a ruminative polymath.

HEY SAWBONES: Clever Ways to Invalidate your own Arguments, Part I

heysawbones:

• “You’re just jealous.” There’s a possibility that your opponent is, in fact, just jealous, but that doesn’t affect the accuracy or inaccuracy of what they’re saying. There’s also a huge chance that they aren’t jealous at all. I’d go as far as to say that the likelihood is that they aren’t jealous. “You’re just jealous” is neither a good logical argument, nor a very witty rebuttal. Now you look like a whiny baby with an inflated ego.

• “You’re white/ambidextrous/female/male/too young/Latino/etc., so you are this way.” There’s a lot of things that being a particular ethnicity, nationality or _____ may imply, many of which are probably relevant to whatever you are discussing. The label itself is far less likely to be relevant than implications of socioeconomic status, privilege, education level, shared cultural experiences, etc. It’s much better to form an argument around those specific traits than it is to form an argument around an umbrella that you assume always covers those traits. Assuming/arguing that a person is/acts/believes/has experienced _______ because they can be described by certain traits (not of their choosing) is an example of a Composition Fallacy. But even then,

• “You’re rich/you went to a good school/you had a nice family/your parents bought your car/paid for your college education, therefore, you are wrong.” This is a whole bucket full of logical fallacies: Ad Hominem, Composition, Genetic Fallacy, and when used intentionally, makes a wonderfully distracting Red Herring. Neither your exposure to a particular experience, nor somebody else’s lack of said exposure dictates whether either one of you is right or wrong. The only thing that determines whether you are right or wrong, is whether you are right or wrong. Where you come from hasn’t got a damn thing to with ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, when it comes down to it. A poor person doesn’t necessarily have the best solutions to poverty, despite having personal experience with the problem. A bus driver might not be the best at route planning, despite driving routes every day. Are you informed? Is your position logically sound? Does it hold up to repeated beatings? You got there without resorting to logical fallacies? If you can say “yes” to those questions, then good. That’s what matters. Winning the argument by proper means doesn’t necessarily mean you are right, but it makes it a lot more likely than claiming affiliation with a particular label does.

• “You care too much.” Things don’t get done in a world where people don’t care. Progress is not made. The individual does not improve themselves. The vast majority of the time, seeing people pepper their speech or posts with the phrase I don’t care, or realizing that the concept is the foundation of their online persona just elicits a headshake from me. It’s like a litmus test for insecurity, a white flagof sorts.
  
  It doesn’t make you look like a jaded, cosmopolitan traveler of the world. It doesn’t make you Clint Eastwood. It makes you look like your ability to defend your beliefs and assertions is so staggeringly weak that you’ve given up on it entirely. 
  
  Screw having to defend my beliefs when I can just make the other person look like a simpering dork for even caring, right? I mean, gosh, defending myself on the basis of ideas requires all this creative problem-solving and critical thinking, that’s so hard when I can just hurl meaningless accusations at people that are, for some reason, accepted, even though they would be seen as absurd in any other context.
  
  When conversations - even contentious ones - amount to two seven-year-olds standing on the playground and shouting,
  
  “I DON’T CARE!”
  “YOU DO! I DON’T CARE MORE!”
  “I DON’T CARE HARDER!”
  
  That’s not a suave victory. That’s sad. And all of the people who would admire you for it are sad, too. I’d also like to point out the obvious: the accusation just doesn’t make any sense. It’s also a really blatant Ad Hominem attack.