MODERN ERRORS # 2: Arguing the Phobia Fallacy

phobia (n): "irrational fear, horror, aversion," 1786, perhaps on model of similar use in French, abstracted from compounds in -phobia, from Greek -phobia, from phobos "fear, panic fear, terror, outward show of fear; object of fear or terror," originally "flight" (still the only sense in Homer)

Just because I don't like onions doesn't mean I have an onion-phobia. I just don't like onions. I don't like anything about them; their taste, texture or the fact that, to me, they overpower the flavor of all they contact. Though I just don't like onions it would be silly to say I was afraid of the onion, no? Same with rap music. Do I have rap-phobia because I just don't like rap music? Am I unjustly discriminating against the onion or rap music because I don't care for either? Apparently, according to one modern reasoning mistake the answer is 'yes'. I'm a mean, nasty and psychologically disturbed individual that lets his 'phobias' deny the rights of onions farmers and rap musicians to even exist. How? Substitute phobias for sound argumentation.

That there are real psychological infirmities called 'phobias' is not the topic of this analysis. Here we are only concerned with the recent exploitation of the phobia accusation as a substitute for rational discourse and especially refutation. Here, we examine a defective tool in reasoning 'arguing from the phobia fallacy'. Usually, but not always, this particular mental trick is employed in social, political and ethical debates. First, let's consider what it is exactly and where did it come from.

During the last century's 'cold war' between the Western democracies and the Marxist United Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) dissidents were, at first, simply shot in the back of the head and dumped into a sewer. As more soviets yearned for freedom of expression that, and even worse methods of dealing with those who disagreed with the socialist agenda, simply produced more incipient freedom fighters all across the Old Soviet Union. Just prior to the fall of the 15 Soviet Socialist Republics glued together by Russia, a new method, of disposing of dissidents, emerged and became mainstream. Using some questionable theories and practices of modern psychology rebellious minds were simply declared 'insane' as a result of their bourgeois phobias about Marxist Materialism and the extinction of the individual that ushered in the glories of the 'collective'.

In their defense, it should be recalled that both Marx and Engels were quite annoyed at the academics of their day who wanted to gin up their 'theory of history' into a 'theory of everything'. The last post warned about the danger most philosophers face in this regard, their theories are transformed by dilettantes into political programs, dogmas and psychological weapons against perceived enemies. Future posts will examine some of the most egregious examples of this misappropriation of philosophical theory.

Enter the Twenty-First Century where Marxist ideology is finally discredited but its methodologies are refined and put into service of the rebranded socialists the 'progressives'. It has a nicer ring to it than socialist with its Marxist echos and shadows. It also made it 'acceptable' to deem as 'unacceptable' anyone who disagrees with the socialist progressive political agenda. Notice the psychological shift. Truth is no longer a matter of right or wrong but merely 'unacceptable' if you disagree. Simply label dissenting skepticism, criticism or opposition as a 'phobia' Those who object through debate are just psychologically defective due to their particular phobia for an idea. The exhaustive http://phobialist.com/ complies too many phobias to list here, but some of the more interesting ways you can use the phobia fallacy to silence your adversaries are:

Agraphobia- Fear of sexual abuse.

Agrizoophobia- Fear of wild animals.

Allodoxaphobia- Fear of opinions.

Androphobia- Fear of men.

Anthropophobia- Fear of people or society.

Apotemnophobia- Fear of persons with amputations.

Asymmetriphobia- Fear of asymmetrical things.

Bolshephobia- Fear of Bolsheviks.

Bibliophobia- Fear of books.

Cacophobia- Fear of ugliness.

Cenophobia or Centophobia- Fear of new things or ideas.

Eleutherophobia- Fear of freedom.

Epistemophobia- Fear of knowledge.

Francophobia- Fear of France or French culture.

Eurotophobia- Fear of female genitalia

Gynephobia or Gynophobia- Fear of women

Hamartophobia- Fear of sinning.

Haphephobia or Haptephobia- Fear of being touched.

Harpaxophobia- Fear of being robbed.

Hedonophobia- Fear of feeling pleasure.

Heresyphobia - Fear of challenges to official doctrine

Herpetophobia- Fear of reptiles or creepy, crawly things.

Heterophobia- Fear of the opposite sex. (Sexophobia)

Homilophobia- Fear of sermons.

Hominophobia- Fear of men.

Homophobia- Fear of sameness, of homosexuality, or of becoming homosexual.

Hoplophobia- Fear of firearms.

Ideophobia- Fear of ideas.

Islamophobia - Fear of Islam or Islamists.

Phobophobia is the fear of phobias.

Instead of presenting a refutation of this post it would be a lot easier to dismiss it as chronic phobophobia Well, there are literally hundreds more listed, but you get the idea from even these chosen few. This particular reasoning defect I call 'arguing the phobia fallacy' because it allows its users to bypass the standard need of formulating valid and sound arguments where the premises are backed by the best available testable evidence for truth. Why bother with all that? Any view that opposes your own view is simply the result of a sick and warped mind gripped with an irrational fear and loathing. No doubt this phobia is induced by some religious indoctrination or cultural programing the subject is unaware of and has no power to control. These people need clinical therapy to de-program their phobias rooted in superstitions and bring them to an understanding that modern science all all the answers and that requires a socialist state to Recalcitrant, unrepentant dissenters are to be ignored and perhaps pitied, but under no circumstances are they to be allowed to speak of otherwise express their views. This is how it came to pass that free speech does not apply to anyone who has incorrect views, i.e. views that contradict socialist progressive views.

There 's even a legal defense exploitation of the phobia fallacy. In 2006, A Melbourne man accused of deliberately infecting several sexual partners with HIV had a "condom phobia," (francolatexphobia) a court was told. Michael John Neal, 48, of Coburg, was facing more than 30 charges, including three counts of intentionally causing a very serious disease and eight counts of attempting to intentionally cause a very serious disease. Instead of trying to defend his client on the facts, the lawyer tried the phobia defense. It didn't work but was allowed in place of an argument. Even if true, the court reasoned, and Mr. Neal actually had a 'condom phobia' that does not mitigate his guilt for intentionally infecting his male sex partners with the HIV virus.

Combined with 'arguing in the margins' , detailed in the previous post, all that is necessary now is to have a mass 'arguing the phobia fallacy' delivery system available for 'spinning' your opposition as anti-progressive, depraved victims of whatever abhorrent phobia causes their opposition to your views.

Lucky for the 'progressives' such a mass delivery system is readily available. Media, be it social or conventional, are more than eager to advance totalitarian thought control just as long as they plead suffering at the hands of those infected by phobias. In the UK before showing a TV news story that has flash photography, the announcer (they call them 'presenters') solemnly warns the audience;"Caution, this story contains flash photography. Only about 3 in every 100 people in the UK have photosensitive epilepsy, but everyone has to be warned and suffer equally.

Say...are you afraid of Gluten?