Forget about logic. Never mind about evidence. Don't bother with reasoning. It's all in the presentation. Or didn't you know that?
In a speech last Saturday the president told us, "There's no greater threat to our planet than climate change." Now, of course, there were no facts or evidence. And, really, I'm not sure we would reasonably expect there to be. No reasoning, either, and that's always a shame. No, here was his tactic. "The world's top climate scientists are warning us that changing climate already affects the air our kids breathe." Do you see how that works? It's not "the air we breathe". It's not "and here's how." It's "our kids". Because you might care about yourself, but who doesn't care about the children?!
Without even addressing the question of climate change, I'm just pointing out that this is the tactic of the day. Do not say, "Here's why marriage should be redefined and here's what it should be redefined to." Cry "Equality!" and "Freedom!" and "Love!" Don't explain why those who believe marriage should remain with its current definition are wrong. Point fingers and respond with, "Hater!" and "Anti-gay!" and "Homophobe!" and "Bigot!" Because a good ad hominem always trumps clear thinking.
Oh, don't think I'm pointing fingers at "those folk". "We" do it, too. We will use the "sodomite" label or the "evil" moniker. Sometimes we think "pagan" is helpful or just "immoral" is enough. And while any of it might potentially be accurate, we do it not as an explanation of the point, but as a pejorative, a disparaging remark without the force of reason or explanation.
It's not a very friendly place for people attempting to reason these days. The only good argument is a non-argument with an emotional epithet. I'm told that it's not good to tell your kids, "Do what I say because I said so," but that's what we're using today as our best approach. "You're wrong because I say you're a jerk." "Oh, yeah? So's your ol' man." Is that the best we can do?
2 comments:
It is a common complaint when I argue for marriage that I am using hate speech of some kind should I use a word like "sodomite" (I don't ever really use particular word...it's just an example). But I don't just use such words. I explain why they apply. I admit to calling some visitors to my blog "idiot" or other words, but I apply those words properly and give a reason why I did so. That's important and it is also important to attach such words to people for whom they are ACTUALLY appropriate (as my explanation suggests they are).
Some merely use pejoratives to demonize and provoke a defensive posture from their opponents. They know that with the right one, the opponent will back down as opposed to risking the possibility that he will be viewed by anyone in that light. I'll take that risk and demand they prove their name-calling is appropriate. But conversely, I'm already giving a reason and showing how the label applies. If someone steals, for example, calling that person a thief is not "hate speech". It is an accurate recognition of the character of the person. Big difference.
Each case is one of appealing to feelings. But it is important to call evil by its name. It gives a legitimate reason to feel shame and when one is doing wrong, shaming is appropriate and necessary. If one is NOT doing wrong, no pejorative should be feared.
Jesus used harsh words when speaking to some. It is not the use of harsh words that are the problem. It's when the only argument is that approach. Jesus spoke of the Pharisees as "hypocrites" (not a nice word), but He did it with an explanation of how it was so.
You're right about pejoratives to provoke a defense, and the thing I was addressing was the "no argument but you're a jerk" argument. If I can call you a name (positive or negative) that gets you to discuss the name (or not to discuss at all), then I've accomplished my aim. Subject changed. I win.
I'm tired of explaining "This is what I believe and why" only to have to defend against "jerk" instead of defending the argument. I prefer not to do it. I prefer not to make others do it.
Post a Comment