There are a number of rhetorical techniques in the repertoire of persuasion that are not quite on the level, and some of them are downright dishonest. Some people employ these techniques deliberately as a means of devious manipulation, while others resort to them more innocently without even realizing it. They are techniques which rely not on the establishment of facts or the weight of reason, but instead play on people's weaknesses and insecurities, the things they often don't even admit to themselves.
There is the Ad Hominem tactic. This is where someone tries to refute a claim by undercutting the character of the person offering evidence or argument supporting it. The hallmark of the Ad Hominem is that the character assault has nothing to do with the claim in question. For example, if someone says, "Sally heard that there was a bad snow storm coming.", and someone replies, "Well, Sally's a crazy lady who lives alone with fifteen cats, so what does she know?", then that would be an Ad Hominem argument. A fairly obvious one, of course. Usually it's used with at least some appearance of relevancy, and usually over claims a bit more controversial than the weather. It's far more common than you might think, and most of us are probably far more guilty of it than we realize.
Then you have good old classic intimidation. In terms of an argumentative tactic, intimidation is like a preemptive Ad Hominem. This is where someone suggests that there's something wrong with someone who holds such and such a position. Like the Ad Hominem, there is again no connection between the character defect suggested and the position in question. The intention here is to try to chase people away from something with blatant insults. "Anyone who likes that band is an asshole." It's usually that crudely obvious, and yet it's also surprisingly affective on many people. "Oh dear. I don't want them to think I'm an asshole." And so it goes. Brute aggression takes the place of reasonable persuasion.
I bring these familiar tactics up in order to add a third to the list. It's something I've noticed here and there recently, although it's probably been around since the dawn of time. For lack of a better term, I'll call it "entrapment logic." This is similar to the intimidation tactic, but it's a bit more subtle and sophisticated. It's a kind of rhetorical catch-22. It's the loophole that lands you right back in the net. You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't. To put it simply, entrapment logic is where someone sets up their argument in such a way that disagreeing with them proves their point.
There's a gag that comedians commonly resort to that employs this technique. They'll say something like, "Every neighborhood had a kid that was such and such, and if you don't remember having a kid like that in you're neighborhood, then you were that kid." It's that little clause on the end, that little provision made for your disagreement. Or maybe someone will say something like, "People that smack babies always deny it." There's really no good answer after that. Sometimes it's just a matter of putting you in position where your disagreement doesn't necessarily prove their point; they just set it up so that your protestations to the contrary ring hollow. "Only people with no sense of humor don't think that movie is funny." Here we're basically back to the intimidation tactic, but there's that extra added twist. The more you protest, the more it looks like you're digging yourself deeper into a hole.
Now, at the risk of getting tangled up in yet another debate on the subject, I can't leave this topic without mentioning one of the most common cases of entrapment logic there is. For the record...again, I have no problem with homosexuals, neither personally or morally. What they do is their business, and not mine. If they want to get married, fine. I was happy the other day to see that "Don't Ask...Don't Tell" has been done away with. If someone wants to pick up a gun to defend my freedom, I think they deserve a little freedom of their own. However, all that being said, I do have a problem with the concept of homophobia.
To be sure, there are people that are excessively antagonistic to homosexuals because they are insecure about their own sexuality. I'll admit that this happens quite frequently even. We all know the stories about some senator or congressman who voted against gay legislation getting caught in a public restroom with his pants down, or having some embarrassing emails surface. We all know someone who gets just a little too upset about the issue; they take it all just a little too personally.
However, there are people who get carried away with the idea and label anyone opposed to homosexuality as homophobic. They don't allow for the possibility that some people just think it's wrong. Still others might just find the whole idea repugnant, and they take that as reason enough for moral condemnation. I'm not here to defend these people, but I don't think it's fair to insist that they're homophobic. It's entrapment on two levels. First, it characterizes their opposition as a "phobia." Secondly, it suggests that they have some kind of hang-up about the issue, strongly implying that they must be in the closet themselves. It's the across-the-board, flippancy with which the idea gets thrown around that bothers me. I don't like to see even those people I disagree with treated unfairly.
Anyway, I don't bring that in to cloud the issue, or smuggle in some agenda. I wrote this to shed some light on entrapment logic in general. I mention it as a sort of public service, so that you won't fall into the trap, and perhaps so you won't find yourself employing the tactic. If someone pulls this on you, you can call them out on it and keep them from using your own disagreement against you. Alright, now bring on the griping...
