Are we that devoid of logical argument?

 

     I thought I would try and leave things alone for a while, but something has been bugging me a lot recently.  It’s something I put into the ‘pet peeve’ department, but also tends to fall into logical fallacy territory.  My title is essentially a question due to my personal observation that all argumentation seems to consist solely of personal attacks.

     Personal attacks generally speaking fall into the category of the ‘ad hominem’ attack (ad hominem is Latin for ‘to the man’).  Why is this considered a logical fallacy?  The person’s character, or personality, has absolutely nothing to do with the argument or line of reasoning they are putting forth.  When you attack the person, you are completely avoiding their argument.

    Looking at modern applications of personal attacks (I’ll use this instead of ad hominem), many people would point to Saul Alinsky.  His book ‘Rules for Radicals’ list techniques that I believe fall under the category of personal attack.  Ridicule - "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."  Also listed is the ‘rule’ of Picking the target, freezing it, personalizing it, and polarizing it  - "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'... "...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When you 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...' "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other."  Now, we can sit here in front of our computers and agree these techniques do not follow logic and avoid the argument (whatever the argument may be), however we need to keep in mind this book and rules weren’t designed for Toastmasters or debate club.  They were designed to help people attempting to change their local community or society in general.

     Some people may be nodding their head sagely at this point.  After all, I am pointing out someone they despise as an example of what personal attacks are and showing it as lacking in logical framework and generally bad.  Hang on though, here’s where I jump the tracks, go off the reservation, and become an equal opportunity alienator (is that a word?).

     You can pick any number of issues today.  No matter which one, both sides are solely relying on personal attacks (and using Alinsky’s methods) in their attempts to sway opinion.  Now I can only speak for myself, but if that is the way you are going to go, you’ve lost me.  To me, that shows you have no confidence in your argument, and I shouldn’t listen to you.  By the same token, calling your opponents stupid, ugly, smelly, ignorant, Neanderthal, or any other derogatory terms, loses me as well.  It goes back to the above paragraph.  If you can’t argue against the statement, or line of reasoning, but instead you call your opponent names, you lose me.

     Another method of personal attack (I call it that, but not sure if others would) is to twist the words of your opponent and throw it back at them.  That aggravates me almost as much as the name calling.  You can’t use your own words to challenge or refute the argument, but manipulate others?  I lose respect for you, and also lose respect for your argument or position.

What to do, what to do…..

 

     I keep telling myself I should leave government, politics, society, etc. alone because I end up getting frustrated.  But this has been on my mind and I just can’t seem to leave it alone, so here goes….

     More and more often these days, it seems to be an interesting (to say the least) time to be alive.  Looking around, there are diverging, and yet simultaneously converging stories and issues:  from the ‘Occupy Wall Street/local town’ phenomenon to bank and lending/borrowing issues, budget discussions (and the attendant hyper-rhetoric, we are coming up on election season again – or did it never go away?), to the continuing War on Terror, there are many different forces and elements working what appear on the surface to be different issues.  Many of them deal with different aspects of money and economics.  We here in the United States are currently dealing with very difficult times with no immediate indication of their end.  Generally speaking, we want to find out what went wrong and ‘fix’ it.  However, there is no agreement on the problem, and many different groups have solutions that are polar opposites of each other.  As I see it, in order for us as a country to identify the problem, we need to discuss and agree on the answer to this question:  what do we want the government to do?  How we answer this question will ultimately determine what the problem is, and what to do to fix it.

     There are those who feel the current system does not do enough for its citizens.  Generally speaking, they believe the focus and primary concerns of the state need to be adjusted in order to do more for those less fortunate and those fortunate enough to take care of themselves need to assist.  There are also those who feel the current system has been ‘hijacked’ from its original purpose and are doing too much.  They believe the focus and primary concerns of the state need to be brought back to when our country was founded.  They currently oppose each other on many fronts, and there may be some very disconcerting and distressing times ahead for everyone before this is all over.

    The economic issues we face as a nation, and the question I posed above, are not unique either in American or World history.  Nations have struggled with ‘debt’ and financing what it deems necessary since the concept of money, trade, and buying were conceived.  Most notably, ancient Rome and Greece struggled over many years (in fact it stretched over centuries) to define and determine what governments were supposed to do, what their powers were, and who should have that power.  Both societies moved from oligarchies or monarchies to representative forms of government (a republic or democracy).  At times, this struggle became strident (either in revolts or in the case of the Romans ‘secessions’) and could be classified in today’s language as ‘class warfare’.

     While there are easily recognizable differences between the issues of the ancient Romans and Greeks (hey, aren’t they having issues again?) and today’s America, there are some disturbing similarities.  Like the Late Roman Republic, who wins political office depends more on money than talent for governance.  Those who make the decisions about our country are driven more by those who paid to get them into office rather than who they are supposed to represent.  Like both ancient cultures, power seems to reside with a small contingent of the population, like an oligarchy.  Eventually, the governmental systems in ancient Greece and Rome changed because the systems in practice no longer worked or were outdated.  The direction they went (more or less freedom, using our modern definitions) depended on what system (democracy/republic or monarchy/oligarchy) was in place, if there was an invasion/war going on, and the specific subject of concern.  Are we looking at that sort of fundamental change coming for our country in the near future?  I honestly don’t know. 

     I have my own conflicting thoughts and feelings on the matter, and I’m not going to get into them.  We as a country need to address what we expect of our government to do.  I am concerned that we as a nation do not have a good track record regarding discussions (the American Civil War and the more recent ‘discussions’ regarding abortion as examples).  The ‘discussion’ turns into a conflict and the final ‘answer’ is forced on everyone.  I’d like it to be different , just once.  I’m not going to hold my breath on that one, though.