A list of frustrations I'm having (on Don't Ask Don't Tell

[Black Wolf]

Yes, probably not a good idea to do this, yes?

I'm having a hard time arguing with a Christian. I recognize the fallacies, but I can't really identify what exactly they are. It's regarding DADT.

1. His first argument is that if it shouldn't be a problem to let gays openly serve in the showers, then it shouldn't be a problem to intergrate men and women in the showers. It sounded like a straw man, except I don't think that's quite the accurate term for it. Is there a definition for a fallacy of "If it's okay to take action X, then why isn't okay to take action Y"?

I accused him of making a question-begging analogy. I argued that it doesn't make

2. He says that his anecdotal evidence is empirical evidence. I told him that no, his evidence was not empirical. He argues that empirical evidence, by definition, is based on sensory perception. He referred to it as "his own empirical evidence".

3. When I used a Zogby statistic stating that 73% of soldiers would not mind serving with homosexuals, he claims that's "anecdotal". I told him no, it wasn't anecdotal. He askes me "Why is my polling of the military personnel I know any different than from the polling that Zogby did?". I am about to argue that Zolgby did a national study, and he just studied a few people.

Edited June 5, 2010 by Black Wolf

[Pokarrin]

1. Actually I don't think there is anything at all wrong with co-ed showers, though males and females would likely segregate themselves anyway due to overwhelming cultural norms. Those norms are the only reason that male/female segregation is practiced. I think fears of increased rape or sexual assault as a result of integration would prove groundless, as the punishments for those crimes would remain the same, and, despite some silliness to the contrary, sexual urges are never uncontrollable (unless the person has a mental condition, which would bar them from military duty anyway). The same argument applies to gays in the showers.

2. Anecdotal evidence is empirical, if it accurately represents an actual event or group of events. That doesn't mean it's conclusive, or representative of a larger context.

3. The Zogby poll would indeed normally be stronger evidence, due to the larger sample size, though that would also depend on how well the questions were formulated and presented. In general I would trust the results of a large polling organization over one conducted by a single, overtly biased individual. That is because the polling organization is less likely to ask "loaded questions", takes a larger sample, and typically reports the results more objectively. This is by no means universally true, however, and I would have to see the specific polls (his, and Zogby's) to judge whether it is true in this case. Be prepared to make that argument, and support it, or abandon your poll.

I think you're focussing too much on trying to identify specific, named fallacies, and allowing yourself to get bogged down in battles over definitions of words. For the first, I find it helps to, at least to yourself, reduce your opponent's argument to a syllogism, and find either the unsupported premise or the faulty conclusion (one that doesn't follow from his premises, as presented), or both, and expose them.

For the second, just concede the silly anecdotal/empirical debate, however he wishes to define the words, and focus on which evidence provides stronger support for the conclusions drawn from it. You don't need to draw a clear distinction between the two terms to defeat his argument in this case.

Last thought: Why are you attempting to engage someone in rational debate who obviously bases his "reasoning" on a faith-based (and therefore, irrational) distaste for homosexuality? You know that you have practically zero probability of changing his mind, right?

[Black Wolf]

It doesn't hurt to try.

But he did try to give me a "secular perspective" on why homosexuality is bad. He told me it was "selfish" to be homosexual, because it was not

Yeah, it is very frustrating. But I find that no matter how cliche and pure rationalist another person's reasoning is, it never hurts to challenge him. It's kinda moot now, though, because he's now making ad hominem attacks against me. I generally assume that when people judge, they prepare to be judged.

As for why I'd like to know if it represents a particular fallacy.. I guess it's no so much that I want to learn new fallacy terms, rather.. I just can't find how to put into words my complaints with the argument itself. Now that I think about it, would that be called "Moving the Goalposts?" Because we're arguing a policy, and he's demanding to know my position on a policy entirely different than this?

[ctrl y]

1. His first argument is that if it shouldn't be a problem to let gays openly serve in the showers, then it shouldn't be a problem to intergrate men and women in the showers. It sounded like a straw man, except I don't think that's quite the accurate term for it. Is there a definition for a fallacy of "If it's okay to take action X, then why isn't okay to take action Y"?

This is not a fallacy. If you believe that heterosexual men and women may not use the same showers in the military, and you believe that heterosexual men and homosexual men may use the same showers in the military, then there should be some distinction between women and homosexual men sufficent to justify that the former may not share showers with heterosexual men and the latter may. Otherwise, you're just being irrational.

2. He says that his anecdotal evidence is empirical evidence. I told him that no, his evidence was not empirical. He argues that empirical evidence, by definition, is based on sensory perception. He referred to it as "his own empirical evidence".

It is empirical evidence. However, you may ignore all anecdotal claims, on the grounds that they are anecdotal. If a claim is anecdotal, then you have no way of verifying that it is true.

3. When I used a Zogby statistic stating that 73% of soldiers would not mind serving with homosexuals, he claims that's "anecdotal". I told him no, it wasn't anecdotal. He askes me "Why is my polling of the military personnel I know any different than from the polling that Zogby did?". I am about to argue that Zolgby did a national study, and he just studied a few people.

That sounds good.

[JayR]

I'm having a hard time arguing with a Christian.

This made me laugh.

j..

[FeatherFall]

I often suspect the confirmation bias when someone is providing me with an anecdote. Also, there is no way to examine the anecdote giver's methods. Somebody already mentioned that leading questions can affect the result of an anecdotal poll. But what about the atmosphere? If you ask a soldier in a barracks full of soldiers what he thinks about military policy he will feel great pressure to show support for established policy. There is no way to accurately assess if things like these were at play - you have only your friend's word that they were not, which is unreliable due to the fallibility of human memory.

I was watching Penn Gillett interview James Randi on the special features section of the first season of Bullshit on DVD. In the interview, Penn says that he's sometimes asked (I paraphrase), "If you went to a chiropractor and felt better afterwards, wouldn't that prove to you that it works?"

Penn would respond with an emphatic, "No!"

Penn doesn't even trust his own anecdotal evidence in every case. He's made a carrier of exploring deception and realizes that his perception isn't perfect. He prefers to trust a rigorously controlled study to his experiences when outside variables are uncontrolled.

[chuff]

I argued that it doesn't make

He told me it was "selfish" to be homosexual, because it was not

Would you mind finishing these so we know your complete thoughts?

[Black Wolf]

Oops!

I am not sure what I was trying to say on the first one.

He told me it was "selfish" to be homosexual, because it was not particularly helpful for the survival of the human race. I pointed out that the existance of artificial insemination makes it very much possible for homosexuals to have children. I decided not to get into the whole "Virtue of selfishness" arguments, and I also tried to avoid spending time on that because I wanted to keep the focus on DADT.

My point is that this person -attempts- to find secular explanations for his mystical metaphysics.

Edited June 6, 2010 by Black Wolf

[Dante]

Oops!

I am not sure what I was trying to say on the first one.

He told me it was "selfish" to be homosexual, because it was not particularly helpful for the survival of the human race. I pointed out that the existance of artificial insemination makes it very much possible for homosexuals to have children. I decided not to get into the whole "Virtue of selfishness" arguments, and I also tried to avoid spending time on that because I wanted to keep the focus on DADT.

My point is that this person -attempts- to find secular explanations for his mystical metaphysics.

Then it would also be selfish to be celibate, correct?

[Vik]

Yes, probably not a good idea to do this, yes?

I'm having a hard time arguing with a Christian. I recognize the fallacies, but I can't really identify what exactly they are. It's regarding DADT.

1. His first argument is that if it shouldn't be a problem to let gays openly serve in the showers, then it shouldn't be a problem to intergrate men and women in the showers. It sounded like a straw man, except I don't think that's quite the accurate term for it. Is there a definition for a fallacy of "If it's okay to take action X, then why isn't okay to take action Y"?

I accused him of making a question-begging analogy. I argued that it doesn't make

2. He says that his anecdotal evidence is empirical evidence. I told him that no, his evidence was not empirical. He argues that empirical evidence, by definition, is based on sensory perception. He referred to it as "his own empirical evidence".

3. When I used a Zogby statistic stating that 73% of soldiers would not mind serving with homosexuals, he claims that's "anecdotal". I told him no, it wasn't anecdotal. He askes me "Why is my polling of the military personnel I know any different than from the polling that Zogby did?". I am about to argue that Zolgby did a national study, and he just studied a few people.

1. The error is called "integration by non-essentials".

2. Some forms of empirical evidence are better than others. The individual in question is correct that anecdotal evidence is perceptual-concrete evidence BUT does not grasp that statistically rigorous evidence is better.

3. I suggest education, such as the meaning and use of sample size, margin of error, and the like.

[Black Wolf]

Then it would also be selfish to be celibate, correct?

That was among one of the many responses I had, but he was already getting on the offensive and accusing me of being "another leftists who just repeats the question when he doesn't like the answer".

Oh, I got a good one.

If everyone were homosexual, nobody would produce children

Therefore, homosexuality is bad

If everyone were female, nobody would produce children

Therefore, being a female is bad

Vik, thanks. I'll have to research "integration by parts" on wiki

Edited June 9, 2010 by Black Wolf