More Logical Fallacies

My brother had an online chat room or comments section argument with a guy he thought was a moron. He was frustrated by the exchange and described to me what the other guy said that he thought was shutting down the argument and playing the winning card, which was "You just don't like anything that Obama does, so no wonder you don't like health care."

He told me he accused the guy of circular logic, then went online to find support for his accusation and could not find any references to it. He asked for my help finding it.

Here's what I wrote back:

What you are describing is not circular logic, it's called an ad hominem attack, and embedded in it is a ad hominem attack.

Ad Hominem is when you attack the person, not what the person said or did, "You can't trust Obama because he's a socialist muslim" as opposed to: "You can't trust this health care reform because it is a giveaway to the insurance companies and doesn't protect the little guy"

Actually, that second one is my argument. A conservative would say that it hurts business, doesn't limit lawsuits, doesn't pay for itself, or is due to expand the deficit.

Circular reasoning may be what you have in mind. That's supporting a premise with a premise, and it's a logical fallacy too. For example, "You can't trust Obama because he's untrustworthy (someone would probably actually say a liar - but mine is an over obvious example)." This is not exactly what the person attacking the right winger by saying "you just don't like anything they do" is doing.

What is actually happening here is called a fallacy of relevance. In other words, so what if you don't like Obama? If you emotionally tend to hate everything Obama says, you might still rationally have valid reasons for not liking something specific that he did. Just like strong Obama supporters who are actually paying attention to the issues will occasionally find things he's doing that they don't support. We just lived through 8 years of this under Bush, and now that the leadership has turned over, people are using the same tired arguments that were used against them to the same effect.

Specifically, what you have addressed is probably more of a genetic fallacy. This is where someone would argue, "You're prejudiced against Obama, so everything you say is BS. This is in contrast to the opposite of an appeal to popularity (everyone likes it: so it must be true - the opposite is: everyone hates it, so it must be false).

In a way, the example you site is an accusation of biased authority. That's where you don't argue whether or not the person is knowledgeable, you just say they are biased, so the opinion they express is incorrect. Bias is enough to suspect the conclusions a person makes and double check them, but it's not enough to outright reject any opinion they express on a subject that they oppose.

None of this can be put into a chat room. Any argument with any hope of expressing the truth will be too long for the character limitations and minuscule attention spans of the twittering masses.

In reality, it's what always happens in chat rooms, people questioning each other's veracity and motives rather than arguing the issues. In my opinion, it is what right wing talk radio and Fox News are built on. Short on facts, long on emotion. It's a smoke screen that many of our elected officials try to get people lost in while they corruptly pilfer our pockets and mismanage the affairs of the country to enrich themselves.

The problem is, our elected officials rarely try to fix what is wrong with our country, regardless of whether it's popular or not. They usually try to win the next election, regardless of whether their actions are good for the country that elected them. They mistakenly (actually, it's only a mistake in ideal terms, in reality it works perfectly) believe that they must cater to their party machinery and big well-financed special interests in order to win elections. If we only voted based on a rational clear analysis of what officials did or say they are going to do, we would eventually get good professional politicians that would usher the country into a position of strong security where people were free, fulfilled, and prosperous. Good luck with that.

Mean but True

I listen to a podcast called Princeton Review, LSAT Logic in Everyday Life. They break down issues in a logical way to hopefully make rational arguments for things. Andrew Brody, the podcast host, takes questions from listeners and got an interesting one via email.

This man wrote to say that a woman in their group of friends loved the sport of character assassination. She loved to comment on the worst traits and shortcomings of others. When someone in the group would respond that her comments were mean, she remarked that "It's not mean if it's true." The writer was bothered by this but did not know how to respond to her to shut her down.


Brody dissected the statement logically, "if true = not mean" and said to test it by making the inverse. Does that mean that all mean statements are false? Would you go to the hospital to visit someone that was dying and walk in and say "You look terrible, you look like you are going to die"? While true, it's a very mean thing to say. He further broke down the meaning of mean. Mean statements were more of an intent than a statement of truth. Why are you saying it.

In the end, my initial response was what I stuck with. It's true and mean. Saying it's not mean because it's true isn't a statement of a fundamental principle, but an excuse for bad behavior. She was justifying her desire to be catty, and trying to erase her conscious inhibitions against doing what she loved.

It makes me think further of when it is appropriate to point out sad, uncomfortable, or unkind truths. By ignoring the reality of the situation, sometimes this allows it to continue. We had this discussion at work over walking around with your zipper open. It's much better to be told, even though it's embarrassing, than to walk around with your pants unzipped. The same can be said for having food on your face. However, what about bad breath? That's a tougher one. I usually offer gum to the person if I'm trapped in close quarters (they don't always take it). The Savage Love podcast by Dan Savage often features Dan ranting about how you have an obligation to tell your friends when they are making big mistakes in their relationships. He concedes that sometimes you'll lose them as a friend, but it's better than letting them get married to the wrong person, for example. That's an extreme example, both where the desire to point out something is so clearly central to the well-being of a person, yet at the same time so huge and serious that it probably rarely gets done.

While in business and science, I believe that facing problems is the only way to solve them, I think the central issue here is just personal observations, matters of style for example. I don't know if I always want the truth myself. I guess you have to turn it around and try not to be hurt or offended if you're ever on the receiving end of a painful truth. Try to be thankful for the assistance and not embarrassed at the insult. And that's the cruel truth.