blogs_blog_39

Nice post, just one thing I think is worth pointing out.

 

Point two: The logical fallacy of Ad Hominem. Logic actually teaches that negatively labeling something does not logically argue for the labeler's conclusion.

Also, it uses the fallacy known as "strawmanning," which is similar in its emotional/mental effects on the person being labeled. People basically think, "This guy doesn't get what I'm saying, so how can I explain anything to him?"

 

~ BioGaia

Woah there, Ad Hominem isn't always a fallacy.

 

The attack could have to do specifically with the argument--for example, in a presidential debate, one side could say, "As president, I will pledge a budget of [x amount of money], which will go towards arranging that all governmental institutions in the state capitol will begin utilizing 'greener' options for energy usage."

 

The opponent could reply, "I believe that a man who invested in companies with some of the largest carbon emission statistics won't hold true to a promise like that."

 

The opponent's statement is an example of Ad Hominem, but it's totally valid since it is a specific example of why the first person isn't expected to fulfill what he promised he would in his argument.

 

-SK

An Ad Hominem is also okay when the persons character IS whats being argued about.

 

"John is not a good person"

"yes he is he mowed my lawn for free"

"He may have but he also kicks puppies and drowns cats when he thinks no ones looking"

 

I can definitely agree with this. I think I've said it before, but as a Deaf and gay person, I encounter a lot of negative labelling. Such as "Deaf means you don't know English as well," or "Gay means [fill in the rest]."

 

With Deafness, though, it's not so much negative as it is meant to be sympathetic. But that's another type of negative labelling: when a person thinks that they need to be sympathetic to another person, they may only end up offending that person because that person does not think they need any sympathy.

 

This usually stems from the misconception that Deafness automatically equals disability when it's so much more than that, and the disability aspect becomes so insignificant. To us Deaf, it's all about our language and the culture we've developed, and our unique worldviews as Deaf people in hearing society. We don't need sympathy for being a language minority!

 

Projecting sympathy even when it seems appropriate can come off quite badly because it can seem like the receiver is being pushed into a category of pity. That kind of labelling becomes very negative and often creates a sort of "I don't need your pity, why are you assuming I'm a lesser person than you?" reaction.

 

I honestly haven't met anyone who actually "hates" Deaf people or feels a strong visceral emotional reaction to it. But that doesn't mean I can't be labelled negatively. Sympathy, however well-meaning it is, can be deeply damaging. Just consider how it feels when I have to apply for scholarships that treat me as a disabled person because there are no scholarships specifically for Deaf people who naturally have a harder time making money since they can't help but speak a different language. That kind of mistaken labelling has become a source of great anguish and frustration in the Deaf community. It certainly can be used as part of the explanation why Deaf people often come off as isolated and unfriendly - because they assume that they're going to be labelled wrongly by you.

 

That ties into your observation of how negative labelling can cause suffering in others and then come around as more suffering for you. Society in general suffers a little more than necessary because it doesn't realize that it's trying to solve a problem - underdeveloped and financially impoverished Deaf communities - the wrong way. Money from taxes are put in the wrong places for the wrong purposes. And it's all because of misplaced sympathy.

 

Yep... just something to add to what you were saying.

Also, it uses the fallacy known as "strawmanning," which is similar in its emotional/mental effects on the person being labeled. People basically think, "This guy doesn't get what I'm saying, so how can I explain anything to him?"

Yeah, good point. Although, there are cases when negative labels can be true, and thus aren't Straw Men. But we shouldn't just go assuming it; we often accidently use the Straw Man fallacy because honestly misunderstand what people are trying to say or misread what intent they have in saying it.

 

 

Woah there, Ad Hominem isn't always a fallacy.

I'm glad you brought this up, because I was hoping for an opportunity to elaborate on what I meant there without drawing out the actual entry. I mean that purely from the perspective of established logicspeak. Within the study of logic, Ad Hominem is always a logical fallacy. But you're right to point out that it isn't that simple. Just in case anyone used the bold-skimming method and missed part of the following, lemme quote what I said about that FTR:

 

Now, caution: this doesn't necessarily mean the conclusion is wrong, merely that the reasoning used to reach it is wrong. There could be other reasoning all the people involved are missing that would prove the same conclusion.

 

But when people see a logically invalid argument -- even when they aren't well educated in logic; these principles are built into the human psyche -- they're a lot less likely to agree with your conclusion even if their concern is logic rather than emotion.

What I'm alluding to in the first part of that is another fallacy called basically "The Fallacy of Fallacies." Which basically states that it's a fallacy to reject conclusions just because they're supported by fallacies.

 

In the second part, notice that I made no mention of what happens if someone's concern ISN'T logic; it's true that some people who are swayed by emotion, as with your politics example, Ad Hominems can be "effective at reaching the politician's goals." (But immoral IMO but yeah.) I was talking only from a logical perspective in that specific part.

 

Ultimately, I think that all use of clear insults is ineffective at what every person truly wants deep down. We all want positive emotional experiences, more or less, and throwing insults around to gain emotional loyalty has other bad side effects (which people who use them tend to ignore or be unaware of), which always come around to hurt the user of that tactic in the end. In my experience.

 

 

 

The attack could have to do specifically with the argument--for example, in a presidential debate, one side could say, "As president, I will pledge a budget of [x amount of money], which will go towards arranging that all governmental institutions in the state capitol will begin utilizing 'greener' options for energy usage."

 

The opponent could reply, "I believe that a man who invested in companies with some of the largest carbon emission statistics won't hold true to a promise like that."

 

The opponent's statement is an example of Ad Hominem

Technically that is not considered Ad Hominem, because the opponent both has reasons to believe in that "negative label" or judgement, and most importantly, is using a debating technique of intentionally appealing to those in the audience who also believe they have reasons to believe that legitimately. The alternative, to list things you already know your audience knows, can turn audiences off (though not always; it's complicated ). Basically a good speechsmith has to judge how much of the audience will be turned off by hearing the backup and how much will honestly not have known it or realized how it's relevant (and how many who do know it believe that others need to hear it, so will tolerate or cheer its repition.

 

 

but it's totally valid since it is a specific example of why the first person isn't expected to fulfill what he promised he would in his argument.

Logically speaking, though, it is still invalid if there is no valid outside chain of logic to support it. When such a valid chain is missing, that's what is labeled as the Ad Hominem Fallacy by logicians. In non-logic studies the latin term may be used to refer to "negative labels" in general, yes, though.

 

Also, I personally think people shouldn't use Ad Hominem to label anything other than the fallacy, personally. Basically for the same reason as this, reflexively XD. Poeple shouldn't negatively label the concept of fairly labelling things negatively lol lol. But maybe that's just me.

 

 

An Ad Hominem is also okay when the persons character IS whats being argued about.

 

"John is not a good person"

"yes he is he mowed my lawn for free"

"He may have but he also kicks puppies and drowns cats when he thinks no ones looking"

It's debatable whether it's always okay, which is a big part of what I wanted to point out here. But again, I would not use the term Ad Hominem to describe that. I would call that "a negative label" in general. Ad Hominem, at least when I use it (being a logician ) refers specifically to the logical fallacy.

 

The reason I wouldn't call that "okay" is basically the painting thing. Maybe it's true, but to speak it that way in many situations can actually only strengthen it or make it worse, rather than helping John to improve. Yeah?

 

 

 

 

With Deafness, though, it's not so much negative as it is meant to be sympathetic. But that's another type of negative labelling: when a person thinks that they need to be sympathetic to another person, they may only end up offending that person because that person does not think they need any sympathy.

 

This usually stems from the misconception that Deafness automatically equals disability

Yeah, this is basically a misconception about the human brain, IMO. The more I look into this stuff the more I conclude that short of death (even that's debatable but not on BZP ) there are equal pros and cons to virtually any mental "disorder." In the case of loss of a sense (as in sight, hearing, smell, etc.), it's basically only bad in the category of things benefitted by the sense, but overall, it simply allows the brain to adjust to be better at other things.

 

Or to use myself as an example -- I don't know of any psychobabble term for this except the plain English, though I'll use Treespeak here for the heck of it -- I'm slowthinking. To people who are fastthinkers (and don't know better), in situations where fast thinking is important (which is what our modern society is more and more based on), I look 'handicapped.' But given time to think, I naturally think much deeper, and I can spot better ways of doing things that 'fastthinkers' have more trouble finding, so in other ways, to me, they look like the ones with a handicap.

 

Basically it's both. Weaknesses and talents are merely two sides of the same equal coin.

 

 

 

 

Actually, I think it's fair for me to say that I have a "sense" that virtually nobody else has (seemingly, and I mean, not as much so; everybody has it but most not this extent it seems). I don't even know how to label it yet or describe what it is except as something close to (but not ideally labeled as) intuition, but I feel like I've had exceptional talent in it all my life, and I've always been amazed that other people didn't have it anywhere near as much.

 

But only recently have I finally come to grips with the fact that the others can be just as content not having it as much, and with that comes the ability for me not to get upset when I see others not seeing what I see -- so be content myself.

 

 

I think there might be a comparison there to people who have all the normal senses but behave poorly towards those who are deaf, blind, etc. (And as such I've tried to apply this lesson to myself in that category too, heh.) Basically they are content yet in who they are, in that category, it would seem.

 

I think a big part of that is false notions of "I am better than others", and a misunderstanding of allocation. Basically, we're all equal, no matter what. We're all simply better at some things than others, and worse at other things than others. Equals equal.

 

Even if there was a hypothetical human who had a sense that literally nobody had, at all, they would still be equal.

 

(Like in my Paracosmos fanfics, Hujo has the ability to sense Soulsongs, which is basically like a psychic version of what fish can do by sensing slight vibrations, except sensing the vibrations of the "strings" that souls make as they move through time. I've started to play with the theme of his struggling about this already, especially when he went blind for a while in TI, and probably at some point I'll do something directly about it.)

 

 

 

That ties into your observation of how negative labelling can cause suffering in others and then come around as more suffering for you. Society in general suffers a little more than necessary because it doesn't realize that it's trying to solve a problem - underdeveloped and financially impoverished Deaf communities - the wrong way. Money from taxes are put in the wrong places for the wrong purposes. And it's all because of misplaced sympathy.

Super glad you brought that up. I'm planning a big series of entries soon expanding on my basic society theory (which I've mentioned many times before but only in summary). Actually, that helps me pin down another idea I need to tie some major parts of the whole thing together, thanks ever so much!