For example, some Pattern #6 attacks might be…

“A candidate who REALLY cared about winning elections would take the time to learn some basic Verbal self-defense.”
“Any Senator who REALLY wants to stop terrorism will back the president’s plan.”
“Any Christian who REALLY believed in the Lord would have voted for the president.”

Do we take the bait and protest that “Of course we want to win, if we didn’t, we would….?

Or do we put in the time to learn an effective response?

Quick Review
Previous Attack Patterns:

  • Framework:
  • #1: “If you REALLY X, you’d Y.”
  • #2: “If you really A, you wouldn’t WANT to B.”
  • #3: “Don’t you even CARE about X?”
  • #4: “Even X should Y!”
  • #5: “(Everyone) understands why you X.”

Basic Response

  1. Identify the mode
  2. Identify the presupposition(s)
  3. Respond in NEUTRAL Computer mode TO THE PRESUPPOSITION ONLY
  4. Stay in Computer mode.

The deceptive simplicity of Pattern #6, “(A person who) (X) (Y)” is one of the reasons that it is so difficult to counter.  Unfortunately, Democrats who fail to counter verbal attacks–lose elections.

The first part of the sentence may be either a generic “person” or a generalized description of some group which includes the target of the attack.  

Some ways to fill (X):   A person who…

  • really wanted to (Z)…
  • has serious emotional problems…
  • doesn’t even CARE about (Z)…
  • has limited perceptions…
  • always puts other people last…
  • has no interest in pursuing justice…

And for the (Y):  A person who really cared about public opinion…

  • would be careful to always know his facts.
  • would never make statements that are unsupported.
  • would realize that appearances are important.
  • can be expected to put on a good show.

You get the idea.  This kind of attack sounds perfectly cordial, but can carry layer upon layer of killer presuppositions.

IF the overt statement is truthful, there there is ONE-AND-ONLY-ONE effective response, which comes in two levels of expertise:

basic: “That seems perfectly reasonable.”

    Huh?  How does he lose if I agree??  

    Well, think for a minute here…. What were the presuppositions?

Attack: “A candidate who really cared about winning elections would take the time to learn some basic Verbal self-defense.”

If you are the candidate, the presuppostions are 1) that you haven’t taken the time to learn Verbal Self-Defense, 2) therefore you don’t care about winning, and 3) You should feel terrible about this.  Just as soon as you agree with the overt statement, however, you have effectively spiked my attempt to label you as a care-nothing. Instead, you have presented me with a NEW presupposition–that these lazy ignoramuses who don’t care enough to learn Verbal Self-Defense–are out THERE somewhere.  I have to either accept your presupposition that I meant someone else was a lazy ignoramus, or I have to really make a fool of myself trying a much more direct (and therefore unsophisticated) form of attack.

advanced:  Again, you nod politely and agree, but you elaborate:  “The problem is, of course, deciding upon the most effective use of a candidate’s available time.” You want to leave the attacker confused–who is this mysterious other candidate with the problem–and (oh, yes) just what exactly was the problem, anyway?  
As soon as you have sown the confusion, you neatly disengage from the conversation, without offering the attacker any additional useful information.

But, you argue–I don’t want to agree with a false idea!  Fair enough.  Elgin doesn’t deal with the untrue supposition directly, but she does go on an enjoyable detour, the results of which offer some promising options:

 

One of the priceless survival skills [for academics and other experts] is the abilty to utter sequences in Computer Mode, within the field under discussion, for almost any length of time and at a moment’s notice, without ever saying anything with significant content.  For example:

“There appears to be a significant probability, provided all parameters are maximized to their fullest potential within the constraints of demographic variance, that none of the anticipated data will demonstrate behavior atypical of that which one might encounter within the less constrained environment of either the behavioral objectives, so to speak, or the derivationally motivated contingency.  This is of course somewhat oversimplified, but its implications need not be belabored, since they will be obvious to all of you, and you need only refer to the relevant literature (which, I might add, is abundant) for further details.”

Elgin recommends that everyone should invent a few similar paragraphs, suitable to their own fields of knowledge, to use in emergencies.  The joy of these is that they commit you to nothing, totally bemuse your listeners, and buy you time to think of a more effective response if you need it.  

And then…she offers the counter-move:

“Look calm, raise your eyebrows slightly, nod a very limited nod that indicates how polite you are, and say, ‘Except, of course, …'” (in/for/when) (fictional but plausible situtation).

 

Those who recognize the original put-on will also notice that you are not taken in– and will score you a status point.  The innocents will credit you as being the more knowledgeable expert.  

It is this final strategy that offers a way to effectively handle an overt statement with which you disagree. For effective disagreement, however, your exception must be factual. Examples:

Attack: “A senator who REALLY cared about energy independence would vote in favor of the president’s plan.”

Riposte: “That seems reasonable, if the president has the better plan. Why do you think the president preferred drilling in the Arctic to improving gas mileage on the highway?”

Depending upon your audience, you may prefer to lead your attacker on until they cover themselves thoroughly with the BS they have just presented.  However, please remember that
irony will be MUCH more effective if you keep your voice mild and your tone reasonable. You don’t want to cross the line into sarcasm.

Attack: “Anyone who is a real Christian understands that nothing is more important than saving the innocent lives of unborn babies.”

Riposte12: “Of course.  A real Christian understands that the mother’s life is unimportant.”

Riposte: “That’s an interesting idea.  What do you think that ‘unreal Christians’ believe?”

0 0 votes
Article Rating