Argument by label

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.

Forms

discrediting the action

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.

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.

discrediting the people

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

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 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:

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!": 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