How to argue fallacy?

[MickeyFinn]

My uncle uses fallacy to appear correct. Ad homonim, illogical mumbo jumbo, you name It. Example:

Me: Catholicism is inherently evil.

Him: This catholic raised four girls that were born to another man.

Me: (frustrated at irrelevant statement) Good people exist in all faiths. So do bad ones. The person's actions aren't related to the church's teachings by themselves. I don't blame catholicism for Mel Gibson, and on the other side of the coin I won't give them credit for your good deeds. I look at the church Itself for what It teaches and what it intentionally does not teach.

Him: You can't talk, you're agnostic.

Me: (frustrated with ad homonim) Get fucked.


How do you argue with this person effectively?

[]LoL[Harm]

Well your opening statement kills the idea that this is a discussion. It is an argument, and arguments of this nature are two people stating unmovable opinions. So you are already effectively arguing.

If you are wanting to discuss something you can't just blurt out baseless statements.

Catholicism is inherently evil, has no base, it's just a widely open criticism without any meaning that only has one intent, to anger or rile someone who thinks the opposite.

It's like me stating: Obama is the worst president ever, he's a socialist!

It really is just worthless words, wasting the time of everyone involved.

So do you want to argue with your uncle, or discuss something?

[Noleader]

Catholicism is not evil. If you treat the bible as case law (newer rules override old ones) it is about forgiving and acceptance. What man has done to the faith is the evil aspects.

The key to remember is that power almost always attracts those who want it to control others. Evil is the acts of those not what they pretend to represent.

[Post]

While you didn't explicitly state it, you were fairly close in stating an absolute. It can be almost inferred that you're stating Catholicism = evil. Absolutes are very easily refuted with the Socratic method, since they rely on a universal truth. Finding any type of exception - even if it's extremist or an exaggeration - to your absolute successfully rebuts it. And that's what he did: he found an exception to your absolute.

You then restructured your statement to better clarify your conclusion, but by then, it was already too late. You had lost credibility, then he goes off on some tangent and refuses to hit the real issues of Catholicism as an establishment knowingly and willingly doing ethically terrible things. My guess is he knows you can conclude that and back it up, so he walks away early, extending his early "win" to the entire discussion.

[MickeyFinn]

It was an example, and only an example. My point is that a statement of opinion is made (and that is the most you can do with a topic like religion), and a ridiculous statement that isn't even necessarily a contrary one is returned. Post, you spent much more time debating than I did so correct me here if this is wrong- the entire idea of argument is to take an opinion and make it as convincing as possible. Most debates actually *require* you to make your statement as though it is one of fact, and then back it up with evidence/rebuttal/etc.

I can't even address Harm's post, he completely missed the entire point. Seems like you misunderstand my point being about the nature of argument and interpret it as what you might call a fight or a disagreement; they aren't the same. Either way, don't say the Catholicism part is baseless. More people died in the name of a Catholic God during crusades than any other holy war fought in 'His' name, no other major religious organization regularly spends millions defending sodomites to protect its reputation, there's plenty of "base" for the claim. It just doesn't belong in the opening statement. This example never gave me an opportunity to present the evidence- that's the entire point.

I didn't post to debate Catholicism. Thanks to the ridiculous behavior of the Church and the absurdity of its values it'll be gone in a couple hundred more years and it isn't a worry of mine. This post is about rhetoric, form, argument (not Harm's kind), and the best way to deal with a man who doesn't color inside the lines ;)

That being said, don't ever try to use the Bible as evidence about Catholicism being a good thing Noleader. Not only is The Bible unrelated to Catholicism in and of itself (one is a book of rules, the other is a current practice of a religion and its chosen interpretation of the stories/rules), The Bible refuses to re-write anything. You can't compare it to a growing legal system that crossed out the parts about things like slavery. The church stands by the Bible's statements about slavery and other atrocities "because it is the word of God", and will not apologize for them. Instead, there's some backward explanation to rationalize it. But above all else, the Bible is "the book" for every sect of Christianity. Catholicism != The Bible. Catholicism = the behavior of the church, their interpretation of the book, and the principles they bestow unto their followers.

And correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe they are the last of the Christian sects to finally embrace the forgiveness angle instead of the fear and pestilence one. Oh how they like to cling to things. Like the Earth being the center of the universe (sorry about that Copernicus, we left you in an unmarked grave and apologized for it in 2010). There's a million examples.

[Noleader]

I understand what you are saying Axe but you have to be sure to point your ire in the right direction. To often the instrument of the abuse is viewed as the evil as if the person wielding it had no choice but you act in that manner.

Taking on the topic from that angle is more or less accepting the notion that one can defend their actions by saying "I was just following orders." We all know that to be a bogus defense of ones action in all other facets of the world so we should not accept it when it comes to faith.

[MickeyFinn]

100% with you on the part about just following orders.

[]LoL[Harm]

Ah you are using argument as a synonym for debate. Sorry I use argument as a synonym for fighting. I wasn't saying your topic was baseless, just the opening statement used.

But my point still remains valid. When I stated that your example,"Catholicism is evil", is baseless, it is, and Post explains why so. It's an absolute and isn't how you open up a debate, especially with someone you know is already biased.

You have to open up the discussion with something that isn't baseless and easily disregarded, and in all truth you need to cater your opening statement to something in which you know your uncle can side with.

As an example of how I would talk to a family member about Catholicism, I'd start out talking about the rampant sexual misconduct by the clergy, then move the discussion into regions that they don't side with and I would make sure I backed it up with points that will appeal to their set of morals and ethics. And it is always imperative that you speak at their level. If they are heavily educated, I'd use a varied and precise lexicon. If they are not heavily educated I'd use more emotionally charged words and less complex verbage.

Effective debate, as I see it, is mainly using the other persons "version" of logic and their personality to convince them of the truth or in less ethical hands, a version of the truth.

[PoxTheSmall]

Fallacy by nature is not argumentation. Most fallacy is included to distract a person from a topic instead of addressing the topic itself. It's an off-balancing tactic that only introduces another avenue of discussion that's not on the main track...