Difference between revisions of "Argument by label"

Revision as of 14:18, 7 May 2013

About

Argument by label is a type of argument which associates two things by labeling one as a form of the other, without any actual justification for doing so. As such, it is a type of soldier argument. It is generally intended to discredit one of the two things being associated with each other, where the other thing already has negative connotations or associations.

Forms

discrediting an activity

The arguer tries to condemn a particular action by associating it with a negative label. This can include:

labeling the action as "injustice" or some other term with negative connotations -- when in fact the term may not apply at all
labeling the action as being advocated by a particular party (person or group of people) -- a logical fallacy in that a disparaged group's advocacy of a particular action does not prove that the action is wrong; this is a form of association fallacy.
- One of the most common uses of this form is the Argumentum ad Hitlerum ("You know who else advocated X? Adolf Hitler!"), leading to the creation of Godwin's Law

discrediting a group

The arguer tries to condemn a particular group by associating them with a widely-disparaged action or activity.

The logical fallacy is less obvious here, in that advocacy of a widely-disparaged action should certainly earn a party criticism for advocating it -- but:

If the party is offering a rational argument in support of the action, that argument should be countered (see Issuepedia:Arguing "address the substance") before assuming that the party is wrong (logically or ethically) to advocate it.
If the party has changed their mind and admitted their error, the only valid criticism of the party is that they made an error of judgement; they cannot be condemned for taking a position which they no longer take.

Fallacies

The fallacies which can be involved in argument by label are:

false equivalence

A label generally includes a number of implied attributes. An argument by label typically applies a label with a few matching attributes and then bases its conclusion on the presumption that all of the label's attributes are applicable. This is a false equivalence, a form ofovergeneralization.

false presumption of condemnation

A further rhetorical manipulation may be committed by speaking as if a particular action or party was widely condemned while in fact it is supported by most or all of the intended audience -- with the hope that implied peer pressure will cause the audience to negatively shift its perception of that party or action. This is presuming the conclusion, a form of circular argument.

Examples

"X is socialism / communism [which is evil (implied)]!": this uses both a double false equivalence and false presumption of condemnation:
- double false equivalence:
  - fact: X has some attributes in common with socialism or communism
    - however: X is not equivalent to converting to a socialist or communist form of government. (In most examples, X is nothing more than a minor policy proposal such as making the taxation curve more progressive.)
  - fact: socialism and communism were notoriously key components of a number of tyrannical governments during the 20th century
    - however: it was not socialism or communism per se which made those governments tyrannical

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <hide>
 [[page type::article]]
-[[thing type::logical fallacy]]
+[[thing type::rhetorical manipulation]]
-[[form of::association fallacy]]
+[[form of::soldier argument]]
 </hide>
 ==About==
-[[Argument by label]] is a type of argument in which the advocacy of an action is associated with (labeled as belonging to) a particular party (in the general sense of a group of people), with the intention of discrediting either the action or the party. Both forms are [[logical fallacies]]. A third option includes the false presumption of condemnation; this may be used in combination with either of the other two forms.
+[[Argument by label]] is a type of argument which associates two things by labeling one as a form of the other, without any actual justification for doing so. As such, it is a type of [[soldier argument]]. It is generally intended to discredit one of the two things being associated with each other, where the other thing already has negative connotations or associations.
 ===Forms===
-====discrediting the action====
+====discrediting an activity====
-The arguer tries to condemn a particular action by associating it with a widely-disparaged party. This is a [[logical fallacy]] in that a disparaged group's advocacy of a particular action does not prove that the action is wrong; this is a form of [[association fallacy]].
+The arguer tries to condemn a particular action by associating it with a negative label. This can include:
+* labeling the action as "injustice" or some other term with negative connotations -- when in fact the term may not apply at all
-One of the most common uses of this argument is the [[Argumentum ad Hitlerum]] ("You know who else advocated ''X''? [[Adolf Hitler]]!"), leading to the creation of [[Godwin's Law]] in order to reduce the number of conversations derailed by it.
+* labeling the action as being advocated by a particular party (person or group of people) -- a [[logical fallacy]] in that a disparaged group's advocacy of a particular action does not prove that the action is wrong; this is a form of [[association fallacy]].
-====discrediting the people====
+** One of the most common uses of this form is the [[Argumentum ad Hitlerum]] ("You know who else advocated ''X''? [[Adolf Hitler]]!"), leading to the creation of [[Godwin's Law]]
-The arguer tries to condemn a particular group by associating them with a widely-disparaged action.
+====discrediting a group====
+The arguer tries to condemn a particular group by associating them with a widely-disparaged action or activity.
 The logical fallacy is less obvious here, in that advocacy of a widely-disparaged action should certainly earn a party criticism for advocating it -- but:
-* If the party is offering a rational argument in support of the action, that argument should be countered (see [[Issuepedia:Arguing]] "address the substance").
+* If the party is offering a rational argument in support of the action, that argument should be countered (see [[Issuepedia:Arguing]] "address the substance") before assuming that the party is ''wrong'' (logically or ethically) to advocate it.
 * If the party has changed their mind and admitted their error, the only valid criticism of the party is that they made an error of judgement; they cannot be condemned for taking a position which they no longer take.
 ===Fallacies===
-The fallacies involved in [[argument by label]] are:
+The fallacies which can be involved in [[argument by label]] are:
 ====false equivalence====
 A label generally includes a number of implied attributes. An [[argument by label]] typically applies a label with a few matching attributes and then bases its conclusion on the presumption that ''all'' of the label's attributes are applicable. This is a [[false equivalence]], a form of[[overgeneralization]].
@@ Line 24: / Line 25: @@
 A further [[rhetorical manipulation]] may be committed by speaking ''as if'' a particular action or party was widely condemned while in fact it is supported by most or all of the intended audience -- with the hope that implied [[peer pressure]] will cause the audience to negatively shift its perception of that party or action. This is ''presuming the conclusion'', a form of [[circular argument]].
 ==Examples==
-* "X is [[socialism]] / [[communism]], which is evil!": this uses both a double false equivalence and false presumption of condemnation:
+* "X is [[socialism]] / [[communism]] [which is [[evil]] (implied)]!": this uses both a double false equivalence and false presumption of condemnation:
 ** double false equivalence:
 *** '''fact''': X has some attributes in common with socialism or communism