Asta Kask
2013-04-01, 09:29 AM
I thought I'd start this thread as a form of mental self-defense - to see what kind of bad arguments are used against LGBTA people, why they are wrong and how to counter them, if necessary. Since these types of arguments are not unique to LGBTA-phobes, it is also useful in other walks of life, like against pseudo-science. But I thought I'd start with a concept that is useful when arguing:
Burden of Proof
Burden of proof means the responsobility for providing the evidence, the reasons for accepting a claim. The burden of proof always rests with the person making the positive claim. For instance, if I claim that there are fairies in my cellar, I could point to strange noises and tracks in the dust. I could not just sit there and say "prove that there isn't." I make the claim, I give the evidence.
There is a reason this is termed as the burden of proof. It is more difficult to have the burden of proof, to defend a proposition rather than to be on the offense. Such are the perils of stating that something is the case. So, shifting the burden of proof is an old and popular pastime. Often the difference can seem semantic. If I claim that Randolph Carter is not guilty of killing Harley Warren a prosecutor could say that I say that his innocent. Since this is a positive claim I should prove it. But that's not how it works. There is a difference between not believing someone is guilty and believing that he is innocent. I could simply be unconvinced. It is important to have a clear idea of one's own position so one knows whether one should provide evidence or not.
In practise, however, the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent" is not so large. In both cases we let the accused go. It doesn't matter so much if we believe there are no fairies in the cellar or whether we're just unconvinced, we're unlikely to put out cookies and milk for them.
And here (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx) is a useful list of "bad arguments" classified according to where the flaw in their logic lies. We'll cover the most important of these as time goes by. The reason we do this is that anti-LGBTA arguments are frequently stated as facts about LGBTA people. These "facts" then provide a reason for disliking them. Disprove the fact and you remove the dislike (well, not exactly but you know...)
Burden of Proof
Burden of proof means the responsobility for providing the evidence, the reasons for accepting a claim. The burden of proof always rests with the person making the positive claim. For instance, if I claim that there are fairies in my cellar, I could point to strange noises and tracks in the dust. I could not just sit there and say "prove that there isn't." I make the claim, I give the evidence.
There is a reason this is termed as the burden of proof. It is more difficult to have the burden of proof, to defend a proposition rather than to be on the offense. Such are the perils of stating that something is the case. So, shifting the burden of proof is an old and popular pastime. Often the difference can seem semantic. If I claim that Randolph Carter is not guilty of killing Harley Warren a prosecutor could say that I say that his innocent. Since this is a positive claim I should prove it. But that's not how it works. There is a difference between not believing someone is guilty and believing that he is innocent. I could simply be unconvinced. It is important to have a clear idea of one's own position so one knows whether one should provide evidence or not.
In practise, however, the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent" is not so large. In both cases we let the accused go. It doesn't matter so much if we believe there are no fairies in the cellar or whether we're just unconvinced, we're unlikely to put out cookies and milk for them.
And here (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx) is a useful list of "bad arguments" classified according to where the flaw in their logic lies. We'll cover the most important of these as time goes by. The reason we do this is that anti-LGBTA arguments are frequently stated as facts about LGBTA people. These "facts" then provide a reason for disliking them. Disprove the fact and you remove the dislike (well, not exactly but you know...)