Art of Deception--Refutation of Precedent

Art of Deception (Continued) p 127

Refutation of Precedent

3 major premises:

Because it is the historical fact, it must be protected.  Example the eminent domain and what governments do, when they consider a property more valuable to the community than to the landowner

The protected thing does not apply to the problem at hand.  An attempt to show that it has qualities that are distinctly contrary than what the person uses to protect his personal domain

Push the protected item it to its extreme.  Undermining the premise with exaggerations destroys the argument.

If ound this discussion very informative in the current battle very gun rights.  I see both proponents and opponents of gun rights using the tactics.



Gun right opponents says:  The Constitution has always guaranteed that citizens can have and own guns.

Employ these refutations:
1.  The community would be far safer with the guns.  Draw a picture of people living safely.
2   No, we are not "controlling guns."  We are only asking for control over specific military level guns that have no use to the regular citizen
c.  If you let this go, every citizen will be brandishing a firearm.

Gun right proponent argues:

Smart gun control will make the citizens safer

Employ these refutaions:
1.  Historically gun control has not let to safer conditions.  Illustrate the communities with a long history of gun violence with gun controls in place.
2.  Gun control in other countries would not work in a country with more guns than people.
3.  If gun control begins, it will eventually lead to gun confiscation.

Both sides in the debate are employing these refutations of precedent.  They try to prove they have real history at their disposal.  Bot are savvy enough to find plenty of precedents for their side.

What this does in my own mind is to cause me more than ever to stay out of the discussion.  The premises that both sides assign themselves to seem absurd.  Circumstantil evidence would seem to trump any argument either side might say.  Ultimately the question will probably need the intercession of the Supreme Court, and whatever it is will undoubtedly ensure that the issue does not go away.

This discussion illustrates more about the entrenchment in arguments more than posing any remediation.