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

[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.