marijuana and why it was illegal in most of the nations. I remember my neighbor convincing me that marijuana is involved in the severe effect of mental illness and should not be condoned by all means. This created a negative perception towards the drug and its users. Every time I made a friend and later realized that they abused the drug, I considered them irresponsible and called off the relationship with immediate effect. Little did I know that as much as it is a logical fact that the abuse of marijuana is harmful, it was all a fallacy that the drug consists of no advantages. After attending relevant classes, I realized that the drug has medicinal purposes and states that recognize it as less harmful have actually legalized its use. My neighbor and friend made me follow his attitude towards the drug simply by omitting some facts regarding this subject and feeding me with the planned ideas that I needed to hear to acquire a resembling perspective. The decision of neither misusing nor abusing marijuana could have been reached without having to deceive me. Although it did not change much, I was surprised to realize that this information was kept from me.
The fallacy worked primarily because my neighbor succeeded in evoking an attitude that I wouldn’t hold if all details were provided. The fact that I still remember this childhood act means that it was a successful misleading act, whose results had a substantial impact. The worst that happened is my hatred and negative judgment towards anyone or any nation that debated on the legalization of marijuana. Further, I developed hard feelings towards my friends whenever they dared to exhibit any kind of support towards the drug. The history of marijuana’s treating power humbled me and rectified my attitude, even though my moral principles stand. This fallacy would be tackled if I had deeper knowledge regarding the drug.
