File this under “casting pearls before swine”, but I’ve finally snapped.
The Twin Cities’ “alternative” media is where logic goes to die.
So today will be the first of a 2,000 part series trying to introduce bloggers (and I’ll say “of all stripes”, but we all know who I really mean) to some of the rudiments of carrying on a logical argument.
(And yes, a few conservative bloggers as well. Illogic isn’t the exclusive province of “progressive” bloggers. Not at all.
Today’s installment: the Tu Quoque Ad Hominem.
With the “Marriage Amendment” working its way through the Legislature, and likely to not only get through but win big in the fall of 2012, the usual framing is underway from the left.
In and among the usual (“bigot!” “Hateful!” and so on) comes the question “I wonder how many of the people voting for this amendment are divorced? Why should they be telling anyone about marriage?”
Leaving aside that that only makes sense if you presume that gay marriage is immune from divorce – and it is not – it’s an example of the Tu Quoque Ad Hominem – which presumes that if someone has ever said, done or believed anything different than what they are currently arguing, then the current argument is wrong.
Now it’s true that, all other things being equal, only one of the two positions can be right (if, indeed, they are black and white, right or wrong issues with no gray areas, which accounts for rather few things in real life) – but that has nothing to do with whether the current position is, in and of itself, wrong.
The fact that someone’s earlier positions, statements or actions disagree with a current position, statement or action could stem from lots of things; that the person has changed their position for good reason; that they’ve grown, either as a human being or “in office”; that that he or she is a hypocrite (meaning “holds other people to moral positions to which they don’t hold themselves”), that he or she merely hasn’t thought things through all that well, or that they’re just plain flip-flopping. Or maybe more than one of them. Whichever – it doesn’t, in and of itself, invalidate their current argument.
There may be other reasons the argument is invalid – reasonable people can disagree on, to go back to the original example, gay marriage; some may even change their positions over time. But some prior inconsistency doesn’t even make, much less prove, the case.
Go forth and sin no more.
You’re welcome.
(It’s about this point that some joyless scold – I’m thinking “Tild” or “Spotty” or “Minnesota Observer”, will dig diligently through my blog and find some example of me using exactly this logical fallacy – in effect, saying “Mitch Berg shouldn’t be yapping about logic, since he has been illogical”. And the circle turns).
An excellent start!
Thank you. This one is a key part of any liberal’s arsenal.
It would seem to be consistent reasoning that I see here, where the only sources that are accepted are conservative, and those are believed on the basis of ideology, not fact checking to see if they are in fact correct.
This is not correctly criticizing a group of bloggers based on their politics as guilty of this; there are many, not just a few, conservatives who are guilty of it. It seems your usual attempt is to create associations which in fact have no significant correlation, much less causation.
The marriage amendment reflects a disappearing bias against same sex couples. The premises for that bias discriminating against those couples are that 1. they engage in anal or oral sex acts usually encompassed by outdated and no longer applicable sodomy laws – which is something engaged in by heterosexual couples as well; 2. the only basis for marriage is traditional heterosexual reproduction, and if you can’t do that you shouldn’t be allowed to marry; 3. we have to follow carefully cherry picked judeo-christian practice in our laws.
None of those are legitimate reasons to deny same sex couples who in all other respects than their gender act as a committed marreid couple that RIGHT. It is NOT a privilege. Those who lack the option to become married if they wish to enter a committed, loving, marriage contract, including raising children, are treated both differently and as lesser or second class citizens. That IS hateful, bad, and wrong.
I am a conservative, I am against legally recognized gay marriage, and I am against legally recognized gay marriage for none of the reasons Dog Gone lists:
“The premises for that bias discriminating against those couples are that 1. they engage in anal or oral sex acts usually encompassed by outdated and no longer applicable sodomy laws – which is something engaged in by heterosexual couples as well; 2. the only basis for marriage is traditional heterosexual reproduction, and if you can’t do that you shouldn’t be allowed to marry; 3. we have to follow carefully cherry picked judeo-christian practice in our laws.”
You’ve been FACT CHECKED!, Dog Gone.
You failed to follow the principle of charity in considering your opponent’s arguments, Dog Gone. You are not a good debater.
1. they engage in anal or oral sex acts usually encompassed by outdated and no longer applicable sodomy laws – which is something engaged in by heterosexual couples as well;
Sodomy, in its traditional sense, is sexual gratification by any means intentionally designed to frustrate reproduction. You seem to adhere to the legal definition of sodomy here, which is derived from the older religious and moral use of the word.
2. the only basis for marriage is traditional heterosexual reproduction, and if you can’t do that you shouldn’t be allowed to marry;
I don’t know of anyone who is against infertile couples being allowed to marry, as long as the couple consists of an adult man and an adult woman.
FYI, if you find a case of non-heterosexual reproduction, let me know.
3. we have to follow carefully cherry picked judeo-christian practice in our laws.
The world is full of non-judeo-christian cultures. None of them allow gay marriage.
Too funny. Dog Gone first asserts “and those are believed on the basis of ideology, not fact checking to see if they are in fact correct without providing any substantiating evidence.
The Dog Gone claims “The marriage amendment reflects a disappearing bias against same sex couples. without providing any substantiating evidence.
Physician heal thyself. You are a hypocrite.
The marriage amendment reflects a disappearing bias against same sex couples.
Then why have same-sex marriage laws and amendments passed (often by overwhelming majority) in almost every state they’ve ever been voted on by the general population?
The “disappearing bias” claim seems to me, to be a variation of the Pauline Kael effect at work here.
Yes, Bill C, the “disappearing bias” seems to lie within the small and shrinking number of liberals.
Pity the liberals. They must always be in the minority (you’re not progressive when you hold mundane views), yet they must give lip service to the basic republican notion that the people must rule themselves.
DG wrote:
“None of those are legitimate reasons to deny same sex couples who in all other respects than their gender act as a committed [married] couple that RIGHT. It is NOT a privilege.”
You need a marriage license to have your marriage recognized by the state – and rights are not licensed.
Some other facts, DG:
1. The accepted definition of marriage – over thousands of years, across the generations, throughout history, and across cultures – is a union between husband and wife; that a husband is a man and a wife is a woman.
2. There is no basis for same sex marriage in the entirety of Anglo-American jursprudence, custom, or history.
3. Recognition of traditional marriage by the State of Minnesota reflects a legitimate policy directive as well as the stated will of the people through their elected representatives.
4. Traditional marriage is a recognition of the biological imperative between a man and a woman to perpetuate the human species and to form a family unit to properly raise their offspring. A same sex couple will never be able to consummate a marriage and cannot procreate. Same sex “marriage” will never be equal to opposite sex marriage.
5. In our civil society, which is based upon a Judeo-Christian cultural and moral hybrid, marriage between a man and a woman has always been defined and recognized as the only legitimate form of marriage. The same sex “marriage” movement is an attempt at the complete repudiation of Jewish and Christian moral teachings. It is, prima facie, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian bigotry.
I think that it is interesting that pro-gay-marriage advocates frequently cite SS survivor benefits as a “right” they are denied wen same-sex marriage is not allowed.
Social Security benefits are not property. They are not a right. They are something given to certain people by the government for reasons the government chooses. If the political support was there the government could choose tomorrow to allow individuals to designate anyone their beneficiary.
“It would seem…”
Earth to Deegee:
Whether you are homo or hetro, we all have the same rights.
Dog-As has been said before, I can marry any woman that’ll have me (with the usual qualifications). The gay guy down the street can do the same. I cannot marry a man. Neither can the gay guy down the street. The discrimination is….where?
What they claim to be “discrimination” is actually that a BEHAVIOR is not allowed.
Bill C, the behavior certainly IS allowed; it certainly is not endorsed and subsidized with the name MARRIAGE.
Pingback: Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » Theatre Website Of The Absurd