Fallacy of Exclusive Something-Or-Other?

[jackofallgeeks]

It strikes me that many of the most clearly-spoken yet passionate advocates of any cause or idea at all tend toward the same (apparent) fallacy. That is, they group all of their opponents into one camp or another, mentally dissect each camp, and then claim victory because they "know why the enemy doesn't understand." Maybe that's the main flaw there -- that they decide the enemy doesn't understand, and then go one to prove to themselves that the enemy can't understand.

Well, what about those who do understand, but are still the enemy? Obviously that beast can't exist, as it's been shown that either you are the enemy and don't understand, or you understand and are not the enemy.

I don't know, I'm not being very clear. I could point to This Comment as a recent example of what I've noticed, but that would tip my hand, and spill the beans, and let the proverbial cat out of the proverbial bag...

(As a note, I'm not saying anything about Furries or what not, I'm not pointing to his argument and saying "See? That bothers me." I've seen it here and in talks about Abortion (both sides) and Gay Rights and everything...)

Comments

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

This is the structure of Socrates' argument in... I wanna say Protagoras. No one truly desires evil - those who seem to desire evil really desire good, but do not understand what it is; if we could correct their errors of perception, they would agree with us.

Just saying.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

Mmmmm, I don't *think* that's quite on the same level, though I can't really pick out why.

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

I think it is, roughly at least. The argument structure is basically:

- No one could possibly rationally disagree with my position.
- My interlocutor disagrees with my position.
- Therefore, my interlocutor must be suffering from some irrationality - I shall diagnose it!
- Aha, my interlocutor is suffering from irrationality X [which leads to mistaken belief Y]. The appropriate way to continue is not to give them *reasons* to agree, which they have already, but to point out and/or free them of irrationality X.

This is, sometimes, arrogant (though also sometimes true). Part of what may be bothering you is that it is a sort of change of subject - it changes a project of *rational* persuasion into a strictly rhetorical project, or one of psychological manipulation. It's a shift from what Dennett calls the "intentional stance" (my interlocutor is a being susceptible to reasons) to the "design stance" (my interlocutor is like a machine with certain specifications, and I must repair it). Most of us consider it at least a little bit offensive to be dealt with from the design stance without good reason (and sometimes even then).

[aiglet.livejournal.com]

Part of that, at least, is that some of the "when you say X you mean Y" type analysis is based in real experiences that people have had -- they've met someone saying X and when they drilled down to what they were actually talking about, what they really meant was Y.

Another part of it is that a lot of the justifications people give seem odd to the other person, so they want it to be something else that makes more sense to *them*. For example, a lot of people who are anti-gay-rights say that they're that way because "God told them to be." People like me, who don't believe in that God or who are agnostic or atheists, think that's a rather incomprehensible reason to be denying someone civil (note, not religious) rights, and so they make it into an argument about "fear" or some other thing that we understand better than we might understand voluntarily believing in a deity that thinks that large chunks of the population aren't worthy of being allowed to visit each other in the hospital if one of them gets sick. (I know that's a hot button issue, but I think that this particular rhetorical device really only gets used for things that one or both parties feel strongly about -- I don't particularly care if you don't like cheese because you think that it's got bizarre cow hormones in it, all that means is more for me.)

Not that any of this makes it a more *useful* or *acceptable* rhetorical technique, but that's why I've seen it done, in the main.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

As you said at the end, it doesn't change the fact that it's flawwed. The why's behind why someone would try to rationalize their own superior enlightenment over 'the enemy' doesn't concern me; it's the fact that they set themselves up as enlightened over 'the enemy' that bothers me.

Or something. Not thinking very clearly this morning.  ^_^;;

[aiglet.livejournal.com]

Mmmmm, you misunderstand me. I'm trying to point out that it's not about enlightenment, it's about understanding.

People don't transform their opponents' arguments because they think that the one they want the other person to be using is a more "enlightened" position or because they think that arguing against their restatement makes them look better, they do it because they don't understand how to take their opponents' arguments at face value because the face value argument doesn't make sense to them.

I think that you're trying to impose a value judgement that isn't there -- I don't think I'm a better person than a hypothetical debate opponent of mine who opposes gay rights, I just don't necessarily have it in myself to understand why they would believe what they do, and it's easier to answer an argument I can understand. (On top of which, "God says so" isn't really a debatable position -- there's nothing there I can work with or attack or anything. If you think a certain way because "God says so," then the only thing I can do is wait for God to change your mind. It's a worthless debate argument.)

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

OK, but now I think you've misunderstood my whole point from the beginning -- changing what position your arguing against is fine. And you're right that you can't argue something as blind-ended as "God Said So" -- which I think is a horribly useless and uneducated position to have; at best it's a holding place until you know more, at worst it's a blindfold to prevent any further thought or discussion at all. But that's neither here nor there.

Did you read the example comment? I don't think I can accurately express what it is that bothers me; it's one of those 'I know it when I see it' sort of things. To stay with your Gay Right analogy, it'd be something like saying everyone who was against Gay Rights was either stupid or repressed, period. Like I said, I can't accurately express it...

[aiglet.livejournal.com]

Yes, I read your example comment. It looked to me like someone trying to find a justification for what they saw as an untenable position, along with a little bit of somewhat bitter commentary on behavior they've seen that resemebled the one they were trying to justify and why they saw it at the time.