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).