New logical fallicy: Argument ad Linguistics

One thing I keep seeing pop up in internet debates that is incredibly stupid is the use of linguistics to make a larger point where it is totally irrelevant. For example at Pandagon there was a debate over abortion (who woulda thunk it). In any case in the course of the argument at one point went to if pregnancy was active or passive and someone named Dan wrote this gem:

If pregnancy were an action, it’d be a verb, not a noun.

Now as someone pointed out this is especially stupid because the verb gestate works just as well in this context, but this is a prime example of using artifacts of language as points in an argument. Language is a pretty handy thing, and linguistics is interesting, but these types of arguments basically are useless in every way. Making a point based on the part of speech (or the etymology) is not giving evidence, or even a logical argument, it's just an extra bit of useless information that is intended to muddy the debate. So I guess it's not really a new logical fallacy, it's just a red herring, but it's a particularly annoying type of red herring. I'm not sure if people using these sorts of arguments actually believe them or not, but they must either be pretty dumb to not see how stupid they are, or incredibly disingenuous and desperate. It's also pretty common, seeming to come up at Language Log all the time.



Actually it reminds me of an attitude that I was hearing this morning driving to work, I was listening to NPR and they were reporting on the whole immigration bill debate. The main argument used against the "amnesty" provisions were that we would be rewarding people who have broken the law, ignoring the fact that everybody has broken the law. I break the law every day by speeding (and I don't drive particularly fast), and I know very few people who didn't drink while they were underage. It's not about laws, it's about racism. The whole argument, like the linguistic ones, is based on a petty legalism used to make cheap points at the expense of real argument.

food friday

so I was at Pandagon and saw this hilarious video:



I'll have to eat Kitten Mcnuggets instead.

So... another manufactured controversy

So am I the only one who never got why the whole Marcotte/Mcewan thing got to be a big controversy? First it was the duke case thing. Oh she criticized the lacrosse players? Poor babies. Then she criticized the catholic church and made a joke about aborting jesus. Can't we all just get past obvious jokes and take them as they are meant. The usual criticism placed against the left by the right is how PC we are. Who is complaining about using bad words, though?

Meh, anyways my thought was good for edwards for holding on to them, but pooh on him for not being more supportive over what is basically a stupid made up controversy.

John Edwards is consuming good bloggers at an alarming rate

by that I mean he's hiring them. And it's a good thing. He seems to be courting the feminist vote, what with hiring Amanda Marcotte and Shake's Sis. I've always liked Edwards, and I think this speaks well for him. I have grave reservations about Hillary Clinton, mostly because I think she's just too much of a politician, too much about compromise, and making a deal, and not enough about standing up for the issues. I also like Obama, but I think it's a bit early to put him on the ticket, maybe when he's got some more experience under his belt (though I would probably forgive him that if he weren't so pushy about religion).

Of course none of the candidates are perfect, but Edwards it at least worth consideration in a race most consider to be between Hillary and Obama.

(neurotic note: I call Hillary Clinton by her first name to avoid confusion with Bill Clinton, but call the other candidates by their last names because other than Barack Obama, all of their names are nondescript)