Here's some examples of a commonly used format for dodgy arguments. If you understand how this works you can tear shreds off people - not that you ought to. You can at least let them know that you won't be swayed by poor logic. 'It isn't that, it's this' is a ruse commonly used for pushing a preferred sentiment against an inconvenient one.

Usually the 'it isn't that' statement is an invalid claim to begin with because the active sentiment of that component isn't really wrong. So, the best way to defeat the argument, assuming you don't mind upsetting somebody, is to point that out directly. In addition, the 'it's this' proposition is frequently no more valid than the 'it isn't that' statement, anyway. Point that out also.

This is really a type of non sequitur, but in reverse. The predicate doesn't disprove the subject, it just hints at that. These arguments rely on the contrast between the two statements to constitute a proof that one sentiment is right and the other wrong. Yet, without the contrast, one or both segments struggle for validity. The proof is based only on which of the two in contrast seems more appealing or more frightening.

Let's look at some examples.

A placard at an Australian anti-lockdown protest reads "This is not about a virus. It's about total government control of the people". Says who and on the strength of what?

The statement that lockdown is 'not about a virus' has zero merit. If there was no dangerous virus circulating there would be no lockdown. Presumably the aggrieved placard waver means to claim that governments are using the virus threat merely as a convenient excuse. In that case, he needs proof. His only offering is a statement that lockdown is really about the government establishing tyrannical, extreme control over the people. It's about erasure of people's right to freedom, he suggests. That kite might fly if Covid-19 wasn't killing people and leaders around the world weren't getting crucified for letting that happen. However, both of those are the case, so his statement is advanced on the basis of 'you-disprove'. To accept it, you would need to be gullible.

Another example comes from the National Women's Party. It states "Men don't 'support' their wives who stay at home to raise their children. Women support men's careers by providing unpaid childcare, housework, meals and overall family life management services." The second statement may be basically true, but the first statement is rubbish.

No one that I know of would deny the enormous amount of hard work that mums provide willingly and lovingly for their children and other family members. However, the claim that 'men don't support their wives' is surely quibbling over subtle differences in meaning of the word 'support'.

The statement that women support their male spouse's careers in various ways is no more correct than the one being disagreed with. In truth, it's actually less factually accurate. If she takes the kids and leaves him, his career will continue. She will then demand child 'support', will she not? This statement is outright demagoguery, appealing to passions and prejudices to advance a sentiment dressed up as logic. But, that logic is dodgy. Financial support and unpaid family care are both valid types of support which complement each other in a family situation. If you want to get technical, at least do it accurately or you are just slinging off.

No doubt you will notice other instances of this con trick for yourself. Call me a killjoy if you will, but I believe society's best chance for fairness and justice lies in forcing people to state their case accurately without resorting to clever tricks of perception.

Photo by Bob Brewer on Unsplash