Keith Burgess-Jackson responds to Chris' post. "What's interesting (and ironic) is that nobody at the site engaged my argument. In the insular world of liberalism, argumentation is unnecessary. One mocks conservatives; one doesn't engage their arguments." OK, obviously the dogs voting thing wasn't the man's argument, so it was very unfair for Chris to seize on that. The argument goes like this: "Some disappointed pundits have said that this [voter rejection of gay marriage] reflects bigotry. No. It reflects intelligence. The other day, Pat Caddell said that homosexual “marriage” isn’t a conservative/liberal issue. It’s an intelligence/stupidity issue. I agree. I have said in this blog many times that the very idea of homosexual marriage is incoherent, which is why I put the word “marriage” in quotation marks."
So the argument is: supporters of gay marriage are stupid? Or: some guy says homosexual marriage is incoherent? (How could some guy be wrong, after all? Makes no sense.)
Let's take the first. Supporters of gay marriage are stupid. What sort of argument is that? (And why would any supporter of gay marriage think that it was OK to short-curcuit the argument process by mocking arguments like this?) Let's consider this philosophical authority on 'how to argue': all arguments are either deductive or inductive. Well, the statement in question is neither, since both deductive and inductive arguments require at least one premise and a conclusion, I should think. Here we have, well, just a statement. Reading on we make a little more progress:
All argumentation, to be effective, must be ad hominem in nature. The term “ad hominem” has two very different uses in philosophy. They must not be confused. You have probably heard of the ad hominem fallacy. (A fallacy is an argument that is psychologically attractive but logically infirm; it seems like a good argument, but isn’t.) This fallacy consists in dismissing someone’s argument on the ground that he or she is a bad person (a Marxist, for example, or a goddamned Democrat). This is clearly fallacious, for bad people can make good arguments and good people bad arguments. One cannot transfer goodness or badness from arguers to arguments any more than one can transfer goodness or badness from politicians to policies. Even Hitler was capable of making, and probably did make, a sound argument.
The other use of the term “ad hominem” has nothing to do with fallacies. Indeed, it describes a respectable mode of argumentation. According to the British philosopher John Locke (1632-1704), “A third way [to persuade] is, to press a Man with Consequences drawn from his own Principles, or Concessions. This is already known under the Name of Argumentum ad Hominem” (An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, book IV, chap. XVII, sec. 21). Let us unpack this. People (most of them, anyway) have principles. Principles have implications. If I can show you that your principle commits you to belief B, then I force you to either embrace B or abandon your principle. Yes, this is coercive. All argumentation is coercive. It is the imposition of a choice by one person on another. In the example given, I tell you that you cannot have both your principle and your belief that non-B (or your nonbelief in B, if you are merely agnostic about it). You can’t both have your cake and eat it.
To summarize, the ad hominem fallacy is an attack on a person. It is disreputable and disrespectful. Don’t do it. The argumentum ad hominem is an appeal to (i.e., an argument directed to) a person (rather than to the world at large). It is reputable, respectful,and respectable. Do not confuse the two.
OK, there are good ad hominem arguments and bad ad hominem arguments. The bad consist of calling people bad (or goddamn Democrats.) It seems to me plausible that 'supporters of gay marriage are stupid' - if that is your whole argument - qualifies as a bad ad hominem argument. (My argument to this conclusion requires the additional premise that being stupid is commonly regarded as bad.) A good ad hominem argument will sting an interlocutor with his or her own principles. For example, if someone wanted to argue, say, that gay marriage was bad (or incoherent), a good ad hominem counter-argument might be built upon that person's own commitment to offering at least some deductive or inductive considerations in favor of that conclusion (were there evidence that the person in question was committed to arguments being either deductive or inductive, e.g. not purely abusive or some silliness about voting dogs.)
In all seriousness, in tut-tutting Chris & co. for failing to address his argument, I think Keith Burgess-Jackson is failing to notice the use of an ab hominem - or 'just walk away' - style of argument. (Closely related but distinct from peri hominem argument, often employed by Kierkegaard to get around Hegel.) By making jokes about how dogs might actually be capable of voting, about puppies shooting people, Chris and his commenters were doing the dialectically rigorous thing. Until such time as a person shows willing to engage in argument, either deductive or inductive, 'just walk away' is the proper argumentative approach. A little judicious mockery never hurt either.
In that spirit, I offer the following counter-argument to the 'argument' against gay marriage contained in Keith Burgess-Jackson's original post.
Today a student walked into my office and said, 'So who is this Don Knotts guy?'
In an attempt to buy time, I did my best Obi Wan. 'Don Knotts? Now that's a name I haven't heard in a long time.'
This student, a Singaporean film buff - really, he knows everything; just brimming with trivia and facts - was extremely disturbed to discover that there was this famous American actor, who had made many movies, all of which are quite unknown to my student. He had visited IMDb and was maddened by the length of titles. I stammered out some wisdom about how, yes, The Ghost and Mr. Chicken was regarded as his finest work after leaving The Andy Griffith Show. Movies from my youth: Hot Lead and Cold Feet. The Apple Dumpling Gang. I explained that I hadn't seen earlier works like No Time For Sergeants, so couldn't comment authoritativevly. 'But why are you asking these questions, my son?'
It turned out he'd seen this, which I hadn't seen. It's incredibly funny. Really well done.
All by way of saying: if you've got an argument, out with it. You can't really expect people to respond to all this stuff about voting dogs. Which reminds me of a scene from The Shaggy D.A. Also of an old Bill Cosby sketch, oddly enough. Which just goes to show that I am brimming with ammunition for perfectly sound ab hominem arguments. Best then to offer deductive or inductive arguments. In short, are there any considerations that make the conclusion 'gay marriage is bad (or incoherent)' probably or necessarily true?
[File this post with my old one about ad hominid arguments, i.e. bad evolutionary psychology arguments that just make up a bunch of stuff about how it was 'back in caveman days.']
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
Noam Chomsky
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Jeff Cooper
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Naomi Chana
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frogs and Ravens
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Liberty and Power
Pam Mack
James Meadway
Heather Mathews
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Richard Kahn
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Clancy Ratcliff
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
George H. Williams
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review