Red Pen Logic Lesson

From now on, I think my response to "arguments" relating to the so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act and opposition to it will be something like:

I encourage you to feel free in the future to solicit my estimation if you should come up with an argument, but in the mean time it is perhaps best for you to reflect on your statement yourself:
"I hate [appeal to emotion fallacy] to break it to you [ad hominem fallacy, i.e., I am ignorant and/or delusional, which may be true of me but does not bear on the position which presupposes the following facts], but 31 [ad populum fallacy, anecdotal fallacy] other states [ad auctoritate fallacymasked man fallacy] have similar laws [masked man fallacy], not to mention [lie, you are doing so] Bill Clinton [ad autoritate, anecdotal, factually misleading] put a similar law [masked man] into effect in 1993 [ad antiquitatem fallacy, anecdotal]."
Thus [benefit of doubt, assuming you are attempting to make an argument]: if a law is acceptable it is common/traditional/made by a respected authority [unwarranted assumption fallacy, assuming it is not a vacuous truth fallacy]; similar laws are common/etc [FACT(!) ergo my problem(!)]; therefore, this law is common/etc [masked man fallacy, FALSE]; therefore, it *is* acceptable [converse fallacy]; therefore, you *ought* to accept it [naturalistic fallacy, illicit substitution]. In other words [by LOGICAL implication, presupposition, and pragmatic implicature], it is my unreasoned opinion that you should accept things as they are [granted that that is in fact your opinion, at least as stated obscurely, but it is MOOT ergo the position you are responding to] and I am telling you this because I cannot accept your position as it is and believe you should change it [tu quoque fallacy, a fancy Latin phrase meaning 'you're a hypocrite and a fool'] and I do not realize that everything I just said is precisely why you think there should be change [I can't say that I hate to break it to you: idiotic].

A few months ago, marriage discrimination against gay couples was enshrined as law by more than these 32 states and the Federal government (also by means of a bill put on the desk of Clinton by an antagonist Republican Congress that was attempting to impeach him). A few decades ago, marriage discrimination against mixed race couples was law in the overwhelming majority of states making the repeated attempts at Federal Constitutional amendment superfluous. A few decades ago, racial discrimination was the law of the land. Less than century ago, women were disenfranchised, with only Utah (thank you, Mormons!) having had woman's suffrage.

31 states, the Federal government and my home outdoing them all, you say? I know! That's why I want that to change. It goes without saying that the change I would like to see is contrary to the position of those who do not want change; it's presupposed, logically. And, I have a red pen to break this to you if necessary.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.