Lately, I’ve been embroiled in several heated online discussions. I’m not the protagonist or antagonist, just a bystander who observes people ganging up on a poster with an unpopular opinion. I strongly object to name-calling, unfair characterization, and logical fallacies. For example, any mention of Iran gets people in an uproar. The way I see it, for any difference of opinion, there are three options:
-
- “Sea Change” – where one side changes its viewpoint, and now they agree (very rare)
- compromise, both sides recognize validity of the other side’s points (rare)
- agreeing to disagree, where both sides remain steadfast, but respectful (more common)
Note that none of the above includes calling the other person “liberal,” “moonbat,” or “USA hater.” Nor does it include “warmonger,” “whiny victim,” or “elitist.”
However, I am still optimistic where it comes to online discussion – I still believe that people can have a reasonable dialogue. To that end, please please PLEASE stop committing these logical fallacies in your “arguments.”
Straw Man – “based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position”
Ignoratio elenchi – “presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but which proves or supports a different proposition than the one it is purporting to prove or support”
Begging the question – circular reasoning
Package-deal fallacy – “assuming that things often grouped together by tradition or culture must always be grouped that way. It is particularly common in political arguments.”
For example, if I pointed out that the U.S. could be accused of exactly the same things that Iran is, namely, “”blowing up innocent people, instigating and funding wars with criminal activities and blood money, oppressing human rights and freedoms, imposing cruelty on minorities,” could you then assume that I’m “against US policies,” implying all of them? You may want to for the sake of making your argument, but it’s an illogical conclusion.