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.