LABELING AND NAME-CALLING: FALSE ARGUMENTS

I have noticed that in the presentation of opinions about certain national affairs (labeled news analysis) and even in discussions among my friends and acquaintances there seems to be more labeling and name-calling going on instead of dealing with the other person's arguments. Labeling and name-calling does not in any manner deal with the issues being discussed.

Example:

Pro: Pregnancy is something that only women have to endure. Therefore, the issue of the choice to have or not have an abortion is strictly an issue that concerns women. Men should remain quite about it, unless asked for their counsel and advice by the women in their lives.

Con: Anyone who believes that is an immoral liberal. Killing babies is a murder.

This non-argument, also called irrational argument, is so common today that we have become insensitive to it. In my college rhetoric and logic classes I learned that this type of response was called an Intimidation Argument. It is not an argument at all but a method of postponing espousing or answering an argument on the issue being presented. This tactic prevents a discussion of the merits and lack thereof of the issues that need to be discussed by the citizens.

One of my favorite philosophers wrote about this tactic of non-argument in the following manner.

Argument from Intimidation
There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent’s agreement with one’s undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure . “[It] consists of threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: “Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X’s argument is false.” The falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality.
In today’s epistemological jungle, that second method is used more frequently than any other type of irrational argument. It should be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as “The Argument from Intimidation.”
The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: “Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.” (From the writings of Ayn Rand)
Also see Handbook of Logical Fallacies: http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/writing/DavidKing/GuideToObjectivism/FALLACYS.HTM

The biggest non-arguments today seems to be the labeling of a person's position as liberal or conservative, implying such person is not worthy of belief because he or she is of a certain political persuasion. How does that get us to a reasonable conclusion about the issue? What is it about a position one tends to disagree with makes one resort to such labeling rather than putting forth a contrary argument?

Labeling an opponent and/or his argument can also be done in a very deceptive manner.

Example:

Pro: The administration is proposing a large bailout stimulus to help large private businesses with a view of preventing the recession from becoming a depression.

Con: That is untenable. What the administration is proposing is going to make America a socialist state.

No discussion of whether the bailout is an economically sound idea. No discussion of whether there is any downside to the bailout. No discussion of whether the bailout is legally possible under our constitutional system. There is not even any request or challenge to define terms. How then can any conclusion, or even compromise, be reached by the participants or the audience?

In such an atmosphere people have no opportunity to explore the merits and lack of merits of a proposal since it is assumed by one side to be bad and all discussion is prevented by name-calling. Why then is one surprised that the citizens of this Nation are so divided? (besides the fact that there are only two major political parties). The good points and bad points of a proposal are best explored when “thrown into” the market place of open debate, but that is not happening in America today.

A more appropriate argument would be:

Pro: The administration is proposing a large bailout stimulus to help large private businesses, with a view of preserving jobs and preventing the recession from becoming a depression.

Con: This economic condition is a natural consequence of the economy being operated in an improper manner and is necessary to correct the economy. The administration is looking at the economy in the short run and has not explained how the stimulus will effect the economy in the long run. Also, the administration has not answered the arguments of over three hundred senior economists that that the stimulus will put America into an indebtedness from which it cannot recover considering the declining productive age population.

I would request that in the future as you listen to the “talking heads” and “pundits” (not meant derogatorily) discussing various issues you particularly make note of the use of this irrational argument technique. This is not like calling an automobile a Buick or calling an undocumented immigrant an illegal immigrant. Those labels are names or classes – not arguments.

Next up, the use of deceptive labeling to imply the appropriateness or inappropriateness of positions and organizations.