Thread: Illegitimate rhetorical tactics of the enemy

The pro-illegal forces who post here often appear to be operating from the same page of bankrupt rhetorical tactics, so I thought I would provide a little primer on tactics for which we should be on the lookout:

1-Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.

We see this one every time we are accused of being racist, intolerant, ignorant, etc., without any citation of example to back the claim.

2-Argument from "authority".

This is where the poster claims to have such broad specific or general knowledge of the topic as to preclude counterpoint.

3-Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).

This is the argument that asserts false negative conclusions, such as that we will only find ourselves floundering in our own waste for lack of labor to clean up after us if we send the illegals home.

4-Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).

An example of this would be the claim that because a given statistic is not available (such as the illegal alien birth rate at Dallas' Parkland Hospital, which refuses to keep such statistics) that there can be no claim that a majority of those births are to illegals on the taxpayer dime.

5-Special pleading (typically referring to the will of the people, or for the good of the people).

This is an argument such as that we owe it to the poor to allow them to come here and break our laws because we have an obligation to care for the poor.

6-Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).

This would be something like, "So do think that it is right to cheat the poor?" This question operates from the given premise that the poor are being cheated and that the condition of being "poor" has anything to do with argument in the first place.

7-Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).

"Well, all the illegal aliens I know are hard-working citizens who just want to provide for their families." This observation discounts that another person's experience may be that every illegal immigrant he has met has tried to rob him.

8-Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).

Similar to above, but provided in the form of an alleged statistic, such as, "Well, of the ten illegal aliens I know, only one does not work."

9-Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)

We see this one most often when the pro-illegal forces try to claim that illegals are paying their way because they are paying withholding taxes but are (allegedly) not eligible for Social Securty benefits. First off, many of them have numerous children they list as deductions, meaning that there is little withholding in the first place. Secondly, the stat does not take into account the average income and tax paid by uneducated illegal aliens weighed against the cost of, say, educating their children and paying for emergency medical. As another poster pointed out, the cost of education per child in his state is around $10K/annum, which means that an illegal laborer who has four children would almost certainly earn a total annual wage less than the cost of educating his children.

10-Inconsistency e.g. not comparing like to like.

We see this one various forms, with the most common being a conflation of the "rights" to American benefits and privileges of an illegal alien with those of an actual citizen. The one has a birthright to the privileges of citizenship while the other is a foreign interloper stealing that birthright.

I hope this little guide is useful. Ten tactics seemed a good place to stop. If anyone would like to add to this list, please feel free to do so.

This is a very useful resource! Thanks Crocket - people should print it out and put in by their monitor. Better yet memorize it. How many times a week do you run into someone using this tactics?

Excellent post, crocket,

I'm saving this one!

Don't forget the New card they are useing, the Religious Card since the Race card is not working

CrocketsG,

Hey thanks! In my (rather limited) experience here, I'm noticed similar types of approaches or behaviors - and, most of the time, I just let the rediculous stuff just sort of 'roll off' without calling people on it.

I toyed with the idea of doing a similar overview but I'm glad I didn't. Yours is far better than what I had in mind! I'm really glad you did a nice analysis of those types of 'fallacies' or 'errors' in thinking. I took particular notice and interest to the reference to statistics - things quoted or used all-too-often, but little understood by most of the same people.

In the Chicano thread the other day, I noticed a pro-illegal type poster making a statement or argument as in:

Amounts of <this> CAUSE <that>

That should immediately get everyone's attention. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of statistics knows that the only truly defensible and valid characterization is to say:

Amounts of <this> are ASSOCIATED WITH <that>

Implying causation is a NO-NO!!! Explicitly attributing or implying singular causation (eg. <this> and ONLY it, CAUSES <that> - is a VERY TENUOUS proposition at best). This is what the poster did the other day and I couldn't let that nonsense go unaddressed. That was the reason for the diatribe the other day.

In any event, this is an exellent post and I think it will help a lot of folks here pick out spurious or incoherent arguments and keep the debate objective and honest.

Nicely done!

Thanks CG! Very helpful!

Akin to #7 I would also add sob stories.

Really good, CrocketsGhost. Very useful to us.
Thanks a lot.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

The pro-illegal forces who post here often appear to be operating from the same page of bankrupt rhetorical tactics, so I thought I would provide a little primer on tactics for which we should be on the lookout....

Excellent! I've seen this kind of a primer posted at SUSPS and other pro-LEGAL sites as well, and I find it extremely useful.

I've found more such information via the linkage at kriseggle.org website.

I'm going to start talking up more the violent crime impact of the illegal alien.

CG,

Pat ourself on the back! Good Job.

PhredE,

Explicitly attributing or implying singular causation (eg. <this> and ONLY it, CAUSES <that> - is a VERY TENUOUS proposition at best).

That's the rule and there is one and only one exception.

Illegally entry into the United States is the cause.
If they had not crossed the border, then none of this would matter, be discussed or exist.

Dixie

Dixie:

Wow, your always on top of things around here - how true!
I was speaking rather generally and in terms of quoting or analyzing data... but, yes, you make an excellent point!!
(That's why I'm here too)

I really enjoy your posts - haven't said that 'til now.

Good Weekend