Logical Fallacies: Changing the Subject

            True to form, most of the examples I plan to use here will be from the right, but I plan to start out with one very prominent example from one very prominent figure on the left.  Observe:

1:14:03-1:14:55

            Did you see that?  One second, the subject is the poverty in Canada, the next, it’s the unemployment rate.  The subject changed.  This is Michael Moore, either mistakenly assuming that the one counts as an accurate reflection of the other, or counting on his audience to make this mistaken assumption.  Now I will be the first to admit that my understanding of economics, while probably better than the next guy’s, has its limits, but I understand perfectly well that, depending on the breadth and quality of a country’s social programs as well as several other economic or socio-political factors, being employed does not necessarily mean living above the poverty line, and living above the poverty line does not necessarily mean being employed.  A country’s poverty rate and its unemployment rate can have very little to do with one another.

            According to my own admittedly cursory research, the homeless rates of the two countries are comparable, percentage wise, so I rather suspect that the poverty rates are comparable as well, but if this scene, which I’m about to play, is any indication, then being impoverished in Canada is not such a big deal.

1:20:00-1:20:42

            So in Canada, being poor does not necessarily mean being indigent.  Canada is a country in which being poor is not so bad.  It’s not luxurious by any means.  You’re not exactly loving life, but it’s not hopeless, desperate, or squalid.

            Now the documentary I got this footage from is called “Bowling for Columbine,” and I recommend it, especially for conservatives.  A lot of conservatives have probably dismissed it out of hand thinking they already know the case it tries to make; that guns are bad, and that gun restrictions are necessarily good.  But in fact, Moore himself is a card-carrying member of the NRA and emphasizes quite clearly that gun restrictions in Canada are not significantly different from those in the US.

01:14:54-01:16:50

            So although the rate of gun-related crime in Canada is significantly lower than in the US even after you account for the differences in our populations, Moore does not attribute this to tighter gun restrictions.  In fact, in the course of the film, he presents a much more subtle cause.  Clearly, the reason Canadians are not shooting each other nearly as much as we are is that it’s so frickin’ cold up there.  You see, you can’t shoot someone if you can’t aim, you can’t aim if you can’t hold the gun steady, and you can’t hold the gun steady if you can’t stop shivering.

            No, actually, he attributes it mostly to the atmosphere of fear fostered and maintained by the media in the US, but not the media in Canada.  He also attributes it to differences in social programs, but due to this change of the subject, this documentary de-emphasizes the differences in the way the two countries treat their poor, and in my humble opinion, this does a little too much of a disservices to this particular factor.

            This is an example of a logical fallacy called “changing the subject.”  I have a problem with what is usually given this title on the sites I can find about logical fallacies.  I find it tends to be referred to as just another word for “red herring,” when it seems to me that this is more accurately a specific form of red herring; an especially subtle form.  Observe:

            “Homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural.”

            “How can it be unnatural?  It’s found all through nature.  Every animal species we have ever studied with two distinctly different genders has had the occasional exhibition of homosexuality.”

            “Well you know what else is found all through nature?  Pedophilia.  So that’s a bad argument.”

            “Hold the phone.  Let me see if I understand here.  You are not, in fact, saying that homosexuality is unnatural, even though a moment ago, you were?  Are you saying that homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural, or in spite of the fact that it is natural?  Could you make up your mind?”

            Do I find the sexual assault of a child (not the same thing as pedophilia, by the way) every bit as offensive as the next guy?  Absolutely.  Does this have anything whatsoever to do with whether it is natural?  Not in the slightest.  But what else is found all through nature?  Heterosexuality.  So if homosexuality and heterosexuality are each found all through nature, then this cannot be used as a basis for declaring one of these wrong.  Why does the “wrong” label apply in the one case but not in the other?

            We’ve got two lists here: the list of things that are offensive because they are allegedly unnatural and the list of things that are offensive in spite of the fact that they are natural.  One moment, the subject is the first of these lists.  The next moment, it’s the second.

            But I’ll tell you what’s unnatural.  Homophobia.  Humanity is the only animal species we have ever studied in which a member of the species can expect to be seen as some kind of threat just for being gay.  This is not found anywhere else in nature.  If anything can, indeed, be called unnatural, surely this can be.

            Next example:

            “If the workers at a factory decide they want to strike until they can get better wages, hours, working conditions and benefits for themselves, who is the Government to step in and tell them they can’t?”

            “Well now, it seems to me that walking off the job means not getting paid.  Isn’t that a bad idea?”

            “You are changing the subject.”

            “No I’m not.”

            “The subject is whether striking should be a right; not whether it’s a good idea.  Whether striking is a good idea depends on the circumstances, but the issue is who gets to assess those circumstances and make that determination.  I say the employees get to, you say that no one gets to.  That’s the subject.  Make the case one way or the other or admit that you are changing the subject.  We don’t use ‘it might not be a good idea’ as a reason to make something illegal, because by that logic, everything becomes illegal.  Do you really want the government to be able to make something illegal just on the grounds that it might not be a good idea?  Do you really want the government to have that kind of authority?”

            Next example:

            (subject: abortion rights) “I am pro-choice.”

            (subject: abortion) “How can you condone infanticide?”

            (subject: abortion rights) “…I don’t.  I support choice and body-autonomy.  I support the woman’s right to decide for herself whether to terminate her pregnancy.”

            (subject: abortion) “Don’t you realize, if your mother had practiced your ethic, you would not be here today?”

            (subject: abortion rights) “My ethic that a woman should be free to choose?  She did practice this ethic.  She made her choice and here I am.  I am a choice.  I’m not talking about abortion; I’m talking about abortion rights.  The rights.  Get on the subject.”

            (subject: abortion) “But if the woman’s not at a point where she can afford to support a child, she could just put it up for adoption.  You know, there are many loving parents waiting for the chance to adopt.”

            (subject: abortion rights) “That is a reason for her to make the choice a certain way, not a reason to take the choice away from her.”

            (subject: abortion) “But if she can’t support a child, she could just leave it at the door of a firehouse in complete anonymity.  The firefighters will take it in and turn it over to an adoption agency.”

            (subject: abortion rights) “Which is another reason for her to make the choice a certain way, not a reason to take the choice away from her.”

            (subject: abortion) “But any given pregnancy has incredible potential.  By terminating her pregnancy, she could be denying humanity the next Steve Jobs.”

            (subject: abortion rights) “Well now, be that as it may, that is, at most, yet another reason for the woman to choose not to have an abortion; not a reason to take the choice away from her.  Do you see the pattern, yet?  Why do you insist on offering arguments against the act as arguments against the right?  Don’t you believe in individual rights?  What happens to all your high-fallutin’ rhetoric about the dangers of big government when it comes to laws that presume to dictate to a woman what she is and is not allowed to do with her own frickin’ internal organs?  If this does not constitute big government, what the hell does?”

            Sarah Palin and her daughter, go on national news after the birth of her grandson to say that they are glad they chose life.  I have to wonder how many people realize that they would not have been able to choose life if they had not had the choice to make.  No one in this debate can be pro-life because no one in this debate is anti­-life.  Whether a woman should abort her pregnancy is one subject; whether the decision should be left up to her is another.  Clearly, “pro-life” is a euphemism for “anti-choice.”  By coming to the table with a “pro-life” label and a “pro-life” platform, the anti-choicers seek to change the subject, and so maneuver the pro-choicers into defending a position we don’t actually hold.

            Same problem with calling themselves “anti-abortion.”  This is a thinly veiled effort to maneuver us into defending a “pro-abortion” position, as if the case we are making is that a woman who discovers that she is pregnant should get an abortion.  “Pro-abortion” is one position; “pro-choice” is another.  “Anti-abortion” and “pro-life” are both codewords for “anti-choice.”

            Careful.  It’s a trap.  In the comments on one of these videos, I don’t remember which, I encountered someone identifying himself (or herself, I don’t know) as “pro-gay.”  I explained that, no, you are pro-gay-rights.  You are not making the case that people should be gay, but that people should be free to be open about it if they are.

            “Now look.  Higher taxes on the wealthy do not create jobs.”

            “That would be a valid point if someone here were proposing higher taxes on the wealthy to create jobs, but as far as I know, no one is.  The argument is for higher taxes on the wealthy as part of a plan to balance the budget.”

            Now this is something that irritates the crap out of me regarding conservative hypocrisy.  I remember just a few short years ago leading up to the invasion of Iraq.  Conservative pundits switched back and forth constantly, frantically, between the act of supporting the invasion and the act of supporting our troops, making it look as if the two are the same.  Every figure in this country who dared to express any opposition to the invasion of Iraq was maligned for allegedly “hating those who defend our country.”

            Now I’m sorry to say that I supported the war myself at first.  I was taken in by all the malarky about WMDs, proliferating democracy and being welcomed as liberators.  I believed then, and I still believe that the rights and freedoms which, in my country, are outlined in the Bill of Rights are inalienable human rights, and the entitlement of every man, woman, and child, and I honestly believed that delivering these rights to the people of Iraq was what the toppling of Hussein was about, but even then, I understood the difference between supporting a war and supporting our troops.

            But to make matters worse, it was on Dubya’s watch that that whole imbroglio at Walter Reid happened.  What business does a political party that lets a thing like that happen on their watch have criticizing anyone else for being allegedly unpatriotic?

            Patriotism means supporting or troops, but patriotism for a democratic nation means loyalty to the principles of democracy, which means recognizing that war is sometimes justified and sometimes not and that the act of pointing that out does not make someone a traitor.  Supporting our troops means taking care of our troops, especially our veterans, especially our disabled veterans, especially our permanently disabled veterans, especially the veterans who became permanently disabled in service to this country.  People who cannot be bothered to see to that don’t have any business lecturing anyone about patriotism.

            Pressing the patriotism button to get what you want, changing subjects back and forth between talking about support for the war and support for our troops to create the impression that they are the same thing and that there is no way to support one without also supporting the other while letting veteran support programs go to shit is hypocritical and absolutely fallacious.

            But of course, programs to take care of our veterans require money which requires a balanced budget, and how can we keep a balanced budget when we are giving tax cuts to the people who need them the absolute least?  People who profit from war, if they sincerely care about this country, should have no objection to paying higher taxes in order to generate the necessary funds to take care of our troops and our veterans.  If we truly are the wealthiest country in the world, we should be able to afford that.

            I’ve digressed, but I believe I’ve made this one as clear as I can reasonably expect to.