Snappy Comeback or Logical Fallacy

Have you ever had a conversation where some idiot utters what seems to be the most ignorant or illogical string of syllables that ever the ear did hear? And did after correcting them mildly or not so mildly (as is usually the case with me) did they say something like “if it doesn’t apply let it fly”?

Ugh… Where do I begin? This is not an right response to a criticism or counter argument to a statement you just made in any conversation, at anytime- EVER. This is nothing but logical fallacy launched as a defense to prevent you from having to actually provide logic or evidence to substantiate what you said. It pisses me off that we live in a culture where we are bathed in relativist nonsense and coddled into believing that we are so special that our opinions do not have to be founded upon anything of substance.

You cannot legitimately dismiss someone’s  with this tactic. Even if the subject in question applies to them they still have a right to take issue with a statement or argument you make if they find it flawed. But a person can take issue or be upset by statements that don’t apply to them. Like, you don’t have to be black to be offended by the term “nigger”, or gay to be offended by “faggot”, or a woman to be offended by “bitch”.

So let me give you an example of something that happened to me recently on the book of faces. A “friend” of mine asked a question regarding whether it might be a good idea to legalize prostitution in the U.S. An unfortunate man-child said,” Booty: You have to pay for it one way or another.”

Rage Face Sista

What the hell?

What’s worse is that people actually “liked” the comment. So after pointing out the obvious misogyny of implying that all women are prostitutes and arguing over several comments came that ridiculous statement. I can just picture that moron sitting at his computer with a smug look on his face saying, “take that!”, as he hits enter. Like, “not only will this shut her up but it also rhymes- I rule!”

It won’t shut me up because saying “If it don’t apply let it fly” commits at least a couple logical fallacies. The first is the mind projection fallacy, where the person believes the way they see the world is the way it really is. Like, believing only women who conduct themselves as prostitutes would be bothered by A COMMENT THAT CLEARLY  IMPLIES ALL WOMEN ARE PROSTITUTES. It further extends the non sequitur that was committed by this moron here but is probably present in the argument or statement they made initially. In this case the non sequitur in the previous comment goes something like this:
1) prostitutes are women (that men spend money on)
2) wives, girlfriends, sexual partners, etc are women (that men spend money) on
3 Therefore,  wives, girlfriends, sexual partners, etc are prostitutes

So never mind, for a second that not all prostitutes are women but even if we assume that wives, girlfriends, sexual partners etc, are women that men spend money on  it still doesn’t follow that all women are prostitutes or comparable to prostitutes in any way shape or form. And I would certainly hope that spouses, significant, or platonic friends, etc would not be treated like that by the men in their lives. To suggest that someone gets offended by a statement like that is a prostitute adds an additional category to the previously used logical fallacy (i.e. wives, girlfriends, sexual partners, women who are offended by this argument, etc). And finally it commits the ad hominem fallacy. Now to be clear, calling someone a name or labeling them is not on its own enough to commit an ad hominem. In order to commit the ad hominem, the attack must be offered to  counter the other person’s claim. In this case the person I’m referring to essentially said with his not so witty retort, “if you weren’t a prostitute then your wouldn’t be offended by what was said.”

So this “snappy” comeback loses its snap when you really examine it from a logical perspective. Just remember this post the next time you are confronted with this sort of nonsense, untwist your rage face, dismantle their piss poor logic and declare, ” No I will not let it fly because your poorly reasoned argument doesn’t apply in the first place!” And be sure to really let them have it.

**A NOTE ON MISOGYNY**
You do not have to walk around calling women bitches and hoes to earn the label or misogynist even though that is precisely what the man in my example implied.

2 Comments

Environmental Justice as a Skeptical Platform

Within the skeptical community there are many who are comfortable with focusing on a narrow set of  issues which can be examined using empirical methods, while also promoting scientific literacy. And the issues typically focused upon are important like debunking pseudoscience, exposing con artists and psychics (sort of redundant, I know), and critically examining all sorts paranormal claims. But just as skeptics like Jamila Bey have proposed we need to consider tackling other issues with our skeptical toolbox.

So before we do that we have to first get a working definition of  what skepticism is. So borrowing from a prominent skeptic, DJ Grothe, skepticism is not simply about “rejecting others false beliefs” but it’s also a “method of finding out the truth by using reason and looking at evidence — should be widely applied, and not just be restricted to a limited set of spooky claims.” So, how could one disagree that our movement could benefit from applying our skeptical tools to  issues of social justice? Well, Grothe and many other atheists do just that. One of the reasons cited is that skeptics don’t all share the same beliefs but as skeptics shouldn’t we be interested in uncovering truth wherever we can.  By exploring and uncovering that truth we could not only encourage others to join our ranks but also make a real difference in many people’s lives. Just as people’s lives can be improved when we  expose con artists who prey on their beliefs and bank account we can make a similar impact on issues of sociopolitical concern. One of those areas is environmental justice.

What is environmental justice?
Environmental justice is a field that concerns not just how environmental policy impacts the environment but how those policies also impact people based on race, gender, class, etc. It also focuses on how to involve communities in policy decisions and to protect them from unfair treatment and discrimination in the future.

Why does it matter? 

And there are countless other examples.

What makes this a good platform?

What makes this a good starting point for me is the fact that science is one of the principal things one has to consider when discussing environmental justice, and that as we all know is a major strength in the secular community. We get to discuss global warming, health, technology, and all the things we typically love. Being able to determine what is known about a particular environmental issue or process,  what risk it poses, and figuring out how to communicate that to a wide audience would allow us to capitalize on the tools and skills we acquire as skeptics. But communicating them to a wider audience is where becoming involved in environmental justice issues would help us the most. When communicating information to different groups it forces you to make some considerations, such as level of education or say the history of a particular community. Learning about a community and communicating effectively requires developing compassion. And compassion doesn’t necessarily mean buying into their beliefs or feelings, just like understanding why someone might be fooled into believing that someone can communicate with their dead loved one doesn’t make you buy into the concept of psychics and séances. It just helps us to know when to be more or less outspoken in critiquing their beliefs.

Talking about environmental justice will force us to have discussions about issues of class, race, gender, etc  that we sorely need. It will force us to address our concepts of race beyond the fact that it is unscientific. It will force us to discuss the concept of privilege and how blindness, whether color, gender, ability, or what have you often increases the likelihood that groups will be discriminated against. We can even discuss how these issues play out in the developing world.

It also gives our community another way to effect change that may be even more headline grabbing and would frankly be more interesting to many of the communities effected by this. Not many people in  the US, for instance know or care about what homeopathy is, but they know what a coal burning plant is, even if they don’t know what impact living in close proximity to one may have on their health.

Think about it, tackling this issue will make us so much more well rounded than we currently are as a community. I mean if we use our skepticism to help ourselves and others, that makes it a humanistic endeavor. And if it’s a humanistic endeavor then we don’t have to constrict our platform so narrowly. I think environmental justice is the most logical direction for our community to head in.

There are some aspects of field of environmental justice that are not so attractive to me as a skeptic, like the notion that the environment is sacred. It might seem like nitpicking to some people but I think there is an important difference between saying something is important and saying something is sacred. Saying something is sacred generally walls off a topic from being fully explored or critiqued because its associated with some sort of divine power or authority. And that to me is an area where we can help the environmental justice movement by helping some within it rely less  on spiritual/ divine arguments and focus more on science, ethics, health, sustainability, and risk assessment.

What do you think?

Related articles
2 Comments

NCCAM

So I had a conversation with a friend of mine about  NCCAM, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. For those of you that keep up with the news you might recall hearing that name nearly two years ago when the Associated Press published an article that demonstrated that in its then ten-year existence and with over 2.5 billion dollars in tax money spent only one treatment proved to have any sort of efficacy. Your grandmother or an older relative might be familiar with it, the treatment is ginger for nausea.

However, granny’s ginger isn’t enough to justify continuing support for  this institute. An institute that is supposed to be devoted to science aimed at improving medicine and public health, spending money on attempting to validate what would otherwise be treated as unscientific by the larger scientific community. It’s led to many suggesting it be dismantled allowing those scientists who would like to continue to study CAM to continue, provided they can demonstrate scientifically the plausibility of what they are studying with evidence . Meaning studies like those recently reported in the press would go the way of the dinosaur. I am speaking of studies that examine whether smelling lavender and lemon can help heal wounds. Or studies which aim to determine if massages can help cancer patients feel better. Both are answerable with a simple “Duh”. Or maybe a, “Doh!”, would be more appropriate? I can’t decide.

Related articles
Leave a comment

Billboard Brouhaha

Recently, Sikivu Hutchinson wrote a wonderfully insightful piece taking down the responses by many atheists to the topic of diversity and whether the movement should concern itself with issues of social justice. I highly recommend you read it, there are few others in the secular community that are as masterful at articulating these issues as she is (though Jamila Bey, Ian Cromwell, and a handful of others come to mind).

I bring this up because the need for people like Sikivu and so many others to continue fighting for diversity and to hold discussions of issues concerning white privilege, race, etc is underscored by recent events surrounding this:

Brought to you by the social/political ignorance of American Atheists...

In case you aren’t familiar with this story, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives have called this the year of the Bible. The resolution among other things says that the bible “inspired [the] concepts of civil government” contained in our nation’s founding documents. **Barf** It also suggests that by “Renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through holy scripture” that our nation can be strengthened. **Double Barf**

So understandably atheists and secularists, along with anyone with any understanding of history, can understand why those and other statements in the resolution are not only wrong but also offensive. They are offensive because not only was our nation was founded on the separation of church and state, but this sort of resolution also ignores all the citizens who lack faith but those who share in other faiths as well. Then there are a whole slew of reasons I could get into about how the bible is not the wonderful moral document that its advertised to be but I won’t- at least not today.

In response to this resolution the Pennsylvania Chapter of American Atheists decided to protest this resolution by exercising their first amendment rights and putting up this billboard. The message according to Ernest Perce of the PA chapter is that,”Slavery is brought to you by the bible and the House of Representatives.” I am not sure how slavery “is brought” to you by the legislature but I think taking a dig at the bible to show that it’s not the epitome of moral truth is warranted. That is a perfectly valid discussion to have since the bible condones and sanctions a number of horrific acts.

But what was the reaction to this billboard? Hostility and a great deal of it.

The billboard was placed in a predominantly black neighborhood in Harrisburg and residents there were extremely offended by  the image of a slave in chains. Some, including at least one member of the NAACP viewed this as a racist message targeting blacks and viewed it as a hate crime. Now that was clearly an overreaction.  But not all the criticism of this billboard amounts to an overreaction.  I think if anything this incident just demonstrates a lack of cultural sensitivity on behalf of the American Atheists. Slavery and its history in our country is a very difficult subject to discuss particularly in relationship to blacks in this country.  It’s true that many of the horrific and brutal aspects of slavery were defended using the bible, which is what I think American Atheists were trying to convey, but the bible is not the primary reason blacks were enslaved.  Talking about why blacks were enslaved and continue to deal with discrimination and economic and political disenfranchisement  means having a long uncomfortable conversation about  white supremacy, privilege, power, etc. That is just the reality of the situation. One cannot boil down slavery to the bible. Unfortunately, by choosing this image they have invoked that history, whether they choose to own that or not. What kills me is that I’ve seen folks defend the use of this image by saying “blacks are not the only ones who have experienced slavery”  and what have you. And its true enough that black people are not the only group to have ever been enslaved but images like other types of stimuli affect us. They hold meaning. And when one uses an image connected to such a troubling  moment in history you have to be ready to discuss the issues that are bound to come up. As a black person I am offended to see the history of my ancestors used to attack others in this manner seems flippant. Even if the intention wasn’t to be flippant, one still has to remember that any good advertisement has to reflect a number of things including (Bear with me if I miss anything important, all my advertising “expertise” comes from middle and high school class projects. :-) ):

  • it has to be attractive or catchy (which can include controversy)- So half a check there maybe. Ok, I’ll be generous and give a full check due to controversy.
  • it has to have a message that is immediate and easily understood- FAIL 
  • it needs to reflect its audience- EPIC FAIL


This ad failed to consider its audience. Now I don’t believe they were trying to target African-Americans because from what I understand they bought space on this billboard because the price was right. But I still don’t think that means they get a pass, the fact that they did not consider that the price of ad space wasn’t connected to socioeconomic conditions in Harrisburg demonstrates either a profound lack of sensitivity or a deep disconnect with these types of issues. Of course while many black will have an emotional reaction to an image like this, so will many whites. This is because references to the history of slavery in the US and elsewhere invoked by this image are liable to make many white people defensive and put off by this as well. And while controversy can be a good thing to stir up, it seems to me that many folks within our community are ill-prepared to deal with courting the kind of controversy that comes when you bring up our not so distant racial past. And this in a way explains to me why so many of them are unwilling to deal with issues of social justice or expanding the scope of the movement in such a way the it will attract a more diverse array  of non-believers, secularists, and skeptics to our ranks.

Like I said before, I don’t take issue with criticizing the bible but the quote is powerful enough on its own. Why not lose the image increase the text size and leave it at that? I don’t think this t-shirt is less powerful because it isn’t accompanied by a picture of the middle passage, do you?

Sometimes the truth doesn't need much help.

 For those who can’t make out the text:
“Slavery is Ok. Homosexuality. Not So Much
Leviticus 20:33, Leviticus – 21
Sincerely God”

So the question is… how do we proceed? Should we blame religiosity or ignorance for the response to this ad? Or do we take some responsibility and consider how incidents like these effect the perception of what it means to be an atheist, skeptic, freethinker, non-believer, and all the other categories we label ourselves within the secular movement?  Do we try to educate one another and try to broaden our perspective in this movement so that we can correct the misunderstandings and attitudes that have led to the perception that atheists are assholes lacking social awareness? Or that atheism/secularism is boy’s club?  A perception that I struggled with before I came out as an atheist myself. Whats it going to be?

Related articles

6 Comments

Imagine singing the song as written.

Imagine: John Lennon (soundtrack)

Image via Wikipedia

When John Lennon wrote the song”Imagine”, it was his vision of what a peaceful more harmonious world might look like. And maybe parts of it could be considered naive or unrealistic but it was his sincere artistic vision. But although the mood of the song is hopeful and optimistic one line seems to trouble theists,

“Imagine there’s no countries… it isn’t hard to do…Nothing to kill or die for… and no religion too…”

Of course that’s not what Cee Lo  sang last night. The performance was not very good in the first place. I have to confess that no matter how many Gnarls Barkley songs I enjoy, singing is not  Green’s strong suit. But last night Cee Lo changed the lyric to “and all religion’s are true”. His reason for changing it was that he was trying to convey his desire for a” world where u could believe what u wanted that’s all.”Whats wrong with that? His sentiment was sincere and his idea sounds benign enough, and I agree that people should have the right believe whatever they want, even though that doesn’t mean they should.

I can’t speak for John Lennon but in his song he was talking about eliminating all of the things that separate us, oppress us, and the things that cause us to harm each other. He called out religion specifically in my view to highlight the fact that religion has been one of the forces that has contributed to the kind of violence and division that he imagines the world without in his song. So I don’t imagine John Lennon would be angry with Cee Lo  or any of the many other choirs and artists who’ve  used similar artistic licenses to change the lyrics to “and one religion too” or something along those lines. However, I think that the way these artists and people who intentionally target this verse in this song just further proves John Lennon’s point.  Some people are threatened by the thought of a world without religion. They are threatened by the notion that religion is not a force for good in the world and threatened by the idea that their beliefs may not be true. If not, why not change the other lyrics?

And the lyric doesn’t even make sense from a logical standpoint. All religions cannot be simultaneously true. Many of religions directly conflict with one another in addition to their many internal inconsistencies. And by imagining no heaven or hell in the first verse you’ve already eliminated what some would claim is the central truth of their faiths,and that’s before you’ve even gotten to the verse that seems to be causing so much reaction on twitter today.  Perhaps next time, we can imagine singing another song if we can’t identify with the songwriter’s vision.

Gnarls Barkley at the Mini V festival in Melbo...

Maybe he's craaaazay....Possibly.

Related articles
10 Comments

Morality is not spelled C h r i s t i a n i t y, A Holiday Message

As an atheist I find people often question my morals and beliefs as though they somehow lack substance or a foundation. This is extremely frustrating for many of us who are non-believers and I suspect its frustrating to many theists who encounter other theists who assume similar things of them. Read more

5 Comments