Facebook Fallacies and Bumper Sticker Bullshit

I'm sure you've seen these arguments around the internet before. Perhaps you have even made them yourself. It's a popular substitute for debate to throw out a punchy slogan without thinking about its validity as an argument. One double-whammy fallacy I have seen frequently is paraphrased as follows:

You call yourself pro-life, but you don't care about kids after they're born!

I do care about kids. I don't like poverty or exploitation. To say otherwise is to set up a straw man so you can attack an argument I never made. Yes, I oppose government-monopolized "social welfare" programs. They don't work as advertised. I have philosophical arguments and analysis of the historical record to support my objections. Declaring my opposition to be borne of malice or callous disregard before I can even make my case poisons the well and undermines civil discourse. It is entirely possible to disagree about the causes of, and solutions to, problems we encounter. If your response to dissent is a personal attack, it doesn't speak well for your analysis of the issue at hand.

I can hear it now. "You tell those leftist/commie/democrat bastards what's what," shout some residents of teh interwebz. This is hardly a single-party fault, though, and I'll use a law-and-order right-wing neo-con example next.

You say you're against crime, but you support tax evasion and illegal immigration! You disrespect the police! You hate the troops who fight for our freedom and protect us from terrorists! You're a hypocrite, and probably a criminal yourself!

This kind of attack disguised as a rebuttal is full of holes, each of which requires a separate and distinct response, but the way they are unleashed in a torrent makes this difficult in conversation. That is the intent of this shotgun pattern blast - surely something will hit its mark, right?

1. I am opposed to crime. A crime requires a victim who has suffered articulable harm to his life, liberty, property or other natural right. If there is no victim, there is no crime.
2. Taxation is extortion, which is fundamentally a crime despite being done "legally," so tax evasion can't possibly be a crime by any rational measure.
3. Travel without government permission isn't a crime, either. Whose rights are being violated? The term "illegal" has no moral or rational authority. Remember when, "Papers please, comrade," was what the villains said?
4. The police enforce unjust laws, and are paid do do so with stolen money, so of course I don't respect them. Don't try to shift the burden of proof. Show me why they deserve respect.
5. Soldiers don't fight for my freedom, they fight for the government, and government can't represent me or my values. Asserting that soldiers protect me ignores the innumerable ways foreign policy has created global chaos over the past century. Terrorism is in large part blowback for decades of adventurism and interventionism. That doesn't keep me safe at all, and it's paid for by extorting me.
6. It's quite possible I am doing something illegal, but again, legality still has no moral or rational authority, and if there is no victim, there is no crime. If there is no crime, the law is unjust and its enforcement is criminal regardless of "the law."

Hopefully this helps you see how simple slogans and reflexive responses conceal massive flaws in reason. Social media can be a benefit to our intellectual growth , but only if we make a conscious effort to avoid making fallacious mistakes ourselves or allowing others to make such mistakes without challenge.

---

Image credit