"Maskies are the real science deniers" implies that the peer-reviewed "findings" of careerist researchers are the standard of truth.
"It takes way more faith to be an atheist than a Christian" implies that "faith" is something irrational and undesirable.
(On the other side, an atheist saying, "The Bible doesn't say anything about abortion," implies that the Bible is the source of moral standards.)
I know such statements are often an attempt to "meet people where they're at," or to prove something by argumentum a fortiori ("Even if I accept your assumptions, you're still wrong!"), but I think the actual effect of such rhetoric is almost always to further entrench assumptions that ought to be challenged directly.
7 comments:
Very good point. If you express yourself in the language and ideological framework of your opponent you have already conceded ground to him.
Very good point. Fallen into that trap on several occasions. Not even sure that I’ve even considered this before. A valuable lesson. Avoiding this trap is going to take some serious presence of mind and self discipline. Thanks for that.
The pro-life movement is unfortunately mired in this bad take. Arguments like "abortion is bad because it makes women depressed and hurts their life satisfaction" or "women who have abortion are more likely to use drugs and have lower incomes"
@Mr. Andrew
Exactly. As if we could make something illegal on the grounds that it makes some women depressed!
In my opinion, even the label “pro-life” (as opposed to “anti-abortion”) is a mistake, as it implies that opposition to abortion is unseemly and requires the use of euphemisms.
https://wmjas.wordpress.com/2012/11/06/the-strange-double-euphemization-of-abortion/
Yes, pro-life isn't good either. Layers of euphemism. If Catholics would use honest rhetoric, we would say "I'm against murdering babies" & opponents would go into the nonsense about clumps of cells - but the point would be sunk home.
My honest opinion "I'm against baby murder because it's a modern form of demonic child sacrifice" makes me look a bit kookish to most people though.
https://babylonbee.com/news/moloch-says-he-may-rethink-presence-in-georgia-if-anti-abortion-bill-goes-into-effect
Well, those people probably already assume that your opposition to abortion is rooted in some "kooky" Bronze-Age superstition anyway, so why not own it? Actually, making someone defend themselves against such an over-the-top accusation may be an effective way of wrong-footing them and getting them to concede ground. ("It's killing a fetus, not a baby; and we don't do it to appease demons, we do it for our own convenience...")
@Wm - Totally agree with your main point here. Something I learned the hard way - when I was sacked from Medical Hypotheses.
There it was that the enemy had so many false assumptions about the nature of science, that while I could refute one of them it made no difference because the others were still intact. And if/ when I switched to another false assumptions they would 'forget' that the first one had been refuted - so I was back at the beginning again.
This is what happens with birdemic arguments. I lose them all because (to simplify) if I argued against the false statistics of the scale of problem, they would meanwhile still be assuming it was a *deadly* plague - and if I switched to refuting social distancing/ lockdown then they would still be assuming that this was a special/ new/ unique kind of threat etc. It was a 'whack a mole' situation.
But this is the norm in a situation where people are not seeking truth and do not believe in a real-reality - where personal expediency is the bottom line.
That is why I have decided to go no further than 'It is an Evil Lie from top to bottom' - then try to disengage.
Post a Comment