Name that rhetorical device!
January 3, 2009 2:56 PM
Linguists and debaters! Does this type of argument have a name?
There's a particular type of argumentation that I come across all the time, and I wonder whether there's a term for it. Here's an example:
Here in Country X, we have a policy of sending our boys to school while our girls stay home and clean house. Detractors of the policy, who arrogantly and snobbishly believe that scholars are better than those who clean homes, reveal their sexism by devaluing the work traditionally performed by women in our country.
Obviously this particular example is appealing to the idea of complimentary gender roles, but I've seen this form of rhetorical judo used by apologists for other forms of inequality as well. It's basically - by stating that X is disadvantaged, you are disadvantaging X.
Do you recognize this tactic? Do you know what it's called?
There's a particular type of argumentation that I come across all the time, and I wonder whether there's a term for it. Here's an example:
Here in Country X, we have a policy of sending our boys to school while our girls stay home and clean house. Detractors of the policy, who arrogantly and snobbishly believe that scholars are better than those who clean homes, reveal their sexism by devaluing the work traditionally performed by women in our country.
Obviously this particular example is appealing to the idea of complimentary gender roles, but I've seen this form of rhetorical judo used by apologists for other forms of inequality as well. It's basically - by stating that X is disadvantaged, you are disadvantaging X.
Do you recognize this tactic? Do you know what it's called?
Definitely some poisoning the well, but also a bit of Appeal to Popularity and some Ad Hominem thrown in. There's a nice list of logical fallacies here - I'm sure that there's elements of others in your example.
posted by Dipsomaniac at 3:20 PM on January 3, 2009
posted by Dipsomaniac at 3:20 PM on January 3, 2009
It sounds like the speaker is mixing cause and effect.
We talk about X because it exists. It didn't come to exist because we talked about it.
Maybe it's
X causes Y
Y
therefore X
That's just plain old "affirming the consequent."
posted by cmiller at 3:27 PM on January 3, 2009
We talk about X because it exists. It didn't come to exist because we talked about it.
Maybe it's
X causes Y
Y
therefore X
That's just plain old "affirming the consequent."
posted by cmiller at 3:27 PM on January 3, 2009
There is a bit of If-by-whiskey and Appeal to tradition about this. Both sides of the debate have merit, because the housework / child-rearing work traditionally done by women has been devalued. The solution is to value it and not restrict it to women.
And you mean complementary, not complimentary gender roles.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 4:04 PM on January 3, 2009
And you mean complementary, not complimentary gender roles.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 4:04 PM on January 3, 2009
I think it is an example of circular reasoning or begging the question. Put most simply, the argument can be stated as follows:
Women should be forced to be homemakers.
It is sexist to believe that women should not be forced to be homemakers.
Therefore, women should be forced to be homemakers.
The conclusion of the argument assumes the truth of its premise.
posted by jayder at 4:13 PM on January 3, 2009
Women should be forced to be homemakers.
It is sexist to believe that women should not be forced to be homemakers.
Therefore, women should be forced to be homemakers.
The conclusion of the argument assumes the truth of its premise.
posted by jayder at 4:13 PM on January 3, 2009
That kind of argument might be a red herring. The "detractors" are arguing against gendered positions; the counter is the argument against is inherently sexist because it doesn't equate scholars with housewives. That's a different argument that doesn't address the thrust of the first—that men and women are deserving of equal rights, and that equality should beget parity in occupational opportunity.
posted by trotter at 4:18 PM on January 3, 2009
posted by trotter at 4:18 PM on January 3, 2009
As we're already talking about logic, it won't hurt to nitpick a small logical point. This is not affirming the consequent, since "p causes q" is not logically equivalent to "if p, then q". The language of causation can't be parsed simply in terms of the logic of conditionals.
posted by voltairemodern at 4:19 PM on January 3, 2009
posted by voltairemodern at 4:19 PM on January 3, 2009
The technique of turning your opponent's argument against him can be called antistrophe (see bottom), although it's apparently a rare and archaic usage.
posted by adamrice at 4:53 PM on January 3, 2009
posted by adamrice at 4:53 PM on January 3, 2009
As given, I think the two examples of the argument are actually subtly different. Even though it is not meant that way, the first reads like an Ad Hominem, 'accusing the accuser' of the same thing: 'your policy is sexist', 'no you're sexist'.
However, the second example is clearer, it is a form of begging the question: the assumption is that X was not previously disadvantaged. A statement which asserts the disadvantage of X can only be disadvantaging to X if X was not already disadvantaged. (Of course, if X isn't already disadvantaged, then the argument could be true.)
posted by Sova at 5:53 PM on January 3, 2009
However, the second example is clearer, it is a form of begging the question: the assumption is that X was not previously disadvantaged. A statement which asserts the disadvantage of X can only be disadvantaging to X if X was not already disadvantaged. (Of course, if X isn't already disadvantaged, then the argument could be true.)
posted by Sova at 5:53 PM on January 3, 2009
Antistrophon sounds pretty close. Or you could just say "turning an argument on its head" or "using your opponent's reasoning against them." Those might not be formal terms, but so what?
All the other suggestions seem flat-out wrong to me. It's not ad hominem, it's not begging the question, it's not appeal to popularity or tradition, etc.
BTW, I don't believe this is inherently a fallacy, as many seem to be assuming. That's not to say that your particular example is a good argument, of course -- just that if it's flawed, the flaw isn't a matter of pure logic. The argument could be good if we were talking about adults vs. children, for instance. Your gender views needn't be a matter of logical reasoning. (I'm not criticizing gender equality!)
posted by Jaltcoh at 5:54 PM on January 3, 2009
All the other suggestions seem flat-out wrong to me. It's not ad hominem, it's not begging the question, it's not appeal to popularity or tradition, etc.
BTW, I don't believe this is inherently a fallacy, as many seem to be assuming. That's not to say that your particular example is a good argument, of course -- just that if it's flawed, the flaw isn't a matter of pure logic. The argument could be good if we were talking about adults vs. children, for instance. Your gender views needn't be a matter of logical reasoning. (I'm not criticizing gender equality!)
posted by Jaltcoh at 5:54 PM on January 3, 2009
Just to clarify: the argument you are trying to define is this?
A- It is demeaning to women to force them to be homemakers.
B- Demeaning how? Are you saying that being a homemaker is demeaning?
If that's what you're going for, I think it is a combination of two things. First, B misses the point of the argument. It's not the occupation, it's the force.
But also, it's also bad form on the part of A to use a non-universal negative to prove their point. A's point is that nobody should be limited by virtue of their sexual organs. But in using "homemaker" as a negative example of this limit, it denigrates the occupation of homemaker and everyone who chooses that as their role in life. Thereby opening an avenue for misdirection, as B did. I believe Hillary Clinton did this in 1992.
posted by gjc at 6:25 PM on January 3, 2009
A- It is demeaning to women to force them to be homemakers.
B- Demeaning how? Are you saying that being a homemaker is demeaning?
If that's what you're going for, I think it is a combination of two things. First, B misses the point of the argument. It's not the occupation, it's the force.
But also, it's also bad form on the part of A to use a non-universal negative to prove their point. A's point is that nobody should be limited by virtue of their sexual organs. But in using "homemaker" as a negative example of this limit, it denigrates the occupation of homemaker and everyone who chooses that as their role in life. Thereby opening an avenue for misdirection, as B did. I believe Hillary Clinton did this in 1992.
posted by gjc at 6:25 PM on January 3, 2009
Despite my first comment, it seem like gjc is onto something. Combine that with the previous suggestion of "red herring," and that's probably your answer. The red herring is whether homemaker is a good job. It's a red herring because it distracts from the main issue, which is forcing people into different roles based on gender.
Incidentally, it's interesting how everyone is focusing on the disadvantage for women of being forced into one role. If I'm reading the setup correctly, the men are equally forced into their role. So if force is the problem, there's force all around -- both genders are disadvantaged.
posted by Jaltcoh at 6:49 PM on January 3, 2009
Incidentally, it's interesting how everyone is focusing on the disadvantage for women of being forced into one role. If I'm reading the setup correctly, the men are equally forced into their role. So if force is the problem, there's force all around -- both genders are disadvantaged.
posted by Jaltcoh at 6:49 PM on January 3, 2009
Expanding on gjc's point, consider this turnaround:
A: Parents should not deprive their children of the benefits of a traditional religious education
B: Depriving how? Are you saying that lack of religion is deprivation?
I suspect that moxiedoll's problem isn't really with the form of the argument so much as the point being argued. By using the same form to argue a point moxiedoll might agree with, the problem seems to vanish.
posted by jimmyjimjim at 8:18 PM on January 3, 2009
A: Parents should not deprive their children of the benefits of a traditional religious education
B: Depriving how? Are you saying that lack of religion is deprivation?
I suspect that moxiedoll's problem isn't really with the form of the argument so much as the point being argued. By using the same form to argue a point moxiedoll might agree with, the problem seems to vanish.
posted by jimmyjimjim at 8:18 PM on January 3, 2009
The basic technique here is the "Straw Man", (and here) wherein one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent.
In your example the attribution and description happen at the same time, but that doesn't change the substantial effect of the argument.
-
It's also Poisoning the Well, but only insofar as you're describing the people making the argument as arrogant and snobish. (Assuming they are not.)
-
It's also, in a somewhat abstract sense, a False Dilemma
-
Lastly I'd have to vote against the Red Herring being in any way relevant to your example. The example above does not introduce an irrelevant argument, only an illogical one, it's still on the same theme and merits.
posted by tiamat at 8:39 PM on January 3, 2009
In your example the attribution and description happen at the same time, but that doesn't change the substantial effect of the argument.
-
It's also Poisoning the Well, but only insofar as you're describing the people making the argument as arrogant and snobish. (Assuming they are not.)
-
It's also, in a somewhat abstract sense, a False Dilemma
A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning":In your example above the suggestion is that either forcing women to work at home is sexist, or forcing them to go to school is sexist, but not both. Demeaning the work of a housewife does not, in itself have relevence to the argument of whether or not the "Country" in question has sexist policies; it's possible that the people in question ARE arrogant and snobish AND that the Country's policies are sexist, in your example.
1. Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
2. Claim Y is false.
3. Therefore claim X is true.
-
Lastly I'd have to vote against the Red Herring being in any way relevant to your example. The example above does not introduce an irrelevant argument, only an illogical one, it's still on the same theme and merits.
posted by tiamat at 8:39 PM on January 3, 2009
The argument given in the example is an instance of reframing the point of contention. In practical terms, it is useful to create momentum in a certain direction and move away from a point of weakness in one's own argument. Now instead of debating the equality of men and women, whether it exists, whether it should exist, and if it does not in practice, how it should be sought, you are distracted into talking about the value of homemaking.
I do not know what the technical term is, although red herring is close, as is missing the point.
It is a fallacy, but one that is mostly made on purpose as an intentional rhetorical device.
Listen to right-wing talk radio for many, many examples.
posted by Number Used Once at 8:47 PM on January 3, 2009
I do not know what the technical term is, although red herring is close, as is missing the point.
It is a fallacy, but one that is mostly made on purpose as an intentional rhetorical device.
Listen to right-wing talk radio for many, many examples.
posted by Number Used Once at 8:47 PM on January 3, 2009
On preview, Straw Man is close as well, but these sorts of attacks do not just restate the opponent's view, they change the entire playing field of the discussion. In my mind, staw man fallacies are made within, essentially, the parameters of the debate. This sort of statement is made to alter the parameters of the debate entirely.
posted by Number Used Once at 8:51 PM on January 3, 2009
posted by Number Used Once at 8:51 PM on January 3, 2009
Jaltoch's point also is interesting, too.
"Revealing their sexism by devaluing the work traditionally performed by women in our country" is, on the surface, a logical deflection of equally forced societal roles. There was no clause stating the reason men are fit for academia was because they were the superior sex.
But it is the argument the affirmative is making, no? That's the problem. You can argue forever that academia is a more valuable, prestigious, difficult profession, but that doesn't counter the example nation's policy of assigning housework to women.
There was no reason given for the force of occupation by sex and it's because of this that their argument is slippery to counter effectively.
posted by trotter at 9:57 PM on January 3, 2009
"Revealing their sexism by devaluing the work traditionally performed by women in our country" is, on the surface, a logical deflection of equally forced societal roles. There was no clause stating the reason men are fit for academia was because they were the superior sex.
But it is the argument the affirmative is making, no? That's the problem. You can argue forever that academia is a more valuable, prestigious, difficult profession, but that doesn't counter the example nation's policy of assigning housework to women.
There was no reason given for the force of occupation by sex and it's because of this that their argument is slippery to counter effectively.
posted by trotter at 9:57 PM on January 3, 2009
I was wondering this very thing while watching the McCain campaign's response to Sarah Palin's nosediving popularity. "If you don't like Sarah Palin, you're sexist!" As others have pointed out, this seems to have become popular lately-- co-opting the enemy camp's accusations against you.
I'll leave the specific fallacy types to the experts, but yeah, it's a weird ploy. Too bad it works as often as it does.
posted by Rykey at 11:00 PM on January 3, 2009
I'll leave the specific fallacy types to the experts, but yeah, it's a weird ploy. Too bad it works as often as it does.
posted by Rykey at 11:00 PM on January 3, 2009
gjc is right. Also this:
by stating that X is disadvantaged, you are disadvantaging X
I don't think you've summarized this correctly. The argument doesn't attribute a causal power to the opponent to actually disadvantage anyone. The argument simply states that women aren't in fact disadvantaged, and that the opponent falsely sees them as disadvantaged because of his prejudice against housework.
I would summarize the turn-around like this:
A: you value women less, because you would force them to do housework (which is implicitly of lesser value)
B: housework is of great value, and you only disparage it because women do it (who for you are implicitly of lesser value)
There's no logical fallacy here. B begins by questioning A's implicit evaluations -- here the value of housework. This is, in general, perfectly acceptable. People can rationally disagree about the value and the status of housework. At this point, the argument resembles a very typical sort of exchange: "It's just X", "What do you mean, 'just' X?"
B then uses his re-evaluation of housework to turn the accusation around. A had inferred from the value of housework (low) to B's alleged valuation of women (low, since he would force them to do housework). B infers from A's valuation of housework (low) to A's valuation of women (low); and at the same time, implicitly he infers from his valuation of housework (high) to his own valuation of women (high). The inference is not quite parallel. B argues that he thinks women are great, and that's why we wants them doing housework (which is great) and B also argues that A thinks women are bad, and that's why he thinks that what they do is bad. So according to B, B already thinks highly of both women and housework, and that's why he wants to put them together; whereas A begins by thinking badly of women, and this is then the reason why he thinks badly of housework. So rhetorically what's happened is that A had foregrounded the valuation of women, and B foregrounds the valuation of housework. B questions the value of housework implied by A, and then questions A's motive for that implied valuation. None of this is strictly illogical.
We could imagine the argument being used for slavery in the 19th century:
A: You're racist, because you want blacks to work as slaves.
B: I love black people, and that's why I want them to be slaves -- because being a slave is fucking great! You only look down on slave work because it's what black people do, and you don't respect anything a black person does.
The only problem with this is that B is obviously lying, since no-one thinks being a slave is great. The problems with your example are that B is lying (no man arguing for gender inequality really thinks that housework is great, or else he'd do the housework himself) and also, as others have mentioned, that he might be purposefully missing the point of A's argument, by emphasizing "housework" and ignoring the aspect of force. To that extent it might be both a strawman and a red herring, but those are not strictly speaking "logical" fallacies and apply to much more than this specific type of argument.
posted by creasy boy at 3:33 AM on January 4, 2009
by stating that X is disadvantaged, you are disadvantaging X
I don't think you've summarized this correctly. The argument doesn't attribute a causal power to the opponent to actually disadvantage anyone. The argument simply states that women aren't in fact disadvantaged, and that the opponent falsely sees them as disadvantaged because of his prejudice against housework.
I would summarize the turn-around like this:
A: you value women less, because you would force them to do housework (which is implicitly of lesser value)
B: housework is of great value, and you only disparage it because women do it (who for you are implicitly of lesser value)
There's no logical fallacy here. B begins by questioning A's implicit evaluations -- here the value of housework. This is, in general, perfectly acceptable. People can rationally disagree about the value and the status of housework. At this point, the argument resembles a very typical sort of exchange: "It's just X", "What do you mean, 'just' X?"
B then uses his re-evaluation of housework to turn the accusation around. A had inferred from the value of housework (low) to B's alleged valuation of women (low, since he would force them to do housework). B infers from A's valuation of housework (low) to A's valuation of women (low); and at the same time, implicitly he infers from his valuation of housework (high) to his own valuation of women (high). The inference is not quite parallel. B argues that he thinks women are great, and that's why we wants them doing housework (which is great) and B also argues that A thinks women are bad, and that's why he thinks that what they do is bad. So according to B, B already thinks highly of both women and housework, and that's why he wants to put them together; whereas A begins by thinking badly of women, and this is then the reason why he thinks badly of housework. So rhetorically what's happened is that A had foregrounded the valuation of women, and B foregrounds the valuation of housework. B questions the value of housework implied by A, and then questions A's motive for that implied valuation. None of this is strictly illogical.
We could imagine the argument being used for slavery in the 19th century:
A: You're racist, because you want blacks to work as slaves.
B: I love black people, and that's why I want them to be slaves -- because being a slave is fucking great! You only look down on slave work because it's what black people do, and you don't respect anything a black person does.
The only problem with this is that B is obviously lying, since no-one thinks being a slave is great. The problems with your example are that B is lying (no man arguing for gender inequality really thinks that housework is great, or else he'd do the housework himself) and also, as others have mentioned, that he might be purposefully missing the point of A's argument, by emphasizing "housework" and ignoring the aspect of force. To that extent it might be both a strawman and a red herring, but those are not strictly speaking "logical" fallacies and apply to much more than this specific type of argument.
posted by creasy boy at 3:33 AM on January 4, 2009
I agree with a lot of your posting, creasy boy, but re: the notion that housework is inherently "worse" than other types of work, I know many educated, sophisticated, strong women who have very gladly retreated from the workplace to raise children at home, and a bunch of others who are chomping at the bit to do so. Among women who are less educated and sophisticated, I'd imagine that desire might be even greater, because few of the latter have challenging, fulfilling jobs they enjoy. For most people, even most educated people, work is a grind and a drag.
The hypothetical arguer is actually making two arguments (though they're compressed, which is why they're hard to decompact and analyze). First, it's the prejudices and preconceptions of his respondent that spur the respondent to devalue housework, and thus criticize the social order of the hypothetical country. And, second, that this devaluation inherently denigrates those who choose to do that work.
The first is a fair argument. Per above, there's no reason to conclude that housework is necessarily inferior work. If it were, free women would not choose it. And the second argument does logically follow...BUT there's a problem hinging on the word "choose": If we're talking about a system where there is no choice, then it's deceptive to point to "choices" made by the forcibly compelled. If, however, we're talking about a system where women do have a choice, though certain choices might flout custom and tradition (think America circa 1970), there is no fallacy in either argument. Though one could certainly argue (as was indeed argued in the 1970's) that women who choose to go with the flow ought to at least have their eyes opened to the full range of options available to them, because "choice" isn't really "choice" unless all factors of ignorance and social pressure are dissolved. Again, some women for whom those factors are dissolved do opt for housework. And, interestingly, there are feminists who DO demean their choice. Shoot, I tend look with perplexity at that decision (my niece, for example, was a biologist working effectively on water quality advocacy, but yearned mightily to give it all up and have babies, which she did, and now sends me frigging video of the tot every week drooling dazedly all over his toys). Shrug, that's their choice, absolutely. I dare not denigrate (except here, under anonymity).
Again, use the same argument form to deliver a point you agree with, and the seeming logical fallacy will vanish in a snap.
posted by jimmyjimjim at 7:40 AM on January 4, 2009
The hypothetical arguer is actually making two arguments (though they're compressed, which is why they're hard to decompact and analyze). First, it's the prejudices and preconceptions of his respondent that spur the respondent to devalue housework, and thus criticize the social order of the hypothetical country. And, second, that this devaluation inherently denigrates those who choose to do that work.
The first is a fair argument. Per above, there's no reason to conclude that housework is necessarily inferior work. If it were, free women would not choose it. And the second argument does logically follow...BUT there's a problem hinging on the word "choose": If we're talking about a system where there is no choice, then it's deceptive to point to "choices" made by the forcibly compelled. If, however, we're talking about a system where women do have a choice, though certain choices might flout custom and tradition (think America circa 1970), there is no fallacy in either argument. Though one could certainly argue (as was indeed argued in the 1970's) that women who choose to go with the flow ought to at least have their eyes opened to the full range of options available to them, because "choice" isn't really "choice" unless all factors of ignorance and social pressure are dissolved. Again, some women for whom those factors are dissolved do opt for housework. And, interestingly, there are feminists who DO demean their choice. Shoot, I tend look with perplexity at that decision (my niece, for example, was a biologist working effectively on water quality advocacy, but yearned mightily to give it all up and have babies, which she did, and now sends me frigging video of the tot every week drooling dazedly all over his toys). Shrug, that's their choice, absolutely. I dare not denigrate (except here, under anonymity).
Again, use the same argument form to deliver a point you agree with, and the seeming logical fallacy will vanish in a snap.
posted by jimmyjimjim at 7:40 AM on January 4, 2009
Jimmyjimjim -- I don't think we're in disagreement. I wasn't trying to express any personal opinion about the value of housework. The point is that the way B reframes the argument, A had been implicitly devaluing housework, and B claims to be more open-minded and place a higher value on housework. This reframing might be dishonest, depending on how A had phrased the argument -- emphasizing that women are forced to do housework, or that women are forced to do housework. If A had been emphasizing the force, then accusing him of devaluing housework is a strawman. Being forced to be an investment banker would be equally demeaning. But if A had in fact been arguing that the drudgery of housework symbolizes womens' low place in society, then B's response is formally unobjectionable. The only objection to it, in the real world, is that it's sophistical bullshit. I can't imagine any man arguing for gender inequality who's actually motivated by his enormous respect for both women and housework. Yes, there are ambitious and intelligent women who decide to stay home with the children, but there are no men insisting that women do housework out of respect for women because housework is such a fucking blessing. This is not a formal flaw in the argument, it's just a bullshit, disingenuous premise.
So the response would be two-fold: 1) the point is that women are forced to do housework, and it is the deprivation of choice that constitutes degrading treatment, not the nature of the activity (thus addressing the strawman), and 2) you're simply bullshitting us -- if you respect housework so much, why don't you do it yourself?
Ultimately this guy is trying to repackage sexism as selflessness, and that's simply not credible.
posted by creasy boy at 8:46 AM on January 4, 2009
So the response would be two-fold: 1) the point is that women are forced to do housework, and it is the deprivation of choice that constitutes degrading treatment, not the nature of the activity (thus addressing the strawman), and 2) you're simply bullshitting us -- if you respect housework so much, why don't you do it yourself?
Ultimately this guy is trying to repackage sexism as selflessness, and that's simply not credible.
posted by creasy boy at 8:46 AM on January 4, 2009
Expanding on gjc's point, consider this turnaround:
A: Parents should not deprive their children of the benefits of a traditional religious education
B: Depriving how? Are you saying that lack of religion is deprivation?
I suspect that moxiedoll's problem isn't really with the form of the argument so much as the point being argued. By using the same form to argue a point moxiedoll might agree with, the problem seems to vanish.
It's not entirely the same, because in this case, A would agree that a lack of religious education is a deprivation. It's an added level of complexity that only works in certain situations.
More like:
A- How can you raise your children to be Jewish and deprive them of the teachings of Jesus?
B- Are you saying that Judaism is a lesser religion than Christianity?
A is trying to say (assuming the best) that Jesus is a good guy and ought to be taught to children. But he made it about Judaism, inviting misdirection and confusion.
I think what's going on in these cases is each "side" is using their own fallacy. The A side is creating a false dichotomy, and the B side is either creating a straw man, or at least poorly defending against the false dichotomy.
posted by gjc at 8:48 AM on January 4, 2009
A: Parents should not deprive their children of the benefits of a traditional religious education
B: Depriving how? Are you saying that lack of religion is deprivation?
I suspect that moxiedoll's problem isn't really with the form of the argument so much as the point being argued. By using the same form to argue a point moxiedoll might agree with, the problem seems to vanish.
It's not entirely the same, because in this case, A would agree that a lack of religious education is a deprivation. It's an added level of complexity that only works in certain situations.
More like:
A- How can you raise your children to be Jewish and deprive them of the teachings of Jesus?
B- Are you saying that Judaism is a lesser religion than Christianity?
A is trying to say (assuming the best) that Jesus is a good guy and ought to be taught to children. But he made it about Judaism, inviting misdirection and confusion.
I think what's going on in these cases is each "side" is using their own fallacy. The A side is creating a false dichotomy, and the B side is either creating a straw man, or at least poorly defending against the false dichotomy.
posted by gjc at 8:48 AM on January 4, 2009
These responses are fantastic - thanks so much. It seems like there isn't a term for this particular trick, but the links provided are going to be really interesting.
Expanding on gjc's point, consider this turnaround:
A: Parents should not deprive their children of the benefits of a traditional religious education
B: Depriving how? Are you saying that lack of religion is deprivation?
I suspect that moxiedoll's problem isn't really with the form of the argument so much as the point being argued. By using the same form to argue a point moxiedoll might agree with, the problem seems to vanish.
To clarify: The argument I'm talking about requires two groups, and a form of oppression / discrimination / power imbalance / whatever. So in my first example, it isn't relevant that housework is awesome or that "free women choose it".... what matters is that boys and girls are tracked and separated by sex (which is clearly sexist), and the apologist for the policy accuses the critic of sexism. The slavery example creasyboy gave is perfect.
Another example: A church only allows native-born people to join. No immigrants allowed! So the kind of argument I'm thinking of would go:
Detractors of our policy seem to think that a person has to go to our church in order to worship properly, and that the immigrant community is comprised of lesser people than those in our congregation. Well, we reject that xenophobic thinking. Non-church-members are every bit as loved by God, and God smiles on their foreign practices every bit as much as he appreciates our worship at Church X.
posted by moxiedoll at 12:27 PM on January 4, 2009
Expanding on gjc's point, consider this turnaround:
A: Parents should not deprive their children of the benefits of a traditional religious education
B: Depriving how? Are you saying that lack of religion is deprivation?
I suspect that moxiedoll's problem isn't really with the form of the argument so much as the point being argued. By using the same form to argue a point moxiedoll might agree with, the problem seems to vanish.
To clarify: The argument I'm talking about requires two groups, and a form of oppression / discrimination / power imbalance / whatever. So in my first example, it isn't relevant that housework is awesome or that "free women choose it".... what matters is that boys and girls are tracked and separated by sex (which is clearly sexist), and the apologist for the policy accuses the critic of sexism. The slavery example creasyboy gave is perfect.
Another example: A church only allows native-born people to join. No immigrants allowed! So the kind of argument I'm thinking of would go:
Detractors of our policy seem to think that a person has to go to our church in order to worship properly, and that the immigrant community is comprised of lesser people than those in our congregation. Well, we reject that xenophobic thinking. Non-church-members are every bit as loved by God, and God smiles on their foreign practices every bit as much as he appreciates our worship at Church X.
posted by moxiedoll at 12:27 PM on January 4, 2009
You know, I think your new example makes it more clear that it's not a logical fallacy -- it's just a specific kind of sophistry or arguing in bad faith.
When the church excludes foreigners, everyone assumes that this is a devaluation of foreigners -- it's just the most natural way to see it. People assume that the church sees admitting people into its ranks as good, and everyone assumes that excluding people from the church is a sign of disapproval. But none of this is logically necessary, it's just normal human psychology.
In your argument, the church then suddenly claims that their exclusion of foreigners has nothing to do with any value judgment of any kind -- presumably their exclusion of foreigners is an arbitrary rule and does not signal approval or condemnation. This is possible, of course; people do in some situations set up arbitrary rules without any associated value judgments. But in this situation it's unbelievable, because everything we know about churches and group dynamics, and creating feelings of solidarity and belonging by excluding others, and religious notions of virtue and being chosen peoples or receiving grace or being 'on the right path', etc., suggests that of course the church thinks that being in the church is better than not being in the church. Of course this must be a value judgment. It's not logically necessary, it's just very far-fetched to claim otherwise.
The church then asks where this assumption came from, and tries to blame it on us. According to them, I must subconsciously want to belong to the church, and that's why, in criticizing the church, I'm implicitly assuming a value judgment where the church makes no value judgment -- and hence I am the one who ends up looking down on foreigners. Or: I must subconsciously look down on foreigners, and that's why I naturally take their exclusion as a sign of devaluation, even though the church makes no such judgment and never did. (Similarly, in the sexism example: even though I'm criticizing what I see as sexism, I must be subconsciously sexist, and that's why I look down on women's work). This is also not a logically impossible situation; but practically it's just a ridiculous accusation that no-one seriously believes. It's disingenuous.
It basically amounts explaining one's own motives and infering the other's motives, which is fine in principle, but in this case done in a ridiculous, non-credible, very self-serving fashion. It's just turning the accusation around with non-credible attributions of motive.
It's also not really an ad hominem either, at least not an inappropriate one. If the argument is about which position is sexist/xenophobic, then proving that your opponent is actually sexist/xenophobic would be entirely relevant to the argument.
That's my opinion at any rate. I'm sorry I took so long to explain it.
posted by creasy boy at 1:04 PM on January 4, 2009
When the church excludes foreigners, everyone assumes that this is a devaluation of foreigners -- it's just the most natural way to see it. People assume that the church sees admitting people into its ranks as good, and everyone assumes that excluding people from the church is a sign of disapproval. But none of this is logically necessary, it's just normal human psychology.
In your argument, the church then suddenly claims that their exclusion of foreigners has nothing to do with any value judgment of any kind -- presumably their exclusion of foreigners is an arbitrary rule and does not signal approval or condemnation. This is possible, of course; people do in some situations set up arbitrary rules without any associated value judgments. But in this situation it's unbelievable, because everything we know about churches and group dynamics, and creating feelings of solidarity and belonging by excluding others, and religious notions of virtue and being chosen peoples or receiving grace or being 'on the right path', etc., suggests that of course the church thinks that being in the church is better than not being in the church. Of course this must be a value judgment. It's not logically necessary, it's just very far-fetched to claim otherwise.
The church then asks where this assumption came from, and tries to blame it on us. According to them, I must subconsciously want to belong to the church, and that's why, in criticizing the church, I'm implicitly assuming a value judgment where the church makes no value judgment -- and hence I am the one who ends up looking down on foreigners. Or: I must subconsciously look down on foreigners, and that's why I naturally take their exclusion as a sign of devaluation, even though the church makes no such judgment and never did. (Similarly, in the sexism example: even though I'm criticizing what I see as sexism, I must be subconsciously sexist, and that's why I look down on women's work). This is also not a logically impossible situation; but practically it's just a ridiculous accusation that no-one seriously believes. It's disingenuous.
It basically amounts explaining one's own motives and infering the other's motives, which is fine in principle, but in this case done in a ridiculous, non-credible, very self-serving fashion. It's just turning the accusation around with non-credible attributions of motive.
It's also not really an ad hominem either, at least not an inappropriate one. If the argument is about which position is sexist/xenophobic, then proving that your opponent is actually sexist/xenophobic would be entirely relevant to the argument.
That's my opinion at any rate. I'm sorry I took so long to explain it.
posted by creasy boy at 1:04 PM on January 4, 2009
Agreed. There's a difference between being an a$$hole and engaging in formal logical fallacy, and what you're talking about is mostly just being an a$$hole. Not all forms of a$$holery have a name...
posted by jimmyjimjim at 5:54 PM on January 4, 2009
posted by jimmyjimjim at 5:54 PM on January 4, 2009
Yes, sophistry or "bad faith" argumentation. Sophistry is a faster way to dismiss those arguments.
posted by klangklangston at 7:09 PM on January 4, 2009
posted by klangklangston at 7:09 PM on January 4, 2009
I like all the logic answers, but I just want to throw in my pennies for the psychological phenomenon. This argument is a defense mechanism is an extremely effective logical fallacy (see Republican Party)that incorporates denial and creates an us-vs.-them in-group-type solidarity based on the projecting their own 'sexism' onto the opposing group. It's especially damaging because it is based on bad faith, which many people do not have the critical thinking to refute on a logical basis.
posted by mynameismandab at 1:35 AM on January 10, 2009
posted by mynameismandab at 1:35 AM on January 10, 2009
« Older Save me from the audio snake oil salesmen. | How to keep leather handbag looking like new? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by crapmatic at 3:06 PM on January 3, 2009