Labels

Lately I have been seeing an increase in the public practice of labeling others based on our perceptions of them. Some labels are benign while others are meant to present the individual or their ideas in a negative manner. These negative labels can take several forms:

The milder examples may be “Liberal” or “Conservative”.
Stronger varieties may include Redneck, Hippie, Tea Bagger, or Tree Hugger, all with negative connotations.
Degrading ones may be “Gun Toting NASCAR trailer trash” or “New World Order Libatard”.

Negative labeling during a discussion is often the result of an inability to address criticism of an idea through lack of favorable pertinent facts, a lack of critical reasoning, or unwillingness to devote the time to meaningful research.
In these cases negative labels are often employed to attack an opponent instead of the opponent’s ideas.

Another form of using negative labels is the Fallacy by Association.

Bob claims that funds for school breakfasts are good.
Some Liberals claim funds for school breakfasts are good.
Joan states that all Liberals have only bad ideas.
Joan labels Bob as a Liberal and therefore his idea of funding school breakfasts is bad.

This is not an attack on Bob’s premise, but an attack on Bob by associating him with a group that Joan has already defined as having bad ideas. Bob’s idea is never evaluated, only his association with a group that has been given negative connotations by Joan. Thus, by association, Bob, like all Liberals, can only have bad ideas and any thing he says is obviously wrong.

In another example,

Sue argues that modern biology supports Intelligent Design.
Paul states that Sue is a Conservative Christian and so, naturally that is what she would say.
Therefore Paul insinuates that because Sue is a Conservative Christian, and in his view all Conservative Christians support Intelligent Design, Sue cannot show that biology supports Intelligent Design.

This example rejects any arguments made by Sue in support of a biological basis for Intelligent Design because she is a conservative Christian.
It is an attack on her, not the argument.


The use of negative labels can also occur over time.
Jan can explain why the NRA is a negative influence on society in one thread without mentioning anyone in particular. The claim of a negative effect does not have to be established as true, just repeated often enough to appear to establish a relationship between the NRA and negative influences. Then after the association with the NRA and its negative effects on society are established, at a later date, in a separate thread, all he has to do is to call someone a card carrying member of the NRA to initiate an attack upon the person in question in an attempt to nullify his position by attacking him as a person, not by attacking his ideas with logic or facts.


The core of many discussions or debates is a disagreement and the ways of disagreeing can be envisioned as a pyramid starting at the top point with the most reasonable and effective method:

Refuting the Central Point.
To refute the central point you would restate the point,
You have said that <quotation> but this is wrong for the following reasons...
This is an explicit refutation that is clearly defined and leaves nothing implied.

Next is plain Refutation.
In this case you may disagree with a general idea, then you must find a specific quote or passage to which you can form a rebuttal. Then the reasons for the rebuttal are presented. If no quote or passage can be found you are probably looking at a Straw Man argument.

Next is the Counter Argument.
The Counter Argument is the first form of a convincing disagreement.
After the disagreement is established, facts and reasoning are applied to bolster the position.
Problems arise when the Central Point or the Counter Argument has not been sufficiently established and two people end up arguing over something that they both actually agree on.

Contradiction is the first actual response to an argument.
Once a point is made the opposite point is invoked as in the following example.
“There is no bases for dismissing intelligent design as intelligent design is a scientific theory.”

Going lower on the pyramid we can respond to Tone.
“I can’t believe you would dismiss intelligent design so easily.”

An Ad Hominem response could take the form of the Negative Labeling examples given above.

And the lowest form of response is Name Calling, as in:

The goal is to respond from the top of the pyramid, not the bottom.
​

 

I forgot to say that I don't mean to single out any individuals.
I am sure that at times I am guilty of everything I posted.


We all need to work on ourselves.