This article says it all. I have to say though that on the whole the the majority of any on-line discussions about HWSD I have seen, have been 95% positive with no signs of overt personal attacks. Keep up the good work on HWSD education to the uninitiated. and spread the word.
Original text: http://epona.tv/blog/2014/october/arguing-without-arguments
Arguing without arguments
Written by Julie Taylor on 23.10.2014
in Welfare
Some horse folks still think you have to do research and
construct logical arguments in order to take part in online discussions
about horses. Nothing could be further from the truth. So as to leave
no equestrian behind, I have written this five step guide to arguing
without arguments. Whether you are new to stating your personal hunches
as rock solid facts or have been doing it for years, here's how you can
improve your technique.
Argumentum ad hominem
This is fancy speak for attacking the person with whom you disagree
instead of addressing their opinions and arguments. If someone writes
something you don't like on the internet, the first step is to google
them and find their social media profiles and look for any evidence of
incompetence as you perceive it. You just need to find that one thing
this person did in their life that, according to you, was stupid or
wrong and you are free to discount everything they ever say again. Even
if they quote a string of published, peer reviewed scientific studies
which contradict your personal, home brewed philosophy of horsemanship,
all you need is that one photo of them at a Nickelback concert which
alters the fabric of the universe and renders all this evidence invalid.
Even if you come up empty handed and it seems like your opponent has
never done anything wrong in their life, you can always find someone who
holds a similar view to your opponent who did do something wrong and
use that person's mistake as an excuse for dismissing the arguments of
your opponent. When applied correctly, this technique makes your
opponent so uncomfortable that they don't want to continue talking to
you because you are behaving like a sociopath. Tell yourself and others
your opponent went away because they ran out of arguments.
Change the subject
When faced with information they don't like, some people try to deal
by making sense of the opponent's claims, examining the evidence and
critically reviewing their own attitudes and habits. You don't need that
kind of hassle in your life. Instead, make yourself feel better by
forcing those who are making you uncomfortable to talk about something
else. For instance, if you like to hit horses hard with sticks and
someone else says that is wrong, point out that there are worse things
in the world. Demand that your opponent deals with everything else on
the planet which you deem to be worse than their concern before they can
have your permission to proceed with their discussion. If they insist
that they have a right to discuss anything they want, regardless of your
preferences, accuse them of hypocrisy and not caring about horses who
starve or are kept in PMU barns. It is not necessary that you are
yourself involved in addressing any of those things that you think are
worse than your opponent's concern. You need never have donated a penny
to charity or put in a single hour of volunteer work. Just point out
everything that's wrong with the world and blame your opponent for not
having solved all these problems before getting to the one with which
they are currently involved. In many cases, you will be able to shame
your opponent into red faced silence, pondering all the ways in which
they're not helping horses.
Repeat as needed
Tired of hearing about how there is no evidence to support your
strongly held beliefs? Don't shy away from online discussions. Just keep
repeating what you hold to be true as if your views were actual
arguments in a real discussion. Start by pointing out that your opponent
has revealed their ignorance by stating an opinion contrary to yours.
Nobody likes to be called ignorant and it will put them on their back
foot, wondering whether they should be refuting your allegation or just
ignore it. Then carefully account for your beliefs as if you or someone
else didn't just make the stuff up. Remember: You read it in a book, so
it must be true. When someone points out that the evidence available all
contradicts your belief, repeat what you read in that book. If your
opponent points out that the book you read might be wrong, explain that
this can't be the case, since the author of the book said that
everything in the book is true. And he or she should know. They wrote
the book in which it says that they are telling the truth. Repeat ad
nauseum, while rejecting any science quoted by your opponent. After all,
scientists are just people.
False dichotomies
”I am allergic to peanuts, so I have to live entirely on watermelon.”
That's a false dichotomy. It assumes that the only alternative to
ingesting peanuts is to exclusively eat watermelon. Stupid, isn't it?
Yet, in a horse context, this rhetorical cheat can often come in handy.
For instance: ”You think it's cruel to keep horses locked up in
stalls for 23 hours a day? Well I disagree, because leaving my horse to
die of starvation in a muddy field with slipper feet and sweet itch is
just not an option for me.” See how that works? You wilfully ignore
all the options which neither involve starving to death or being locked
up all the time. Like free choice stabling where horses walk in and out
as they need to. Or turnout during the day or night and stabling during
the other 12 hours. You pretend there are only two options: Yours and
one other really bad one. You might think this is too transparent and
that your opponent will catch on, but don't underestimate the shame
associated with being accused of wanting your horse to die of starvation
in a mud hole. Go to any horse discussion group and you'll see how
routinely this trick is used and how well it works even though it is a
completely invalid way of conducting a debate.
Pull rank
If you're an ignorant, opinionated horse person with a pathological
sense of entitlement and a complete inability to change your mind about
anything ever, chances are you've been in the game for a while. This is
probably your strongest card. If someone states an aversion to a common
practice of yours, remind them that you have been doing it for 40 years.
In a startling number of cases, your opponent will back off rather than
point out that doing it wrong for 40 years does not make anyone an
expert. New and inexperienced horse owners are especially vulnerable to
seeing things from the horse's perspective. Keep them in their place by
accusing them of having ”pet horses”, thus inferring that you
are yourself a professional and that their choice to have animals for
the love of said animals and a desire to give them a good life is
somehow inferior.
Follow these five, simple steps when you're talking to
other horse people on the internet, and you will never have to back up
your opinions with fact, let alone accept that you've been wrong and
need to change. Good luck people and be careful out there.
