This is the topic I’ve been amusing myself with while in doctor’s waiting rooms as of late – what are the dumbest, most annoying, and most overused arguments and rhetorical devices on the SDMB? I’m posting this in IMHO instead of The Pit because I’m interested in the opinions of others. What are your least favorite rhetorical devices? Are there any on my list that you think are not so bad? If so, I’d like to hear why. I also do not want anyone using the subject as an excuse to attack other posters. I would prefer that no names be named or threads linked to. Besides, many of these should be so common that providing specific examples should be unneccesary.
Here’s my starter list:
1. "Let’s replace that word with ‘black’ and see how bigoted you really are."
I’ve been tempted to use this one myself several times, although I think I’ve always restrained myself. It can in some cases be a good way to make a point, but there are several problems with this device. First, sometimes the issue at hand is in no way comparable to racism. If someone is complaining that they hate people who behave in a certain way, e.g. people who blow their noses loudly at the opera, then that is not equivelant to hating someone based on an innate and purely cosmetic combination of genetic traits.
Secondly, I think if I were black I’d be a little ticked off about how black people were always being trotted out as an example of victims of discrimination! Even as a very white white person, I think black people have a little more going for them than being some sort of universal symbol of the unfairly oppressed.
Finally, this device implies that everyone recognizes that racism is wrong, even if they don’t realize that other forms of discrimination are wrong, and this is unfortunately not true. I don’t like the suggestion that racism is dead while other forms of bigotry remain alive and well. Racism is, sadly, alive too.
2. “You’re only saying that because you’re a man.” "What makes you so sure I’m a man?"
The first statement may sometimes be justified; I used a form of it once to reply to a poster who’d demonstrated a stunning ignorance of basic female biology, and I think I was right to do so. However, it is bad if there has been no indication that the poster in question is a man (or a member of whatever group they’re being lumped into), and the assumption is being made solely on the basis of opinions that have nothing to do with sex.
The reply is always bad. If you’re not a man (or whatever) then say so. If you are, don’t try to play some little “Oh, but you can’t be sure over the Internet!” game to hide it. If the revelation of your true sex, race, religion, or political affiliation would really destroy your argument then it must not have been a very good argument in the first place.
3. "I have never studied, formally or informally, this complex subject, yet I feel I am qualified to tell people who have that they are completely wrong."
This seems to appear most commonly in Great Debates relating to genetics (especially race debates), but I’ve also seen it in discussions on linguistics, economics, and psychology. I’m sure it’s come up in regards to other issues as well.
On the SDMB we’re lucky to have people with specialized knowledge in various fields. Some of these people have advances degrees and related jobs, others are hobbyists who study a subject of personal interest for fun. These people may not always be right about issues relating to their field of expertise, but a biology grad student is a heck of a lot more likely to be right about a question of genetics than someone who can’t even draw a Punnett Square.
If you’re interested in learning about a subject and possibly fighting your own ignorance, listen to what people with some real knowledge of the subject have to say. If you disagree with them, study the subject on your own and see if there is any backing for your position. But if you’re interested merely in advancing your own agenda and looking like a fool in the process then by all means continue to insist that you are right despite your personal ignorance of the field and the mountain of evidence against you.
4. "But that’s just an appeal to authority!"
Yes, yes it is. And an appeal to authority is only fallacious if the authority appealed to is not a real authority on the subject at hand, or if the matter is one that even real authorities have not reached a consensus on.
5. "How can you say my opinion is wrong?"
Because you are stating an opinion about a matter of fact. Saying “It is my opinion that…” only means “I think this is true”. Some issues are purely matters of opinion, because they relate to subjective qualities. If you think it is true that apples are tastier than oranges then that is your opinion and no one can say it isn’t true, although they might prefer oranges to apples themselves. But if you have expressed an opinion on something related to objective facts then your opinion might well be wrong. So stop being a baby about it.
Anyone got any others?
