Opinions are important, of course, but the act of mistaking opinion for fact is recipe for hazard, and so deliberate effort to encourage others to make this mistake is especially dishonest. I don't know for certain if this is an official fallacy, but I have been encountering it so often that I figure, surely, it must be, and if so, it's probably the fallacy of opinionated language, or perhaps, biased language. Consider, if you were to see three people, one exhibiting firm behavior, one exhibiting obstinate behavior and one exhibiting pigheaded behavior, how would you tell which is which?
It cannot be done, because these three terms all describe exactly the same behavior. The only difference between these terms is the opinion of the person using them. "Firm" conveys approval, "pigheaded" conveys disapproval and "obstinate" is neutral.
A fair question would be "Do you object to said party's obstinate behavior?" An unfair, quite loaded question would, instead, be "Don't you have a problem with someone being so pigheaded?" This is a loaded question because it relies on an unwarranted assumption: that the person being asked would, indeed, characterize the behavior in question as "pigheaded." The act of asking, "Don't you object to pigheaded behavior?" is the same as asking, "Don't you object to obstinate behavior that you object to?" Of course I object to pigheaded behavior, or I would not call it "pigheaded," but by asking me to describe it as such, you are not asking me to venture an opinion, but to adopt one. How do you figure that the kind of behavior you regard as pigheaded I will regard the same way? Why do you assume that I will disapprove of the same thing you disapprove of? The act of saying "I object to pigheaded behavior" is redundant, and so the question, “Don’t you object to such pigheaded behavior?” is a trap.
“Don’t you object to such pigheaded behavior?”
“Um… no.”
“Oh. So you admit, then, that it is pigheaded?”
See? It’s a trap.
It's not quite the same as Weasel Words, the objective of which is to confuse and obfuscate with vague language. Deliberately vague language is one thing. Biased language is quite another. A given argument can be an example of both, but they are, nonetheless, not the same.
If you see two people, one being childish and the other exhibiting child-like behavior, how do you tell which one is which?
Do you want people to favor the continuation of a certain practice just because it has been going on a long time? Call it "time honored" and so commit an appeal to tradition. Do you want people to adopt a certain practice and/or program just because it has not been going on a long time? Call it “revolutionary,” and so commit an appeal to novelty.
Do you want the general public to oppose a certain program that requires government funding just because you and/or your sponsors would profit more without it? Call it "wasteful," or "reckless" and be sure to withhold any other details about why you call it that, lest you end up aiding the efforts of the general public to decide for ourselves. Our assessment might disagree with yours, after all.
Do you want people to accept your religion's shpiel uncritically? Call it a "message of love" or a "religion of peace," in spite of the fact that, in any case, you are, in fact, talking about unquestioning, dogmatic acceptance.
Personally, I'm wondering where to find the "religion that lends itself to skeptical scrutiny and holds up under it."
Do you want people to accept your religion's mandates unquestioningly? Call them "teachings" and cherrypick the less objectionable ones until you have people in the habit of accepting them, then bring out the more authoritarian ones.
Do you object to being asked a certain question? Call it "gay."
Do you want people to just accept certain restrictions on their behavior? Call the list of restrictions a "moral code" or a source of "moral guidance." Call the failure to accept them "libertine," "immoral," or "depraved," and call the impetus to carry out the behavior in question a "lustful appetite."
Did something highly improbable happen that you are really glad about? Call it "a miracle."
Do you want people to relax their scrutiny when it comes to your shpiel? Call them "close minded" until they do.
Don't like a certain set of government regulations because they inhibit the unrelenting profit of you and/or your sponsors? Call them "big government."
Do you want society to accept restrictions on homosexual rights? Call them "accountability."
Do you want society to oppose a congressional effort to enforce federal regulations the violation of which led to the explosion of an oil rig, the deaths of several workers and millions of marine animals and plants and the ruination of dozens of coastal, local economies? Call the effort "a shakedown."
Do you object to paying taxes? Call it “stealing” or “punishing success.”
Don't feel like brooking disagreement? Call it "dividing the house with petty infighting."
Do you want local business owners to furnish your organization with regular kickbacks lest their failure to do so compel you to send your thugs to rough 'em up and break some of their stuff? Call the kickbacks "protection money."
Don't like labor unions? Call them "big labor." Call their members "union thugs." Call their leaders "union bosses."
"Yeah. See? Those 'big government' thugs nabbed Capone."
You probably get the idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment