tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4480355333499368721.post3692386157109029000..comments2013-03-13T03:13:17.861-07:00Comments on Philosophy Through Film: NSA from Good Will HuntingDr. Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09097867870506568110noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4480355333499368721.post-87167335088180112792013-03-13T03:13:17.861-07:002013-03-13T03:13:17.861-07:00I doing some research on logic fallacies for my En...I doing some research on logic fallacies for my English class, and this argument given by Will Hunting came to mind. When I first watched the movie, I thought that no one could argue against this argument. He seems to cover himself quite well in showing why he shouldn't take the job. But after some reviewings of the film, and after this recent research into fallacy types, I have come to thinking that his argument is quite faulty. <br />For one thing, the entire argument seems to be an either-or argument: either I take the job and have all this (bad) stuff happen or I don't take the job. He leaves out all the (good) stuff he could achieve through this type of work.<br />It also seems to have a slippery slope element to it. When he goes off on how his little bit of code breaking prowess sets of a chain of events that eventually leads to his buddy's having to eat fish with a side of Quaker State.<br />I don't know the name of this next fallacy, but I think it might be hasty generalization or ad hominem. He takes specific examples of negative events and uses them to help his argument, but they can't help his argument because they are specific instances and not examples of things that happen regularly and with some degree of predictability. He also criticizes when he talks about those people who didn't have their sons over fighting and who themselves didn't have to fight because they were--I suppose this is what he meant--taking it easy in the national guard. Sean Irving 爾尚文https://www.blogger.com/profile/03924138598416700106noreply@blogger.com