ARGUMENT AGGRAVATION

ARGUMENT AGGRAVATION
(Irrational Thinking, Wishful Thinking, PC Thinking)

"Truth springs from argument among friends." - David  Hume

"So what is an argument?  An argument is made up of two things:  the
point you believe and the reasons why you believe it." Christopher W. Dicarlo,
How to Become a Really Good Pain In The Ass, (Amherst, NY:  Prometheus Books, 2010) 26.

"Whether you sense it or not, argument surrounds you.  It plays with your emotions,
changes your attitude, talks you into a decision, and goads you to buy things.
Argument lies behind political labeling, advertising, jargon, voices, gestures, and
guilt trips..." Christopher W. Dicarlo, How to Become a Really Good Pain In The Ass,
(Amherst, NY:  Prometheus Books, 2010) 4.

In a dialogue or discussion, an argument is a coherent structure of ideas.  The rational
reasons that support a position must be included. Given the vital role of the ability to persuade others by argument, MissLed women's inability to scrutinize, construct and effectively communicate an argument is a major liability for them.
Women can persuade others by two primary methods. One is to emphasize argument - thought-
provoking, creative, constructive, trust-building, civil, respectful.
The other is to emphasize manipulation - destructive, trust-
destroying, and disrespectful." All-too-often, MissLed women make the mistake of choosing  the latter.  They seek to
convince by stridently expressing a mere
opinion - and then manipulating the other person (often via guilt). is too  often MissLed women's chosen
tactic.  This choice result in the expression of numerous uninformed and easily dismissed opinions. Further,
far too few can articulate quality arguments:

"Whatever your opinions, beliefs, ideas, or understanding, you need to
realize that unless you can formulate them into arguments, you have nothing
more than unjustified opinions.  Avoid being caught in such a circumstance because it demonstrates
weakness in your ability to focus your thoughts and articulate or discuss your
ideas in an intelligent manner." Christopher W. Dicarlo, How to Become a Really Good Pain In
The Ass, (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2010) 26.

All-too-often women, when it comes to Argument, have been once again confused and misled by media messages, their friends, and their families:

"Most people do not understand the correct use of arguments by inference and the proper
use of logical forms, so they conduct themselves in a random, overly reactive, or muddled fashion and are easily misled." Epictetus, Sharon Lebell, Art of Living: The Classical Manual on Virtue, ()106.

Parents, mentors, and the media fail to encourage  MissLed women to learn the requisite skills involved with argument.  They also do a poor job of emphasizing the critical role that argument skills play in most successful people's lives. 

Another of the main reasons that few MissLed women develop argument skills is the amount of effort required.
Arguing effectively is a skill - one which takes practice and effort.
Instead of developing this skill into a potent habit, however, MissLed women too often choose the easier path - that
of manipulation.
As a consequence, they don't earn the respect and prestige granted to those who present an
effective argument for their position.  In fact, too many resort to the easier, but far less
benevolent tactic of manipulation to try to get the results they want.
Another factor in MissLed women's struggle with argument lies with their comprehension of the meaning
of the word itself. 
In everyday use, the word “argument” is most often understood to mean a verbal dispute or disagreement:

"Public discourse requires making an argument for a point of view, not having
an argument - as in having a fight." Deborah Tannen, The Argument Culture: Stopping America's War of Words (NY: Ballantine Books, 1999) 4.
.
Therefore, in their minds it is something "negative" - to be avoided. Of course,
completely avoiding conflict or "negativity" is unrealistic and counterproductive. The avoidance of engaging in discussions that involve argument involves wishful thinking:

"So often, people need to talk, but they don't know how. Instead, they
tiptoe around problem issues and difficult individuals, hoping somehow
a miraculous change for the good will occur all by itself."  Lee Raffel,
I Hate Conflict, (NY:  McGraw-Hill, 2008) 5.

MissLed women, then, don't put in the effort to build the skills needed to find fault with a poor argument.  Nor
do they warrant the praise for being able to dismantle a quality one:

"To dismantle an argument requires careful consideration and critical analysis."
Christopher W. Dicarlo, How to Become a Really Good Pain In The Ass, (Amherst, NY: 
Prometheus Books, 2010) 30.

MissLed women too often lack the necessary confidence, knowledge and accrued skills needed to
argue well. This limits them in many aspects of life - in negotiation, in communication, in personal relationships,
and in their workplace.  All-too-often, instead of arguing fairly, skillfully and
constructively, MissLed women resort to logical fallacies and other,  less constructive methods, including:

1.  Needling: MissLed women's attempt to make the other person angry, without even trying to
address the argument at hand. They commonly use needling as a delaying tactic.

2.  Argument From Adverse Consequences (Appeal To Fear, Scare Tactics): When MissLed women
claim their opponent's argument must be wrong, because if it is right, adverse
results would occur. For example: God must exist, because a godless society would be lawless and dangerous.

3.  Argument By Emotive Language (Appeal To The People):
When MissLed women attempt to use emotionally loaded words to sway other's sentiments. 
The emotions targeted (and often successfully triggered) by such language include anger, spite, and envy. 
 
4. Appeal To Coincidence: When MissLed women assert or conclude that a result is due to chance when the
evidence strongly suggests otherwise.  In truth, the result stems merely from a misunderstood coincidence.

5.  Appeal to Righteous Indignation:  MissLed women who claim to be offended in an attempt to quell an argument. Such
claims can damage potential agreements, shutdown discussions, and even increase the potential of violence:

"An Appeal to Righteous Indignation is a logical fallacy in which a person claims to be offended, insulted,
or hurt by criticism of a proposition they hold, or by the advancement of a proposition with which they disagree.
The expected consequence of the demonstration of the verbal or physical behavior associated with righteous indignation
is that no further discussion or criticism is allowed."
"Indignation Is Not Righteous:  The Twin Fallacies of Appeal to Righteous Indignation and Appeal to Sanctity,"
by Gary Longsine and Peter Boghossian, September 27, 2012
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/indignation_is_not_righteous/

"Intrinsic to an Appeal to Righteous Indignation is the notion that attacks on an idea are morally equivalent
to verbal or physical attacks on people, that an attack on an idea justifies a response at least proportionate
to an attack on a person. Credible threats of violence often accompany displays of righteous indignation and
are sometimes viewed as justified by members of the community."
"Indignation Is Not Righteous:  The Twin Fallacies of Appeal to Righteous Indignation and Appeal to Sanctity,"
by Gary Longsine and Peter Boghossian, September 27, 2012
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/indignation_is_not_righteous/

"Righteous indignation undermines civil discourse and often corrodes efforts aimed at reasonable compromise.
When righteous indignation is invoked, conversation stops and violence may begin. For the indignant party,
reason may be suspended. Righteous indignation muddles thinking, elevates emotional reactions to primacy
in the discourse, and displaces its alternative: impassioned, reasoned, thoughtful analysis."

6.  Appeal to Sanctity: MissLed women who seek to derail an argument by claiming that a subject matter or belief is
sacred, and therefore off limits:
"The salient feature of an Appeal to Sanctity is that it is employed as a shield against the critique of an
idea or even a wholesale ideological critique. An Appeal to Sanctity is a claim that one must not critique an
idea because the idea in question is sacrosanct, holy, or sacred. In other words, an Appeal to Sanctity, reduced
to its simplest form, asserts as a moral virtue the claim that an idea is beyond critique."
"Indignation Is Not Righteous:  The Twin Fallacies of Appeal to Righteous Indignation and Appeal to Sanctity,"
by Gary Longsine and Peter Boghossian, September 27, 2012
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/indignation_is_not_righteous/

7.  Appeal to Mystery:  This is exclaimed not to in order to invite further inquiry to seek truth, but rather to shut down further inquiry by claiming that truth is unattainable. It says, "This might be wrong," not in order to replace one theory with a better theory, but in order to replace one theory with no theory at all.
Appeal to Mystery is untestable, as it offers as an explanation something that is mysterious, and hence untestable by definition.  Mystery tends to invoke drama and tension - both of which MissLed women often  find very appealing. Indeed, , this fallacy  appeals to some women's love of romance   - in this case, the romance of the unknowable.

8.  Non Sequitur: In Latin, "It does not follow."
An argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. While the
conclusion could be either true or false, the argument remains fallacious because there is a
disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. For example, some MissLed women insist
that one of their beliefs is of great help to many people. Soon after, they prematurely
claim that such a benevolent belief must undoubtedly be true.

9.   Argument By Poetic Language:
For MissLed women, if it sounds beautiful or "good", it must be right. Their favorite songs
often use this effect to create a poetic sounding sort of credibility.  "All you need is love,"
and "Imagine" are two well-known examples.  Both have hardly proven effective methods of making
convincingly sounding arguments.

10.  Euphemism:
MissLed women too often choose to use certain words only because they sound better. This allows them
to avoid directness.  Two common examples: "That doesn't look too bad, or "Let's just be friends."

11.  Changing The Subject (Digression, Red Herring, Misdirection, False Emphasis):
At times, MissLed women change the subject to deflect away attention. Such a diversionary tactic
may be obstructive or obtuse. They do this in order to not have to defend a claim, or to avoid having
to make good on a promise.
In order for this to be effective, others must lack the ability to identify this as the misdirection
tactic that in fact it is.


12.  Having Your Cake (Failure To Assert, or Diminished Claim):
When MissLed women almost claim something, but then back away from accepting the claim as their
full responsibility. "Just sayin'," "Just my opinion," or "I don't necessarily agree with..."
are phrases that often accompany with this fallacy. 

13.  Ambiguous Assertion:
MissLed women's often make statements that lack sufficiently clarity.  Whether intentional
or not, they are sufficiently unclear that they leave some sort of leeway.  Not surprisingly,
confusion often follows. Such vague assertions fail to contribute toward any potential solutions.

14. Special Pleading (Stacking The Deck):
It is a form of spurious argument where MissLed women introduce favorable details or
exclude unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without
proper criticism of these considerations. Essentially, this involves them attempting to cite
something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.
MissLed women most often engage in special pleading when they are subject to a law or moral
rule that they wish to evade. They attempt to apply a "double standard", which makes an exception to
the rule for themselves — or people like them — but still applies it to others.

15.  Argument By Laziness (Argument By Uninformed Opinion):
MissLed women too often don't bother to make the proportionate effort to research or study the topic being discussed. Nonetheless,
they often persist in brazenly expressing a strong opinion.   When asked to defend their position, they
typically respond with "I just know." Even in their willful ignorance, they have the temerity to be
insulted if their opinion is not treated with the amount of respect they feel they deserve.

16.  False Compromise:
This is another example of where "compromise" can be harmful.  When MissLed women can't
agree with their opponent in a debate, they misclaim that it would be "fair" to split
the difference.  A compromise is then reached at the middle point between the two sides.
(However, quite often, one side IS mostly or completely wrong). Misguided journalists
(male and female) often invoke this fallacy in the name of "balanced" coverage.
There's a danger, however, in seeing compromise as always wise or just:
"We are all taught that unselfish (translate "good"), flexible people know the value of compromise.
Compromise, as I define it, means that
we learn to share the resentment 50/50. Much compromise comes out of a scarcity
consciousness that does not trust that we both could have all we want.  We fall back
on compromise when we lack the energy and creativity to find the synergistic solutions
that could get everyone's needs met fully.  Compromise is a lack of trust in the compassionate
generous nature of human beings that could lead to a shift that would allow for a true and
natural "giving to" instead of a compromising resentful "giving in." Kelly Bryson, Don't Be Nice, Be Real:  Balancing Passion for Self with Compassion for Others, (Santa Rosa, CA:  Elite Books, 2004) 32.

17. Two Wrongs Make A Right (Tu Quoque, You Too, What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the
gander): MissLed women who are accused of wrongdoing often resort to this rationalization.
They attempt to justify an action or accusation against a person by asserting that the person would do
the same thing to them. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because an action that is
wrong remains wrong, regardless if another person also does it.

18.  Psychogenetic Fallacy (Bulverism): 
When MissLed women claim to know the psychological reason why their opponent supports or proclaims an argument.  They then will claim he's biased, hence his argument must be invalid or irrelevant. They wrongly claim that they can refute an idea or belief because they assume that think they have discovered the psychological reason why someone believes the idea. In fact, it is fallacious to think that just because the origin of an idea came from a biased mind, it must necessarily be a false idea. Terms like "He has issues" or "He's angry/bitter" are often used to make this claim.

19. Ad Hominem: An argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. Herein, MissLed women's attempt to appeal to people's emotions and prejudices instead of their ability to think. Because it tends to be very effective it can be a very tempting tactic to use, and very difficult one to defend against:

"Character assassination is such a powerful tactic in argumentation that it is difficult to resist using it, difficult to defend against effectively, and difficult to prevent the argument from degenerating into a personal quarrel once the tactic is used." Douglas N. Walton, The Place of Emotion in Argument, (University Park, PA:  Pennsylvania State U. Press, 1992) 3.

20. Misunderstanding The Nature Of Statistics (Innumeracy):
Too often, MissLed women lack the ability to reason with numbers. They are unable to grasp the
fundamental notion of numbers and chance:

"Misperceptions about probability and risk are apparent wherever
we turn." John Allen Paulos, Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences,
(NY:  Hill and Wang, 1988) x.

Even those who are educated and successful will sometimes even have the misplaced audacity to shamelessly boast of their low mathematical competence. In truth,  embarrassment would be the more
appropriate reaction to innumeracy. Their choice to show or feign disdain for numbers or boast indicates their ignorance of the damage that results from their own weaknesses: 

"Too many find it easier to distrust numbers wholesale, affecting disdain, than to get to grips with them."  Michael Blastland, Andrew Dilnot , The Numbers Game: The Commonsense Guide to Understanding Numbers in the News, in Politics, and in Life, (NY:  Gotham Books, 2009) xii.

"In fact, unlike other failings which are hidden, mathematical innumeracy is often
flaunted:  'I'm a people person, not a numbers person.'  Or 'I've always
hated math.'...Part of the reason for this perverse pride in mathematical
ignorance is that its consequences are not usually as obvious as those of
other weaknesses." John Allen Paulos, Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its
Consequences, (NY:  Hill and Wang, 1988) 4.


Serious consequences of innumeracy include:

• Inaccurate reporting of news stories by MissLed female (and misguided male) reporters.  As a result, the public is poorly informed (even those who aren't innumerate themselves).  Journalists are notoriously poor  at clearly reporting risks. For example, in 1995 it was reported that a class of contraceptive  pills would double the chance of dangerous blood
    clots. The news stories mostly did not mention that "doubling" the risk only increased
    it by one person in 7,000. The "cell phones cause brain cancer" reports are even sillier,
    with the supposed increase in risk being at most one or two cancers per 100,000 people
    per year. So, if the fear mongers are right, cellphone risk has increased from
    "Nobody cares" to "Who cares?"
• Financial mismanagement and accumulation of consumer debt, in particular,  their misunderstanding of compound interest.
• Poor assessment of risk. For example, refusing to travel by airplane (a relatively safe form of transport) while choosing to drive a car (where the risk of accidental death is far more likely).
• Limitations on potential career prospects and promotions. Not surprisingly, an inability to   "crunch numbers" is a major liability for those seeking career advancement.

This inability to deal effectively with the fundamental notions of numbers and chance afflicts an alarming number of MissLed women (and a significant percentage of society as a whole). Innumeracy is far from a trivial issue. Many everyday decisions, in fact, involve numbers and probabilities. In addition, since nearly all political
discussions today involve mention of millions, billions, or even trillions of dollars. MissLed women
who are limited by their innumeracy are ill-equipped to make informed voting decisions.
Numbers undeniably matter in nearly every aspect of life. 
In the hands of marketers and politicians, statistics are used to dupe innumerate MissLed women:

"Hardly a subject is broached these days without measurements, quantities, forecasts, warnings, statistics, targets, numbers of every variety; they are ubiquitous, and often disputed." Michael Blastland, Andrew Dilnot , The Numbers Game: The Commonsense Guide to Understanding Numbers in the News, in Politics, and in Life, (NY:  Gotham Books, 2009) xii.

Limited by their innumeracy, they are left subject to manipulation and deception by pie charts,
statistics, and PowerPoint's. These weapons of mass deception for advertisers and politicians allow
them to sell dubious ideas and products to MissLed women.  Their innumeracy leaves them
prone to fall for misleading promises from elected officials, for too-good-a-deal-to-miss "sales" and
distorted contracts from Realtors and loan officers.
More seriously, most discussions of product safety
and drug efficacy rely on statistical results or studies involving numbers and percentages.
Some understanding of probability and statistics is required
to make informed choices about such products. Yet another serious concern with
MissLed women's innumeracy is its  link to belief in pseudoscience.  This
leaves them vulnerable to the misleading claims that include numbers and statistics exclaimed by
charlatans and quacks. They purport to be citing legitimate numbers, but they are actually spouting
useless, harmful or misleading nonsense:

"One rarely discussed consequence of innumeracy is its link with
belief in pseudoscience, and the interrelationship between the two...In a society
where genetic engineering, laser technology, and microchip circuits are daily adding to
our understanding of the world, it's especially sad that a significant portion of our
adult population still believes in Tarot cards, channeling, mediums, and crystal power." John
Allen Paulos, Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences, (NY:  Hill and Wang,
1988) 5.

If they were armed with a better grasp of statistics, these ruses would not hold sway with
MissLed women. Unfortunately, with their lack of numerical perspective,
they exaggerate the meaning of meaningless coincidences, and have a tendency
to credulously accept pseudoscientific claims. Consequently, too often they are left
unable to sort the valid or rational wheat from the invalid or irrational chaff:

"Our behavior is often adversely affected by erroneous understandings
of mathematics and logic." Riggs Webster Jr., The You You Don't Know: Covert Influences
on Your Behavior, (Amherst, NY:  Prometheus Books, 1997) 9.

A notorious recent warning about the danger of innumeracy stems from the sub prime mortgage crisis.
Too many MissLed women (some single mothers, others married, but with a significant
influence on the purchasing decision) did not understand the financial stakes and the market
uncertainties involved in purchase of their homes. 
unfixed interest rates. Hamstrung by their innumeracy, many faced bankruptcies, foreclosures, and other avoidable financial duress.

One final explanation for MissLed women 's Innumeracy is that they find statistics emotionally unsatisfying, counter to their strong preference for intuitive thinking, and meaningless:

"Particularly in relation to patterns, chance, or coincidence, statistics can feel counterintuitive when it frustrates a yearning for meaning." Michael Blastland, Andrew Dilnot , The Numbers Game: The Commonsense Guide to Understanding Numbers in the News, in Politics, and in Life, (NY:  Gotham Books, 2009) 39.

In sum, MissLed women's tendency to use these fallacies leave them ill-prepared to handle argument well.  They are
unpracticed - and therefore unskilled - at both constructing an argument
and having a constructive argument. This deficiency leaves them prone to irrational beliefs:

"A fallacious argument is a bogus one for it fails to do what it
purports to do, namely provide a good reason for accepting a claim.
Unfortunately, logically fallacious arguments can be psychologically
compelling. Since most people have never learned the difference
between a good argument and a fallacious one, they are often
persuaded to believe things for no good reason.  To avoid holding
irrational beliefs, then, it is important to understand the many
ways in which an argument can fail." Theodore Schick, Lewis Vaughn, How to Think About
Weird Things, (Columbus, OH:  McGraw Hill Higher Education:  2002) 298-299.

Unfortunately, because of their inability to argue well and their habit of failing
to listen, MissLed women often are not able to master a key skill
in today's society - PERSUASION. The ability to INFLUENCE
another person's mood, mind, or willingness to do something is simply invaluable for who seek
have their needs met or their wants fulfilled.
Ironically, MissLed women's deficiencies in argument and persuasion cost them dearly where many of them care the
most - in their intimate relationships.   Too often, MissLed women experience an argument as a one-way pressure
valve for their frustrations or emotions.  Male partners, in contrast, tend to want to see an
argument as making sense, and desire to end it with a constructive, rational conclusion.
This contrast is critical in relationships.  Ineffective arguing between partners can weaken, even destroy
relationships.
MissLed women tend to argue by repetition. (This is known as Proof by assertion - a
logical fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction).
At times they repeat themselves until their partner's challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due
to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam). In other cases the very
repetition itself is cited as evidence of its truth. Needless to say, to argue by repetition in either way
serves only to wear down their partners and build their resentment.  It
is certainly not an effective way to get to build rapport and respect, or discover the truth.
Effective arguing is a labor of love, wherein the greater good for both parties is served.
Happy couples avoid conflict and misunderstandings when both the men
and women argue ethically and effectively. In contrast, unhappy couples often contain MissLed women (and misguided men) who
choose to argue unethically or refuse to learn to do so effectively.  For the latter, the results are
fragile relationships, which in are put at serious risk:

"When arguments are handled poorly, relationships can be damaged or
destroyed."  Lee Raffel, I Hate Conflict, (NY:  McGraw-Hill, 2008) 4.

MissLed women's struggles with argument are often linked directly to their
inability to handle conflict.  Too often, as described in 
author Lee Raffle's 2008 book "I Hate Conflict" as Conflict Goof-Ups, these
struggles result in significant personal chaos:
"Conflict Goof-Ups have an uncanny knack for getting others
mad at them. This has the effect of throwing a smokescreen
around the real issues. Anticipating the worst will
happen, they keep their close relationships off balance.
Conflict Goof-Ups sabotage intelligent dialogue in several ways:

• They get defensive, which makes it hard to talk to them in a reasonable manner.
• They can be passive-aggressive. Their attempt to hide their mean streaks and insincere ways under the cloak of a phony congeniality.
• They maneuver the conversation by changing the subject to distract the other person.
• They tell outright lies to throw a wrench in the conversation.
• They play stupid by asking irrelevant questions that insult the other person's intelligence.

"When Conflict Goof-Ups are put on the spot and pressured to explain
what they did wrong or why they said something foolish, they dump
their fury on their closest associates. When they are cornered, they
will turn around and fault others for demanding answers that are not
on the tip of their tongue." Lee Raffel, I Hate Conflict, (NY:  McGraw-Hill,
2008) 71.

Obviously, such manipulation and lying is quite poisonous to any relationship.
Rather than earning reputations as Conflict Goof Ups, MissLed women can gain respect and love
by being Conflict Innovators:

"Their motto: "Let's be sensible and consider our options."
What they assume: The more I learn from my mistakes, the less
I have to regret.
Their intention:  They pick their battles - the fewer the better.
The costs of being a Conflict Innovator:  None.
The benefits of being a Conflict Innovator:  They'll confront
when necessary, so others will know their limitations." Lee Raffel,
I Hate Conflict, (NY:  McGraw-Hill, 2008) 83.

Aspiring to be a conflict innovator instead of a conflict goof up, then, would serve all women well.  Handling conflict calmly - and learning how and when to engage in arguments - is the key to being and effective and respected adult.

WHY DOES ARGUMENT AGGRAVATION MATTER?

Creative, Constructive Argument leads to more:

• Trust
• Integrity
• Quality Communication due to knowledge of others' viewpoints
• Respect
• Learning and sharing of knowledge
• Ability to Persuade others
• Conflict Innovators

In stark contrast, Destructive, Manipulative Argument leads to:

• Distrust
• Disrespect
• Incivility
• Inability to Persuade others
• Conflict Goof Ups

Argument is yet another example of how MISSLED WOMEN FAIL TO BEHAVE CONSTRUCTIVELY.  
Avoiding argument merely because they haven't developed their communication skills
only perpetuates their personal problems.  In addition, engaging in arguments but doing so
in fallacious or other ineffective ways is not constructive. It severely
reduces the opportunities for MissLed women to persuade or be understood by others:

"An argument is the way you put together or structure your ideas,
opinions or beliefs so that people will better understand what it is you're
trying to say.  People may not agree with what you have to say, but if you
phrase your ideas in the form of arguments, you will stand a far greater
chance of being understood." Christopher W. Dicarlo, How to Become a
Really Good Pain In The Ass, (Amherst, NY:  Prometheus Books, 2010) 25.

Having a deficiency in argument leaves them unworthy of attention, trust or lasting love. Lastly, their habit of avoiding argument due to their fear of conflict bodes ill for their chances of happy,
fulfilling personal relationships.

Finally, in this era of instant communication, argument matters today more than ever:

"Persuasive communication is no longer the preserve of professionals - be they politicians, broadcasters, or advertisers.  Anyone with a hooked-up computer can now communicate
remotely and instantaneously - through the spoken word or through the written - with a potential
audience of millions. Blogs and video-logs, and the online arguments in comment threads
and chat rooms, have spawned new tropes and figures, and new uses for the old ones.  We live,
thanks to the reach of our technology, in perhaps the most argumentative age of any in history."

Sam Leith, Words Like Loaded Pistols: Rhetoric from Aristotle to Obama, (NY: Basic Books, 2012) 18.

==================================================================================
John D. Mullen, Hard Thinking:  The Reintroduction of Logic Into Everyday Life, (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1995):
Reason Substitutes
A reason substitute is any tactic or approach to arriving at a belief that avoids or replaces the use of intelligent argumentation.
The arsenal or reason substitutes is in fact quite extensive, involving all sorts of illogical ways of arriving at and defending beliefs:

She will believe what her society or subgroup believes.
He will believe what his master or leader tells him to believe.
He will believe what has been traditionally been believed, rejecting any new proposals.
She will believe whatever seems to fit the way she would like things to be.
He will believe whatever seems to be common sense, that is, seems on the surface to be true.
She will believe whatever is good for the cause to which she is devoted, and reject whatever seems to undermine that cause.
He will believe whatever appears in the newspapers, or in one particular newspaper.
She will select a particular book and then believe whatever she thinks it states.
He will wait to find out what the majority believes and then believe that.
She will find out what the majority believes, and then, being an individualist, believe the opposite.
He will believe whatever fits his already established beliefs, without ever thinking of revising these.


"Soft thinkers equate confident argumentation with dogmatism; hard thinkers recognize the distinction between the two."

"Hard thinkers welcome and encourage challenges to their own views; soft thinkers fear criticism as blows to self esteem." 15.

"Fanatics are soft thinkers, and hard thinkers are never fanatics."
"Hard thinkers have the courage to subject their beliefs to investigation; soft thinking fanatics live in fear of scrutiny." 16.

"Hard thinkers are masters of their own communication, whereas soft thinkers  are the victims of the tool of language that they don't understand." 18.

"The hard thinker can recognize fallacies of reason; the soft thinker cannot."
"The hard thinker can distinguish the trickster from the reasonable person, the soft thinker is at the mercy of the charlatan."

"The hard thinker is very careful in drawing conclusions about what the causes of things are; the soft thinker rushes into such conclusions, and often into superstition." 19.







---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An appeal to EMOTION...People often use emotion instead of reason in order to
persuade others: threats use anger; please make use of pity or sympathy; flattery
and ridicule make use of pride and self-doubt; bribes make use of greed; reverence
makes use of fear and insecurity...
MissLed women's attempt to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or
compelling argument.
Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, pride, and more.
Appeal to pity occurs when MissLed women attempt to persuade a person to accept an argument by arousing their
sympathy or compassion.

It's important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire
emotion or have an emotional aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when
emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that no
compelling rational reason exists for one's position. Everyone, bar sociopaths,
is affected by emotion, and so appeals to emotion are a very common and
effective argument tactic, but they're ultimately flawed, dishonest, and tend to
make one's opponents justifiably emotional.
- An appeal to INTUITION...Perhaps what people call intuition is unconscious reasoning:
maybe they have reasons for thinking as they do, but they haven't done the work
required to acknowledge and articulate those reasons, to themselves or to others.
In that case, appeals to intuition, gut feeling a sixth sense - they're all just
ways to avoid the hard work of using one's intellect. .
- An appeal to INSTINCT..."Just follow your instincts.  That's fine if you are a wolf.
Wolves don't have to make decisions about elective surgery and the distribution of
scarce resources.  Brute biochemical wiring, or whatever instinct is, is generally
inferior to rational thought.
- An appeal to FAITH..."I just believe that it is so; I have faith that it will be so.
Faith, by definition, is belief in the absence of reason. Peg Tittle, Critical Thinking:
An Appeal to Reason, (NY:  Routledge, 2011) 29-30.

Appeal to hope (faith), appeal to fear or threat (baculum), and appeal to pity (misericordiam),
are all fallacies that fall UNDER the genre of fallacy known as Appeal to Emotion. So I guess
what I'm talking about here today is an area of fallacy.
An Appeal to Emotion is just what it sounds like. Appealing to someone's (usually an audience
or a jury's) emotions - rather than to their minds and logic.
"A weak or irrelevant argument can be taken as strong and relevant because of its
powerful emotional impact on the respondent." Douglas N. Walton, The Place of Emotion in Argument, (University Park, PA:  Pennsylvania State U. Press, 1992)

Ad Hominem:
"Character assassination is such a powerful tactic in argumentation that it is difficult to resist using it, difficult to defend against effectively, and difficult to prevent the argument from degenerating into a personal quarrel once the tactic
is used." Douglas N. Walton, The Place of Emotion in Argument, (University Park, PA:  Pennsylvania State U. Press, 1992) 3.







FALLACIES:
1. Poisoning the Well
This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting
unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person.  he person making such an attack is
hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence
that they will reject any claims he might make.
"Don't listen to him, he's a scoundrel."
2. Guilt by association
A person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim.
The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike.
3. Dubious assumption
4. Fallacies of Intimidation:  ARGUMENT FROM INTIMIDATION:
The argument from intimidation is a means of avoiding debate and reducing any argument
to a shambles by accusing the opponent of being of unsound moral character, almost always
without backing up the accusations. The unskilled and unconfident debater may reel under
the moral attack, unable to defend themselves against something based entirely on psychology
and not on logic.
 It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure . . . [It] consists of
threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the
argument without debate.
The pattern is always: “Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.)
can hold such an idea.”
5. Ethnocentric Thinking
6. Bulverism (Psychogenetic Fallacy) - inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to
some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. It is wrong to assume that if
the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a false.
Arguments not heated exchanges

APPEAL TO PROBABILITY:
Hollywood doesn't help us on this one, since many movies are about the one-in-a-million shot going
through. Nobody wants to hear about the underdog who lost the big game 49-0. So after hearing that same
story several hundred times, we somehow come away with an unspoken belief that the unlikely underdog
often wins. We don't stop to ask why, if that really happens, they are still called the unlikely underdog.


- Decision Making: Its Logic and Practice
"Egocentric commitments"
T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments, (Boston:  Wadsworth, 2013)
"When our own welfare or continued existence is at stake, most of
us want good arguments to work."  4.

"...using good arguments t make decisions about what to believe or do, to support our
interest in holding only those views that are true or defensible, to raise the qualitative
level of intellectual discussion in our social lives, and to settle disputes or conflicts
to which we are a party. In our better or more reflective moments, most of us believe that
these things that good arguments help to being about are personally and socially desirable.
Hence, all of us should do no less than join forces in attacking faulty reasoning." 4.
"Real truth-seekers do not try to win by ignoring or denying the counterevidence against
their positions." 12.
"Entitled to your opinion:"
"An argument is a SUPPORTED opinion...an opinion expressed at the conclusion of an argument
is not "just an opinion"; it is a supported opinion, and any criticism of that opinion should
be aimed at the quality of the argument supporting it. The expression of personal opinion is
probably our most common form of verbal exchange, and since reasons for our opinions are often
not requested, we are unaccustomed to defending them and are even lulled into thinking that
reasons are not required. "Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, it is often said.
This is true, but the question here is not whether one has the right to express an
opinion; it is a question of which opinions deserve our acceptance.  If an opinion is
not accompanied by reasons to support it, it is not possible to determine whether it
merits our acceptance." 16.
==================================================================================

=======================================================

***DELUSION:
RATIONALIZATION BY WOMEN - Some MissLed women's rationalization hamsters are cute, little manageable rodents,
while others' are the size of Shetland ponies. They'll say anything to defend other women and defend their own choices.
The feminism movement has filled women with so many lies and has encouraged irrational thinking. But many do
 eventually figure out the truth , and realize we were all sold a bill of goods.


================================================================================
Nancy M. Cavender, Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life, (Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth, 2010)
IGNORANCE:
"...ignorance is NOT bliss.  It just renders us incapable of intelligently
evaluating claims, premises, arguments, and other sorts of rhetoric we all are
subject to every day. When evaluating arguments and issues, we can't bring
relevant beliefs to bear if we don't have them, and we cannot make good
judgments if what we believe is off the mark." 15.
"Knowledge not renewed quickly becomes ignorance."  - Peter Drucker 15.
"Reasoning based on a grossly inaccurate or shallow world-view tends to
yield grossly inappropriate, or self-defeating conclusions (except when
we're just plain lucky), no matter how smart we otherwise may be. Sometimes
the harm is relatively minor (gamblers who waste a few bucks playing "lucky"
lottery numbers; astrology column readers who arrange vacation times to
fit their sign), but at other times the harm can be more serious (people with
an overly rosy view of human nature who get taken by sharp operators; misanthropes
who miss out on benefits and joys of trusting relationships)." 19.
========================================================================
"Too, it's hard to change one's mind, because one's mind - what's in it as well as
how it works - is very much a matter of habit and habits are hard to break...
And often, we simply believe what we want to believe. We believe whatever is
in our best interests to believe...On some issues, our emotions get in our way and
prevent us from thinking rationally about the matter...We may find it difficult to
weigh all the evidence fairly or to accept that a certain conclusion necessarily
follows from the evidence." 16.

The Place of Emotion in Argument, (University Park, PA:  Pennsylvania State U. Press, 1992) 3.
Emotion is a good catalyst for action, and action is important. Being emotional about
something is good - so long as it's the proper emotion to the proper degree for the proper
reasons. Appealing to Emotion is only fallacious when the person making the appeal is trying
to do so in the place of logic or evidence.
Logic without emotion is a useless and rotting log, which merely blends in with all the rest of the moss.
Emotion without logic is a wild, rampant, and dangerous beast.
You must have both.
Logic is the bullet. Make sure it is strong, clean, bright, and true.
 Emotion is the pistol. A bullet will not go far unless fired for a decent and confident pistol,
carried with conviction.
Logic is the steering wheel. With it you can find the proper roads and avoid accidents.
 Emotion is the gas pedal. Without it you will never get where you are headed. Just make sure your wheel
is working, or you'll only head into a ditch, and unfortunately you may bring someone with you.
Logic and emotion have their place. If emotion is not in its place, if it is void of reason,
if it holds reason in contempt, if it tries to take the place of reason, then is the "Appeal
to Emotion" logical fallacy.

*********"Emotion cannot take the place of evidence."*********