Blogs » J.Q. Tomanek of Victoria » "Those old funny-looking white guys wearing red hats in Rome..."

Subscribe


 
"Those old funny-looking white guys wearing red hats in Rome..."
By Jared in J.Q. Tomanek of Victoria
February 9, 2012

They are everywhere and you have probably read or heard them recently in some form or fashion.

I see it applied when non Catholics critique my Faith and when atheists are on the receiving end of so-called evangelical attempts, I see it in politics, and I see in natural law. Have you ever heard the “Those old white men in funny red hats cannot know anything about…" line? I have heard this so many times in conversations that I can almost read a person’s mind right before they start to speak it. Regarding the atheist, I have read Christians that said “I will not believe a word that comes from an atheist…” as if just because a person is an atheist it automatically means his argument is wrong.

The second example is with politics. I see this during election time all too often. A person running for office proposes a certain policy. Instead of critiquing the policy, the opponent starts with “I don’t know if I should even believe a word that an adulterer says but…” Another example is “An isolationist cannot…” Lastly and I think most bizarre, “You may not even be American born, so your thoughts on this “totally unrelated to citizenry issue” must be wrong.

Another example I have heard often in regards to social issues and morals is “You cannot speak on this matter because you don’t have (name the problem, sex, religion, organ, etc.).” Another example might be, “All data from this source is tainted so it must be wrong without evening considering its veracity.”

All of the above examples fall into a category of logical fallacy called “Poisoning the Well” which is a species of “Ad Hominem.” An attempt at Poisoning the Well tries to discredit an argument without appealing to the argument itself as if because a certain party says something it must be wrong. A Poisoning the Well attack doesn’t mean either side is actually wrong in their particular argument, it just takes away from the dialogue because the fallacy doesn’t prove rightly or wrongly anything. It just presents another red herring that leads away from proving a side. When reading, debating, listening to presidential candidates, etc., it is good to be aware of this logical fallacy.

Comments


  • Jared Jared Report a ViolationReport a Violation
    permalink

    I was just using this as an example of what I hear. Often times, I chat with someone and I hear, "Why do you believe what a bunch of white old guys in Rome think about sex?" It doesn't bother per se, but just to realize that this is a loaded question in the "Poison the well" species. The rebuttal ought to be about the topic, besides it is rather age, sex, and race discrimination.

    February 10, 2012 at 8:19 a.m.

  • PatB PatB Report a ViolationReport a Violation
    permalink

    Good morning Jared,
    Personally,it's not the College of Cardinals per se that bothered me when I went to Catholic school and beyond. It was the concept the "the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals". It did include the CofC also. So you can imagine how non-Catholics feel about the concept. If you continue in this vien,you might want to think about changing the title of your blog to"On being Catholic in Victoria"LOL
    Patrick Barnes

    February 10, 2012 at 6:29 a.m.