Possible fallacy?

[ers]

All right, so I just got out of a nasty argument about universal health care. I ran down my points, explaining why health care wasn't a right, what rights were, and what the result of coercion in this market would produce. I was very polite, and endured several personal attacks; "Neo-con", "shill for Fox News", "fan of Ann Coulter", etc. He kept repeating that this was a "human rights" issue, and how it was a "disgrace" that we were the only industrialized country in this world that did not have this system, and how he cared more about "people than money."

Now there are some obvious fallacies in here, Personal Attack, Guilt by Association, Appeal to Emotionalism, Appeal to Pity, Bandwagon, etc. But after arguing in circles for a while I asked him to explain what exactly his concept of "human rights" was, that he was so passionate about. At this point I knew the conversation was over, because his response was:

"If you can't figure out why healthcare for people who can't afford it is a human rights issue, I'm not patient enough to try to enlighten you and you're not open-minded enough to be informed."

This is an argument I've heard before- the "you're too stupid to get it" argument, and was wondering if it had a formal name or was generally considered a logical fallacy. Also, if anyone has any pointers for arguing this topic (or arguing in general), please point me to the right thread.

[khaight]

This is an argument I've heard before- the "you're too stupid to get it" argument, and was wondering if it had a formal name or was generally considered a logical fallacy. Also, if anyone has any pointers for arguing this topic (or arguing in general), please point me to the right thread.

This sounds like a variation on the Argument From Intimidation, a fallacy identified and analyzed by Ayn Rand in an essay of that name.

[brian0918]

They assert the existence of a right. Let them show the basis of their assertion. Until then, it's evasion.

[bluecherry]

Reminds me of the story of The Emperor's New Clothes too. Get everybody to shut up and take it, act like they get this baseless nonsense, because otherwise we'll say they must just be stupid and shame them into silence and being ignored because if anybody else admits they see what you've got to say, they then get labeled a shameful fool to be ignored is all too. Of course, just because you try to shut people up and get them written off, refusing to examine an issue, doesn't have any impact on truth or falsehood, validity or invalidity.

Also, I think that refusing to answer under implication somebody is hopelessly stupid may count as another fallacy of "attack on the man" and maybe poisoning the well or something similar because he is trying to preemptively say that anything you'd argue against his arguments if he tried is invalid because you are stupid.

[Thales]

All right, so I just got out of a nasty argument about universal health care. I ran down my points, explaining why health care wasn't a right, what rights were, and what the result of coercion in this market would produce. I was very polite, and endured several personal attacks; "Neo-con", "shill for Fox News", "fan of Ann Coulter", etc. He kept repeating that this was a "human rights" issue, and how it was a "disgrace" that we were the only industrialized country in this world that did not have this system, and how he cared more about "people than money."

Now there are some obvious fallacies in here, Personal Attack, Guilt by Association, Appeal to Emotionalism, Appeal to Pity, Bandwagon, etc. But after arguing in circles for a while I asked him to explain what exactly his concept of "human rights" was, that he was so passionate about. At this point I knew the conversation was over, because his response was:

"If you can't figure out why healthcare for people who can't afford it is a human rights issue, I'm not patient enough to try to enlighten you and you're not open-minded enough to be informed."

This is an argument I've heard before- the "you're too stupid to get it" argument, and was wondering if it had a formal name or was generally considered a logical fallacy. Also, if anyone has any pointers for arguing this topic (or arguing in general), please point me to the right thread.

Regarding how to argue, the first thing is to always know what you are arguing for and/or against. You can only argue correctly if you know what you're talking about.

Okay, as to socialized medicine versus freedom:

The Moral Argument:

There is no right to health care, because there is no right to force another person to serve you. Men are not slaves. To make it even more personal tell him that you are not his slave, and that he has no right to tell you what to do. Put him on the defensive.

You have the right to live your life and pursue your life and dreams, and life becomes worthless and impossible if you can't do that. Individual rights protect insure that I am free and can pursue my life and dreams.

The Practical Argument:

Socialized medicine does not work. It creates shortages, results in a decline in quality, and the stagnation of the advance of the medical industry. There is no universal coverage, as is promised. Capitalism, otoh, works supremely well. It results in reasonable costs, high and every improving quality and has near universal coverage. It's a million times better for life than socialism. In fact, the proper equation is socialism = death and capitalism = life.

Now there are a ton of particular facts that will be required to bolster those two essential points, which requires educating your self on specifics.

Here is a lengthy pamphlet on rights and health care, written by George Reisman, a professor of economy and an Objectivist. It was written circa 1993, but covers the history of health care in America:

http://www.capitalism.net/articles/SOC_MED...20Medicine.html

A great book is "Code Blue: Health Care in Crisis" written by Edward Annis, MD. This was also written circa 1993, but this doctor gives you a look at medicine from the inside, from the perspective of a doctor who practiced starting in the 1930s. He ran a hospital in Miami in the 1960s, and was former head of the AMA. It's chock-full of great facts.

http://www.amazon.com/Code-Blue-Health-Car...s/dp/089526515X

Peikoff has an essay in "The Voice of Reason" on health care. It may be available on the web somewhere, although I'm not sure off hand.

One more point about style. Don't let that guy get away with moral outrage! You are the one who should be outraged. Show him that you really *value* your liberty, and let him know why you think his view is morally reprehensible! Let him know you know the real stakes in this battle. The fact/value connection is vital to any argument like this.

Addendum:

Yeah, here is Peikoff's essay, "Health Care Is Not A Right":

http://www.westandfirm.org/Peikoff-01.html

Edited December 27, 2009 by Thales

[Thales]

*duplicate*

Edited December 27, 2009 by Thales

[ers]

This sounds like a variation on the Argument From Intimidation, a fallacy identified and analyzed by Ayn Rand in an essay of that name.

Thanks! I looked this up briefly and it looks as though I'm going to be borrowing my wife's copy of Virtue of Selfishness for my next book to read.

Also, I think that refusing to answer under implication somebody is hopelessly stupid may count as another fallacy of "attack on the man" and maybe poisoning the well or something similar because he is trying to preemptively say that anything you'd argue against his arguments if he tried is invalid because you are stupid.

Yeah, I thought this as well. The whole time he was trying to peg me as some sort of neo-con who worshiped Bush and Karl Rove and after he had made that judgment, it was difficult to move the conversation away from it, even though I told him several times that I'm not a neo-con.

They assert the existence of a right. Let them show the basis of their assertion. Until then, it's evasion.

Nice... wish I had found those words when I was talking to him.

Here is a lengthy pamphlet on rights and health care, written by George Reisman, a professor of economy and an Objectivist. It was written circa 1993, but covers the history of health care in America:

http://www.capitalism.net/articles/SOC_MED...20Medicine.html

Thanks for this, it looks interesting. I've read the Peikoff article; it's my favorite thing to forward to people regarding the morality of health care.

[Weston]

It's a classic example of the burden of proof fallacy. He claims that healthcare is a human right, and when asked to prove that claim he simply states (in a very rude manner) that you could never disprove the claim (even though I'm sure you could, if given the chance).

[A is A]

All right, so I just got out of a nasty argument about universal health care. I ran down my points, explaining why health care wasn't a right, what rights were, and what the result of coercion in this market would produce. I was very polite, and endured several personal attacks; "Neo-con", "shill for Fox News", "fan of Ann Coulter", etc. He kept repeating that this was a "human rights" issue, and how it was a "disgrace" that we were the only industrialized country in this world that did not have this system, and how he cared more about "people than money."

Now there are some obvious fallacies in here, Personal Attack, Guilt by Association, Appeal to Emotionalism, Appeal to Pity, Bandwagon, etc. But after arguing in circles for a while I asked him to explain what exactly his concept of "human rights" was, that he was so passionate about. At this point I knew the conversation was over, because his response was:

"If you can't figure out why healthcare for people who can't afford it is a human rights issue, I'm not patient enough to try to enlighten you and you're not open-minded enough to be informed."

This is an argument I've heard before- the "you're too stupid to get it" argument, and was wondering if it had a formal name or was generally considered a logical fallacy. Also, if anyone has any pointers for arguing this topic (or arguing in general), please point me to the right thread.

It is several fallacies. It's a form of ad hominem: he is attacking your argument and attempting to disprove it by an appeal to your state of mind ("you're not open-minded"). It is an Appeal to Pity: if you don't accept altruism, you can't be convinced. I don't see it as an Argument from Intimidation: "threatening to impeach [your] character by means of [your] argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate." (A from I)

Edited December 28, 2009 by A is A

[Tyco]

I've heard that phrase many times. Usually phrased as:

"If you have to ask, then I'm not going to explain." or "If you don't understand, I can't teach you."

it's just straight forward stupidity. There's no argument there at all. There's no point in teaching or explaining to people who DO understand. I suppose if you want to get technical, it's a smuggled concept fallacy, because the concept of teaching/explaining depends on the concept of ignorance - this arguer wants to deny that dependancy while still using the noble concept of teaching in her/her statement. As if you could teach the already taught.

[A is A]

I've heard that phrase many times. Usually phrased as:

"If you have to ask, then I'm not going to explain." or "If you don't understand, I can't teach you."

it's just straight forward stupidity. There's no argument there at all. There's no point in teaching or explaining to people who DO understand. I suppose if you want to get technical, it's a smuggled concept fallacy, because the concept of teaching/explaining depends on the concept of ignorance - this arguer wants to deny that dependancy while still using the noble concept of teaching in her/her statement. As if you could teach the already taught.

But the concept under discussion was not teaching. A logical fallacy is aimed at the content and method of the specific argument. Else, you could bring in many other fallacies that are implicit or assumed.

[Tyco]

but like i said, there is no real argument there

in the below statement

"If you can't figure out why healthcare for people who can't afford it is a human rights issue, I'm not patient enough to try to enlighten you and you're not open-minded enough to be informed."

the word 'IF' changes everything

without IF, the first word, then yes it would be simply part of an argument from intimidation or ad hominem

but the fact is 'if' is part of the statement, making it an argument by itself, and this type of statement crops up in many other circumstances. it's a logical contradiction because it contains a stolen concept fallacy. that's just a technical explanation for something that's common sense

[Mister A]

I wouldn't waste my time. You're dealing with someone who voluntarily shut down his own mind and any attempt to nudge it back into operation will only make him resentful and humiliated.

You're better off sharing the info in this thread to audiences who are not similarly self-handicapped.