If you get into an argument with a teenager, he can technically then claim that the point is "arguable." After all, you are arguing it, right? Case closed.
If the point is arguable, then both sides have some legitimacy, and in particular, it means his side of the discussion must have some legitimacy, even if it has precisely zero logical supports. This means that one view is pretty much as good as another, so his view is just as good as yours. Therefore, he chooses his, and thinks you have no logical grounds to contradict him, because it's "just your opinion."
Let me note in passing that my five sons seldom or never argued in this fashion. Not to my face, anyway. They might have done so as they walked away muttering. Son #4 when purchasing a truck he could in no way afford, did once say "You always talk about what could go wrong!" Which is true.
I thought of this when I read an account today of how the 1619 Project has "sparked discussion." It has not sparked discussion. It has sparked condemnation from people who actually know something about the topic, which is not the same thing. It would be as if Sports Illustrated put its official weight behind the Hall of Fame candidacy of Moonlight Graham, on the slender basis that he figured prominently in a really good baseball movie and upon review, did actually play in the major leagues a century ago. (BTW, he played for Manchester, NH in the New England League as well.) When every sane baseball fan in America (and the Caribbean) wrote lengthy essays in protest, SI might attempt the dodge that they had "sparked debate" and that this somehow added to Graham's legitimacy as a candidate, but that would be simply ridiculous.
This happens in the arts, that people try and "start a discussion" about what we consider to be art, or what society is all about, or whether sharks have tails, giving the individual a forum to blather endlessly - which was the original goal. It doesn't make it right.
If I'm a rational being, then my arguments must partake of that rationality, right? So if you treat me as a rational being and argue with me, my position must at least be plausible. And if you don't, I have a legitimate grievance which gives me the moral high ground. Win either way.
ReplyDeleteThis is why duels historically commenced with the invocation, “May God defend the right.”
ReplyDeleteIs Burger King teaming up with the NYT for this? Because I saw BK advertising the "Impossible Whopper". ;þ
ReplyDeleteYou have nicely clarified an important and insidious rhetorical sleight. Academic literature uses it all the time. "Whipsnade and Grifter (2016) have argued . . .," or the even shiftier (and lazier) "It might be argued . . ." Students are easily taken in by this since they assume that to argue is to argue cogently and with good evidence. Although all of them were recently teenagers, and were therefore presumably making the specious arguments you allude to, we professors have to work hard and explain that one can argue for any proposition, and that almost all propositions have been argued for. That they can be and have been argued for means nothing.
ReplyDeleteIt's the NYT, and as I always say, I detest, despise, and distrust everything in the NYT. (Also, the WaPoo.)
ReplyDeleteSam, you will find it much more amusing to pay some attention. Many of them, especially those who are a bit older, were brought up with better values and greater honesty than they are now exposed to. They let things slip in their initial expression, then have to double back furiously when they get attacked for making reasonable statements. As with Russians reading Pravda in the 70s and 80s, you can learn a lot by watching exactly how the steps of the dance proceed. It can give you a great read on where political correctness is going next, and what center-left group is about to be banished to the outer darkness.
ReplyDeletePlus, it's just fun. I can't stress that enough.
ReplyDeleteArguably you people are full of it. That's just my point of view. If you challenge my reasoning I might cut you off by saying that we will have to agree to disagree. I might even bail out of the argument with a pull of the nevermind ripcord. Arguing is fun.
ReplyDelete