Guilty by Association and the Ad Hominem Fallacy
A Consistent Problem
In our day, the word argument no longer truly means the search for truth in the form of a logical dialogue. Instead, it has come to mean a heated and emotional battle to be right. As a jaded response to such violence in words, the world has come to either engage with prejudice and rage or to tolerate and ignore. All the while the "opponent" becomes the target for wielding opposing views. This becomes known as the Ad Hominem (at the man) fallacy. Consequently, the many that hold like views also assume the target as "enemy". Anyone who would dare hold these opposing views become guilty by association. Meanwhile, those who do not desire the carnage of so-called "arguments" become disinterested in any assertion (fearing being the least bit wrong) and/or abandon the idea of truth altogether. Any pursuit of the truth has become violent and against unity, and is then outlawed and belief is a crime. Yet those who seek justice stand confused as they hate those who believe they hold the truth, and yet that does not seem to be a sufficient reason to wish evil. Then they realize they are at least considering wishing evil. As this cancerous problem spreads, any memory of the struggle against those who believe and/or those who do not, becomes scars of agony, shame, and regret.
The "Terrain" and Context
The above seems dramatic but it no less seems to be happening. Yet, the only motivation to argue has been the desire to discover and act in truth. The hindrances to the desire are not insurmountable, simply seeking the truth does not mean there is an opponent besides treacherous philosophies, half-truths, and lies. Let us argue but love in the process. Wrong we may be, but we are not the truth value of our perception, we are humans prone to error. As to the problems which have become realized as aforementioned, let us realize that a struggle without cost, is without worth. Therefore what have we to gain by abandoning truth and illegalizing belief in it? The search for the truth has been the foremost in man's activities throughout all recorded history and then some. Thus, it should not be abandoned because it is difficult, it should be pursued because it is worth it (like salvation). The fact that there is struggle reveals that there is an enemy but it is not our neighbor. It is Satan who would have us believe anything but the truth (cf. John 8:44). This is why there are questions that can seem to have more than one right answer or why truths can seem false. Man's vision of the truth will be blurred until death when we realize Truth Himself or deny Him completely.
Causes, Related Issues, and Effects
The emotion we experience when we feel attacked is powerful. We are moved to fortify ourselves and to lash out to instill fear in our "assailants" in an effort to stop and/or deter the “attacking”. We are moved to point fingers and thereby expect the argument to stop, however, this is contrary to the idea of a logical argument. This emotion has no rightful place in a dialogue for truth. In fact, it will only cause one if not all parties to be disposed to deny truth if at all found and/or to stop looking for it. In the case of discussions that are already emotionally charged, it is important that emotions felt are understood by all parties. There can be hidden hurt or woundedness which an "argument" may only exacerbate. Thus, both parties must be vulnerable, disposed to charity, and interested in the truth that understanding is realized. Emotions only indicate how we feel about our own perception, thus their inaccuracies are to be expected and rectified by the discovery of the truth(cf. John 8:32). The truth may be difficult at times but it no less is (if it is truly the truth we speak of).
The internet is largely the cause of these problems but this fallacy is no less a human tendency. First, people no longer can see themselves in those who post because they cannot see the human behind the post. What they do see, from their perspective, is someone who attacks them for what they say, believe, etc. Further, a given statement without nonverbal communication and tone can be believed to be malicious, regardless of whether it is or not. Then when we reassociate a post with a person, we come to despise them. This decision can happen among well-meaning individuals. Second, in an effort to move away from this apparent conflict, one may find only those who agree with them to converse with. However, if we believe something that is not perfectly true, we can easily be led to believe something totally false, and who may tell us we are wrong? Social media sites use algorithms to determine what content one sees in one's feed. This algorithm is designed to help those who agree to grow in relationships. However, they also stop displaying posts from those who disagree with one. Over time, these two trends develop what Bishop Barron refers to as "tribalism". The Republican camp versus the Democratic camp, men vs. women, children vs. parents, secular society vs. religion, etc. Those that share a few similar views come to see themselves in this or that "tribe". Though both sides may be equally true and false, each comes to view themselves as perfectly right and anyone who opposes is stupid, wrong, and/or evil. If we only believe what we want to be the reality, what can go right? I have written on Relativism, please see the following articles: Relativism and the Eighth Commandments, Mortal Sin, Self-Damnation, & their Result, and Natural Law vs. Relativism. The truth of the matter is it affects how we think about everything.
