Question

...
Dr. Elena Grace Faithfield, PhD

Which fallacy/fallacies is Thomas Jefferson using in Hamilton the musical?

Thomas Jefferson: "If New York's in debt / Why should Virginia bear it? Uh! Our debts are paid, I'm afraid / Don't tax the South, 'cause we got it made in the shade / In Virginia, we plant seeds in the ground / We create. You just wanna move our money around / This financial plan is an outrageous demand / And it's too many **** pages for any man to understand"

I think he raps at least 2 logical fallacies here, but I'm not sure. The first is when he concludes that Virginia shouldn't be held responsible to help pay off New York's debts through Hamilton's plan for a federal bank, stating the reasoning that people in the South plant seeds and do manual labor, working to earn their debts being paid off. The second is when he concludes that the financial plan is "outrageous" simply because it would be a big change, and that it's too hard/too long for any normal person to understand. What fallacies are Jefferson rapping here?

asked on Sunday, Dec 29, 2024 02:23:53 PM by Dr. Elena Grace Faithfield, PhD

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Grow Intellectually by Taking Dr. Bo's Online Courses

Dr. Bo is creating online courses in the area of critical thinking, reason, science, psychology, philosophy, and well-being. These courses are self-paced and presented in small, easy-to-digest nuggets of information. Use the code FALLACYFRIENDS to get 25% off any or all of Dr. Bo's courses.

View All Dr. Bo's Courses

Answers

...
AI Fallacy Master
0
In this excerpt from "Hamilton: An American Musical," Thomas Jefferson's argument contains a few logical fallacies:

1. **Straw Man Fallacy**: Jefferson misrepresents the financial plan as simply "mov[ing] money around" and being incomprehensible. This oversimplification ignores the intricacies and purposes of Hamilton's financial plan, such as establishing creditworthiness and a strong national economy. By attacking this simplified version, Jefferson avoids addressing the actual strengths of the plan.

2. **False Dichotomy**: Jefferson sets up a false dichotomy between the industrious South planting seeds and the supposedly idle North moving money around. This oversimplifies the economic activities of both regions and implies that one is inherently superior or more legitimate than the other, ignoring the complexity and interdependence of regional economies.

3. **Appeal to Tradition (Argumentum ad Antiquitatem)**: By suggesting that the financial plan is an "outrageous demand" due to its complexity and the number of pages, Jefferson implies that the traditional ways are preferable simply because they are familiar and established. This fallacy suggests resistance to change without directly addressing whether the new plan might actually offer benefits.

4. **Appeal to Incredulity**: Jefferson claims the plan is "too many **** pages for any man to understand," using its complexity as a reason to dismiss it. This appeal to incredulity suggests that because something is complex or difficult to understand, it must be inherently flawed or invalid, without engaging with the content itself.

These fallacies serve to undermine the financial plan without providing substantial evidence or logical reasoning against it, focusing instead on misrepresentation and appeals to simplicity and tradition.
answered on Sunday, Dec 29, 2024 02:24:14 PM by AI Fallacy Master

AI Fallacy Master Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
Dr. Richard
0

"Hamilton: An American Musical" is not a documentary. If you want this analyzed as a logical exercise, then you need to break it down into the parts you wish to specifically inspect. Otherwise, it is simply a shotgun approach to rap analysis. 

For example, "If New York's in debt / Why should Virginia bear it?" That alone takes a lengthy analysis because of the various points of view, such as moral, political, and economic.

answered on Sunday, Dec 29, 2024 03:05:29 PM by Dr. Richard

Dr. Richard Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
0
Dr. Elena Grace Faithfield, PhD writes:

You're coming off just a little rude, friend! Don't write this as an answer if you're not going to provide one. You're clearly just after the points here - if you're just going to say it "takes a lengthy analysis", instead of actually answering, just add it as a comment. I do in fact want this analyzed as a logical exercise, and the media in which "Hamilton: An American Musical" is portrayed - whether it was a documentary, rap musical, or a game of Tic-Tac-Toe for all I care - does not affect the logical fallacies the character uses to manipulate their stance in the song. I had already broken it down into the parts I wished to specifically inspect - I gave specific lines as well as descriptions of fallacies I think are going on in Jefferson's verse - and I personally disagree that analyzing this verse is a "shotgun approach to rap analysis". It does not act as any approach to rap analysis at all, as I do not listen to rap frequently nor analyze it, but instead as an approach to logical fallacies. I do not agree with you in the slightest, I think analyzing media that we love for logical fallacies is a great exercise when looking for them, and I will not tolerate any further slander under the great name of Lin Manuel-Miranda.

posted on Sunday, Dec 29, 2024 07:28:30 PM
...
0
Dr. Richard writes:
[To Dr. Elena Grace Faithfield, PhD]

The tone of my statement is more direct than rude. However, it could come across as curt, depending on the sensitivity of the audience.

The directness is rooted in the factual assertion about the nature of Hamilton and the logical structure of the response. This is a website dealing with logic. However, some aspects might be perceived as dismissive, especially to those who are part of the eternally offended mindset, in which case the phrase "shotgun approach to rap analysis," could feel critical or condescending if the intent isn't clear. I thought the intent was clear: a direct and unemotional logical response to the statement presented. 

The AI response does not take into consideration what I pointed out: "That alone (imposing the debt of NY on the people of Virginia) takes a lengthy analysis because of the various points of view, such as moral, political, and economic."

Regarding "I do not agree with you in the slightest,"  I must ask why? I assume you grasp the point where I say the issue I named "takes a lengthy analysis because of the various points of view, such as moral, political, and economic."

As for "I will not tolerate any further slander under the great name of Lin Manuel-Miranda," Please explain the slander to which you refer and how this in any way involves him. I don't see it. 

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, Dec 30, 2024 10:24:42 AM