Saving arguments

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Most people in our time suffer from the so-called emotional thinking. What it is? This is a way of thinking in which a person draws conclusions and performs any actions under the influence of emotions, vague intuitive ideas, conjectures and other subjective inclinations or desires that trample on systemic thinking. These people hardly think about what they are doing or saying, they often cannot explain their position, but, nevertheless, they do not refuse it, since the wrong (but habitual) position gives them emotional comfort. Emotions, against their will, make them not make the right decisions, but profitable ones. Emotions distort reality, and a person acts, to a greater extent, following his prejudices. Such people often first compose something, and then begin to pull facts and examples by the ears, so that they "confirm" their point of view. More details about these features of EM are already written in the article. But there is one more feature that is very striking.

Surely, while discussing, you often noticed that someone begins to use phrases like “well-known”, “so the majority thinks”, “circumstances forced me”, “this is not my business” as an argument, etc. These are the so-called salutary arguments. What is a saving argument? This is a pseudo-argument with which EM covers up his ignorance, unwillingness to think, or move away from the wrong position. It is difficult to argue with such arguments, since they are so well known that they are taken for granted, and true in all absolutely cases, and explaining the relativity of judgments to a person exposed to EM is very difficult, since such people also tend to ignore examples that are inconvenient for them.

The saving argument is not necessarily dogma. That is, it is not always a special case (or speculation), raised to an absolute degree. Also, the saving argument is not necessarily a stereotype, that is, it is not always a habit of thinking in one way or another. It is rather a polemical technique aimed at defending one's point of view (whatever it may be), and which only works because in our wrong society, wrong ideas prevail. Rescue arguments are often based either on emotional perception (“9 out of 10 women chose this particular frying pan,” “all newspapers write that this is good,” “innovation!”), Or on the so-called “human rights” and distortions of the concept of “freedom "(" I am not obliged to do this "," I have the right to think or not to think about it at will "," I have my own opinion "," everyone has the freedom to be nobody ").

In this review, I will try to collect the most famous saving arguments that I myself constantly come across, classify them and briefly point out the reasons why these arguments are wrong. Why briefly? The fact is that, for each class of arguments, you can write a separate article, collecting many examples in it and understanding each one. But the reader can do this on his own by choosing any argument from the list or by finding his own.

It is important to understand that the application of any argument can be correct in some cases, and completely wrong and absurd in others. Rescue arguments are used by EM to defend their position when there are no more (or at all) other arguments or they have been broken.

Emphasis on the person or her rights

This is the most developed class of arguments: from simple “I don’t need this”, “nothing depends on me”, “I want it that way”, “this is not my business”, “I don’t have to”, “why on earth”, to more advanced "this should be done by the government", "do I look like a janitor?", "the housing office is to blame for everything."

The argument “I don’t need it” is usually used when a person does not want to do something or does not want to understand someone's thought. It is often used by students who do not want to study a particular subject in higher education. When you try to find out on the exam why a student could not understand a particular question of the course, he replies that this course will not be useful to him in life. In fact, practice shows that such a student (often, but not always) treats all subjects this way. In addition, the student can hardly know which subjects he will need and which will not, if only for the simple reason that he simply does not have an established point of view about life (this is really so, which is easy to see). And the fact that the students say “my friend did not study this subject and is working normally” only confirms what was said. In general, students at a university have a tendency to overestimate their position in life and demonstrate the behavior of a person who is wise with experience. It turns out a form without content, which usually leads to difficulties in the future. Likewise, when you see this student smoking at recess, you hear his "wise" position: "I want it this way," "I like it." Older people are not far from the student level, unless they have come up with more "scientific" reasons for their misbehavior.

The second (but more important) reason why the arguments of this group may be incorrect is that the emphasis is on the words “me”, “I” and in general on the speaker’s personality, and cares that “do not concern him” (rightly) fall on others. Look at our society carefully and notice that many are engaged only in what IM needs or likes, and if IM doesn't need or don't like something, then they honestly admit it. But can a society exist rightly in which everyone does only what he needs? Strengthening the idea that you need to be selfish and care first of all about your well-being leads to the establishment of the equal sign "society = the sum of egoists", as a result of which people cease to feel personal responsibility to society (thanks to which they are called people), and a bunch of interested people start making decisions. What decisions will this bunch of people make when they have power over the egoists? And look carefully around, wipe your eyes, and you will see.

The argument like “nothing depends on me” generally takes the first place among people who are correctly confident that modern society is going nowhere, but who do not want to do anything about it. But you have to do it, and there is not much time left. These people, apparently, think that the most important thing is to take care of their family and children … Of course, of course, they do not care that their children's children will have nowhere to live. Such people need to be taught to understand simple things: society is collapsing, and not the housing office and not the President, but the people themselves WILL BE FORCED to fight this.

The arguments of this group, of course, may turn out to be quite fair. Let's say a person makes some free choice, somehow thinks over his actions and achieves some goal. Acting consistently, he may consider something necessary and something not necessary, want something, but not want something, but in any case, a reasonable person will try to adhere to a constructive line of behavior. A reasonable person will first justify and weigh the argument of this group, and then use it. EM will do exactly the opposite.

Emphasis on public opinion

This is also a rather powerful group of arguments, working on the principle "all rams, therefore, you are a ram and must do like everyone else": from simple "well-known", "proven (by scientists)", "everyone does this", "everyone thinks so", up to the complex “you can't go against the masses”, “let's solve the issue by voting”, “we have democracy in our country” and more complex “scientists conducted a survey and found out”, “in 99 cases out of 100 people do this”.

In the worst case for himself, arguing in this way can gain time to compose the next nonsense. For example, having heard from the interlocutor "well-known", you rush to check whether it is really well-known. In the eyes of typical EM people, the argument of this group looks very powerful, especially if the argued also seems to be correct or just "by ear". For example, you may be told, "On September 11, 2001, the US government sent planes to the two tallest buildings in the World Trade Center." You answer: “What are you doing? And prove it! " The answer will follow: "it is common knowledge." And then another 100 people will say that this is really common knowledge, but not because it is actually so, but because they have heard about it somewhere. And the interlocutor will triumphantly rub his hands, saying that "here's another 100 people know this, and you are a fool." It doesn't matter what point of view I hold here, what matters is the very manner of the argument that I once observed.

In reality, however, any question must be analyzed on the basis of facts, on what can be verified, if not directly, then at least indirectly. Regarding the arguments that scientists have found something out there, once again, see the post about vulgar materialism.

Public interest arguments are so powerful because of the global misconception of emotionally minded people that the majority is always right. This is absurd and nonsense. The majority is not always right, if only for the simple reason that in our time, everyone pursues their own interests, many of which can be realized only to the detriment of the interests of other people. Just look at the crowd in the building. When a building is on fire, most of them rush to the exit and everyone burns down. They are right? In general, if we turn again to the arguments of the previous class, society consists of people interested only in their own well-being. How long does it take you, comrades, to understand that the opinion of the majority in this case is worthless?

There are other misconceptions related to public opinion. Why is violence evil? - Everyone thinks so. Why do you need to live 100% and not get worn out? - Everyone thinks so. Why should Thoth come to power (put any name)? - The majority thinks so. This position is not justified, since the reference to "everyone" as a source of truth is unacceptable. Such arguments mean that the person using them has no point of view.

For even more details on the delusions of the majority, see the conditions for the implementation of democracy, and forget about such an argument as "we have democracy."

Arguments of the dogmatists

This group of arguments is connected with the problem of dogmatism: “If you want to change the world, start with yourself”, “this is my faith”, “so the Great Lenin bequeathed”, “do not judge and you will not be judged”.

Everything is simple here. Sometimes some dogma is used as an argument. A certain special case, an isolated fact, just a conjecture that has not been verified, proven or substantiated, but, nevertheless, was raised by an emotionally thinking person within the framework of a law that works always and everywhere, wherever the prerequisite for it is triggered. For example, when you tell someone that it is necessary to change the World, he has a standard answer: “if you want to change the World, start with yourself”. In this context, it is dogma. The fact is that you really need to change yourself, you need to change your value system for a more correct one, you constantly need to work on yourself. But does this mean that apart from this, nothing else needs to be done? Need to sit and cultivate your whole life? If this were always true, then civilization would not develop. If you really understand the problems of the World, but do not try to solve them, are you right? Of course not.

The argument “do not judge and you will not be judged” is a hypertrophied manifestation of tolerance. The meaning of the phrase is that a person cannot judge another, since he himself is not sinless. Say, "God will punish." Well, then let's not point out the mistakes and stupidity of modern people, let's not punish criminals, let's not suppress wrong actions, but wait until the feeling of impunity will give people more daring desires? Let's be more tolerant of hooligans, troublemakers? No, it would be a mistake to just listen to this righteous man, who in his mind replaced the word “justice” with the word “mercy”, and the word “truth” with the word “good”. However, we will not beat him - God will punish him.

Demagogues' arguments

You Can Prove Anything

This is a favorite phrase of demagogues. In the process of arguing with such people, sometimes you have to repeat to them that you have proven something, and in response you hear: "but you can prove anything." Demagogues aim to "win" the dispute at any cost. They ruthlessly ignore any logical arguments against them, ignoring logic in their own statements. But the lack of logic does not bother them, since only the formal answer to this or that attack is important. They are able to substitute concepts, cling to words, move away from the topic, switch to personality, cut phrases out of context, blaming the interlocutor for all this. They can really "prove" anything, following from the wrong premises, breaking logic, ignoring the interlocutor. It is only important to formally respond to the attack with any nonsense, then it will seem to other emotionally minded that the demagogue has "repelled the blow." Such people do not have their own ideological position at all, therefore they will stand on what is convenient for them at the moment. Anything constructive from such people can be achieved only if they are limited to some framework until it reaches them that it is necessary to prove or substantiate something not by emotional attacks, but by strict reasoning, analyzing information and comparing facts.

All people are idiots (including me)

Refusal to think is often accompanied by such a pretentious expression. It in the mouth of a person exposed to EM means that you don't need to think about anything at all, since nothing will come of it anyway. Everyone who tried to think did not come up with anything good, but only brought harm or wasted their time. You have to take everything from life and be the same idiot as everyone else. This is bad, but thinking and trying to solve or suggest something is even worse - after all, all idiots will not appreciate caring for them.

This position, together with the phrases "I will leave this idiotic country for America", "the country of fools," etc., is often found among the current victims of post-Soviet upbringing. You see, they were born in the wrong place and at the wrong time, there are only idiots around, as evidenced by various problems in society. They were supposed to be born in a society where there are no problems at all. They do not understand that problems are an integral attribute of any society, and that society itself should solve these problems, and not whine. It must set new goals, solve problems, overcome the next problems and, thus, develop, and not only reap the fruits of the achievements already made up to that moment.

In general, in order to live in a society without flaws, one must be a person without convolutions.

Other arguments

A ha ha ha

This is a funny and funny (in every sense) "argument" that becomes a formidable weapon when you have to argue alone with a group of opposing people. They will patiently wait for you to express your point of view, and then one of them, as if holding back his laughter, will choke on his own saliva, looking at the others. The rest can not stand it and begin to laugh. This, as it were, should mean that you have just said something stupid and wrong, absurdly funny and ridiculous.

This argument can also be used in one-on-one discussions, when EM, in a hurry to catch the interlocutor of stupidity or shortsightedness, will squeeze and giggle before answering any of his phrases. He thinks that along with the laughter, his words begin to acquire more meaning and persuasiveness. Although sometimes, if we are not talking about something serious, you can quite legitimately laugh. That is, to kindly ridicule the stupidity or naivety of the opponent's position.

More subtle connoisseurs of humor do not begin to laugh right away, but add a joke to the words of the interlocutor to show all the naivety of his reasoning. In general, the tendency to constantly (out of place) drift towards humor is also a trait of EM.

False generalizations

What are false generalizations? In the context of this article, this is the assignment of a property to the interlocutor based on his external similarity with the one who possesses this property. For example, "you have a mustache like Hitler, so you are a Nazi", or, a more complex generalization, "one person ate cucumbers and died, you also eat cucumbers, then you will die." The conclusion of the second example is ultimately correct, but the path of reasoning turns out to be false.

This method of argumentation, together with laughter, is one of the favorite among emotionally minded people. For instance:

- People live unreasonably. They do blah blah blah …

- A-ha-ha-ha, and you yourself live reasonably? After all, you yourself, too, blah-blah-blah …

This, as it were, should mean that a person who seeks to think and do the right things has no right to look for like-minded people until he demonstrates the impeccable fulfillment of the right principles. Moreover, the correctness of these principles will be checked by people who have no idea about them. People who use this argument constantly pay attention only to the form, not to the content. Drawing attention to the purely superficial similarities between one person and another, EM concludes that they are generally the same. For instance:

- People live wrong. They are typical consumers, they only consume and satisfy their needs. It is necessary to change the situation so that people are also engaged in creative activities …

- You also eat, etc., so you are also a consumer like everyone else.

Here the mistake is not so much in a false generalization, but in the fact that EM thinks that the world is changed not by people, but by magical creatures.

I was forced by circumstances

In general, the tendency to blame the circumstances for everything is somehow badly punished in our society, which is why the reference to circumstances is gaining more and more weight. A reasonable person will struggle with circumstances if they run counter to his ideas or interfere with the implementation of his will. At the same time, he can lose or win, die or survive, be late somewhere or come on time. But at the same time he will not hide behind a circumstance if he himself was guilty. But EM will do the opposite. He will screw up first, and then he will make excuses. For example, one of the favorite arguments of people without a brain: "was drunk" (reference to the circumstance). The poor man was probably tied to a chair and poured vodka into his mouth through a funnel, and he swallowed so as not to choke? Or, - "the vodka was fired," - also in humor. Of course, the quality of alcohol plays an important role if medicine or, say, perfume is made from it, but if you drink it and then, holding on to your liver, complain about the quality, then … you yourself understand.

Conclusion

Try to avoid unfounded arguments and attacks that you want to apply when your point of view does not stand up to criticism, and your life position turns out to be untenable. First of all, you need to think, comprehend what is happening, learn to stand on a reasonable point of view, and not on your own. You need to try to understand the nature of things happening around, and not drift by coincidence, smearing your conscience and human dignity in the eyes of other people with ridiculous "arguments".

At this point, I would like to end my short review, because my goal was to describe the typical arguments that I personally often come across in life. I suggest you find in your life (or choose from my list) such a saving argument that annoys you the most, and write a short article about it. I look forward to continuing from you!

By the way, have you ever thought about the phrase "let's drink to health"?