Fake arguments

[dblack]

I've been thinking a lot lately about the prevalence of fake arguments in public discourse. I'm not talking about fake news or "misinformation". By fake argument I mean a dispute where the real disagreement is something subtle and unstated, but the public debate focuses on something else - something not really pertinent to the actual disagreement.

Some examples:

People argue over the process of evolution, when the real debate is whether or not God is real.

People argue over whether climate change is real, when the real struggle is over how much power government should have when it comes to protecting the environment.

People argue about whether covid is real, or about whether the vaccines are a good idea, when the real dispute is over whether the state should have the power to enforce mask mandates or require vaccination.

Often what causes this diversion is that both sides have accepted an unstated premise that paints them into a corner. Christians argue passionately that evolution isn't real because they've accepted the premise that if it is, God isn't. Climate change deniers dispute the evidence because they've accepted the premise that, if it's true, government should have the power to make them buy electric cars. They pretend covid isn't real and the vaccines aren't safe, because they've accepted the idea that, if they are, government should have the power to force vaccination.

Its naive, I suppose, but I'd like this thread to avoid getting bogged down in the fake arguments themselves. There's plenty of that elsewhere. I'm most interested in the dynamics involved. On how they drive us into angry disputes over things most of us know very little about.

 

[pknopp]

I've been thinking a lot lately about the prevalence of fake arguments in public discourse. I'm not talking about fake news or "misinformation". By fake argument I mean a dispute where the real disagreement is something subtle and unstated, but the public debate focuses on something else - something not really pertinent to the actual disagreement.

Some examples:

People argue over the process of evolution, when the real debate is whether or not God is real.

People argue over whether climate change is real, when the real struggle is over how much power government should have when it comes to protecting the environment.

People argue about whether covid is real, or about whether the vaccines are a good idea, when the real dispute is over whether the state should have the power to enforce mask mandates or require vaccination.

Often what causes this diversion is that both sides have accepted an unstated premise that paints them into a corner. Christians argue passionately that evolution isn't real because they've accepted the premise that if it is, God isn't.

I'm a Christian and I have no issue with trying to determine how God went about things. Being that is the case, I could argue, you created a fake argument.

 

[1srelluc]

If both parties in a argument agree to go by the premise that first and foremost the .gov does not have either of your best interests at heart then it's easier to get to the meat of the argument.

Trouble with that is unless you are arguing about the best way to call-up and kill a wild turkey or some such one person will likely need the .gov to back-up their argument.

So good luck with all that.

BTW....Being "nonaffiliated" I don't mess with religious arguments though I do enjoy poking fun at times.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Precious few posters here argue an issue as an issue. They do so as a warrior for their political party.

Even fewer have any understanding of logical fallacies as their posts are filled with appeals to authority, appeals to popularity red herrings and tu quoque sophistry.

 

[dblack]

Precious few posters here argue an issue as an issue. They do so as a warrior for their political party.

Even fewer have any understanding of logical fallacies as their posts are filled with appeals to authority, appeals to popularity red herrings and tu quoque sophistry.

So it would seem. We pretend we're debating when we're just fighting for dominance.

 

[MarcATL]

OP, did you stop to think that your arguments could be what's determined to be "fake arguments?"

Not everyone sees things the same way. For instance, your whether or not God is real example. There are people who believe that God is real, who don't believe it should be what's taught in public schools, there's people who don't believe that God is real, who have no problem w/that being taught in public schools.

That alone blows up your argument.

I can do that for each and everyone of your examples too.

 

[dblack]

OP, did you stop to think that your arguments could be what's determined to be "fake arguments?"

Not everyone sees things the same way. For instance, your whether or not God is real example. There are people who believe that God is real, who don't believe it should be what's taught in public schools, there's people who don't believe that God is real, who have no problem w/that being taught in public schools.

That alone blows up your argument.

I can do that for each and everyone of your examples too.

What in the fuck are you even talking about?

 

[MarcATL]

What in the fuck are you even talking about?

That's what I'm saying.

 

[dblack]

That's what I'm saying.

Ok then. Thanks for your input!

 

[Independent thinker]

I've been thinking a lot lately about the prevalence of fake arguments in public discourse. I'm not talking about fake news or "misinformation". By fake argument I mean a dispute where the real disagreement is something subtle and unstated, but the public debate focuses on something else - something not really pertinent to the actual disagreement.

Some examples:

People argue over the process of evolution, when the real debate is whether or not God is real.

People argue over whether climate change is real, when the real struggle is over how much power government should have when it comes to protecting the environment.

People argue about whether covid is real, or about whether the vaccines are a good idea, when the real dispute is over whether the state should have the power to enforce mask mandates or require vaccination.

Often what causes this diversion is that both sides have accepted an unstated premise that paints them into a corner. Christians argue passionately that evolution isn't real because they've accepted the premise that if it is, God isn't. Climate change deniers dispute the evidence because they've accepted the premise that, if it's true, government should have the power to make them buy electric cars. They pretend covid isn't real and the vaccines aren't safe, because they've accepted the idea that, if they are, government should have the power to force vaccination.

Its naive, I suppose, but I'd like this thread to avoid getting bogged down in the fake arguments themselves. There's plenty of that elsewhere. I'm most interested in the dynamics involved. On how they drive us into angry disputes over things most of us know very little about.

Great post. I will say though that both sides have got in wrong regarding evolution or creationism. It is not an either or an or thing. It can be both. Yes, evolution is real and proven. But, it doesn't prove everything. It is possible that a God created many things, if not everything, and that since that point evolution has changed things. You could even argue that God is responsible for evolution. Some things are just plain unexplainable by science and may never be.

Take the chicken or the egg scenario, expanded to the mother or the baby. What came first, the mother, or the baby? I think most knowledgeable people would say that the mother had to come first because there is just no way a fetus or a baby could survive and grow to adulthood on it's own without the mother. So, for the sake of argument, let's say that the mother came first. So, how did that happen? Did she just spring into existence as an adult? If so, does that mean God created her? And, how did the baby come about if there was only a mother? Was the mother just sprung into existence, already pregnant? Or did God spring Adam into existence along with Eve? If these things are true, then how on Earth did the genepool survive, as experts have more or less proven that a small genepool can't possibly survive. Was the baby a girl and Adam had sex with his own daughter? Or, did a large pool of people all spring into existence all at once from basically nothing, a genepool large enough to survive? How did that happen?

And this is only but one question about the unexplainable. Another is the so called big bang, forming our known universe. What was here before that? There must have been something here before that because, if I'm not mistaken, science has proven that something can't spring into existence from nothing so what was here before the big bang? There must have been something but, if there was, how did that form? And, the universe is infinite, supposedly. So, what is past our known universe? There has to be something past it because whenever there is an end to an object of some kind, there has to be something past that and past that and past that. But, how can something continue going on and never end, ever? What is science's explanation for that?

 

[MarcATL]

Ok then. Thanks for your input!

You're welcome.

 

[dblack]

Great post. I will say though that both sides have got in wrong regarding evolution or creationism. It is not an either or an or thing. It can be both.

I think that can often be said of most fake arguments. One can accept covid as real, perhaps even approve of the vaccines, but still respect the rights of those who don't want the jab. Likewise one might think it's all fake, but not get hot and bothered that others don't agree. One can recognize the effects of climate change, perhaps even believe it's caused by human pollution, yet still prefer that the government have limited role.

I think that part of the problem is that both sides of the left/right divide are eager to force their values and opinions on the other. So, if someone else disagrees with you - that won't do at all. It's vital to do whatever you can (scare them, threaten them, pass laws, etc...) to get the other side to change their minds and submit.

 

[Independent thinker]

I think that can often be said of most fake arguments. One can accept covid as real, perhaps even approve of the vaccines, but still respect the rights of those who don't want the jab. Likewise one might think it's all fake, but not get hot and bothered that others don't agree. One can recognize the effects of climate change, perhaps even believe it's caused by human pollution, yet still prefer that the government have limited role.

I think that part of the problem is that both sides of the left/right divide are eager to force their values and opinions on the other. So, if someone else disagrees with you - that won't do at all. It's vital to do whatever you can (scare them, threaten them, pass laws, etc...) to get the other side to change their minds and submit.

Yes, for quite a while now it has been that if you win an election 50.1% to 49.9%, or even by just one vote, it gives you a mandate to cram your values down the 100%.

 

[dblack]

Yes, for quite a while now it has been that if you win an election 50.1% to 49.9%, or even by just one vote, it gives you a mandate to cram your values down the 100%.

I think a lot of people today are completely oblivious to what the founders saw out of the gate: democracy only works with a tightly limited government. If the majority can simply force their preferences on the minority without restraint, the minority has no reason playing along, and won't.