Illogic Alarm Bells

I alluded to this in "What is the Matter with Americans?"

Illogic alarm bells clanged when I stumbled across this (brown) verbiage by a prejudiced individual whom I'll call "caveman" (his own words).

I feel that "anti-discrimination" provisions are always discriminatory & bestow special priveleges. (e.g the ability to unleash the government against someone who opposes them, or bestow marriage bennies on a HS couple but not on, say, close platonic friends) And I don't want such to be bestowed on what is almost certainly a chosen lifestyle rather than an embedded attribute of the
person.

I'm against the verbal tricks / dirty pool tactics used by mainstream gay activists (unlike mainstream activists against homosexuality.), and discriminatory "anti-discrimination" laws. I'm neutral on gay marriage.
First, the word "feel" immediately signals that the statement will likely be heavily emotion- rather than logic-based.

Clang .

Second, the word "always" suggests that the writer is a categorical thinker. Emotive thinkers often tend toward making categorical statements because they think in absolutes and because absolutes feel potent. This is poor ploy because any exception blows the argument out of the water.

Clang . Clang.

Third, we have an unsubstantiable claim that "anti-discrimination" provisions are always "discriminatory" and bestow "special privileges". This claim contains a chunk of illogic to which I will return.

Clang . Clang . Clang.

Fourth, we have more emotional and unsubstantiable claims that [gay marriage legislation] would unleash the government against individuals . . .

Clang . Clang . Clang. Clang .

Fifth, we have selfishness-motivated comments about "bennies" that are irrelevantly compared to non-bestowal of benefits on platonic friends. Is this caveman not what he appears to be, but a heavily disguised champion of platonic rights? (I'll explain why he called himself "caveman" in a later post.)

Clang . Clang . Clang. Clang . Clang .

And all these clangers occur within the first rather unwieldy sentence. This person is certainly efficient when it comes to packing emotional illogic into a sentence!

Next, we hear more of his emotional desires about what he irrelevantly and inaccurately claims is a non-embedded attribute. No doubt, he knows virtually no science.

Things go from bad to worse when this illogical, language-manipulating caveman claims he is against "verbal tricks" and "dirty pool politics", which he erroneously attributes to gay activists, but not to "mainstream activists against homosexuality". In other words, if he doesn't like the contents of the message, then the message's language must be corrupted. "Mainstream activists" indicates that he gives anti-homosexual messages the Bigot Stamp of Approval.

Returning to the illogical complaint about "discriminatory "anti-discrimination" laws" – note the quotation marks around anti-discrimination that are intended to convey that such laws would not be anti-discrimination.

This argument runs:

P1 ................ : Anti-discrimination laws are always discriminatory

P2 (implied) : All discrimination is bad.

Therefore.....: Anti-discrimination laws are always bad.

The problem, of course, is that anti-discrimination laws, by definition, have the sole purpose of reducing discrimination, which by premise 2 should be not-bad. Someone pointed this out to the anti-gay-marriage person, and he either could not follow the logic, or refused to acknowledge the inconvenient-to-his-prejudiced-argument reality, or both. Either way, his performance was less than impressive.

Finally, just in case we have jumped to any accurate conclusions about this caveman's prejudices, we are assured that he is "neutral" about that which he is clearly attacking.

I hate illogic and irrationality, but I do find irony highly amusing. This last sentence had me in stitches.

I presume that he thinks that everyone is at the same level of irrationality as he, and that his readers will be credulous enough to believe this extraordinary denial of the obvious. In essence, he is lieing in a vain attempt to look good, presumably so that his argument will be more acceptable and will slip under readers' illogic radar. Since he is pumping out a message that fits with religious prejudices, then he can probably be confident that those who would accept this ploy are equally credulous, illogical, and bigoted.

No comments: