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.

[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.