Everybody knows?

I made the mistake of saying "One of my friends..." in a conversation and the group 'Grammar Nazi' (G.N. for short) was all over me about how the right usage was 'One of my friend...' I mean, yeah, I know that this is how it is being used these days, but the proper usage of yore was the way I used it. I should have just let it go but was fool enough to argue. You know how that would have gone...the G.N. gave me the horse's laugh and said, "Everybody knows that the right usage is..." to a chorus of assents. Some gave me sympathetic looks pitying me for my ignorance; others sneered at me in contempt. And THAT was that.

You know how irritating it is to be the brunt of a G.N assault even when you are wrong. To not only be assaulted by a G.N but to be pitied by the junta when you are actually in the right...but THAT is the power of 'Everybody knows'. When everybody 'knows' a certain 'fact' then anything that contradicts it HAS to be wrong. Galileo (remember him?) was blinded for his folly of opposing what everybody knows. THAT is the power of the logical fallacy called 'argumentum ad populum' - the argument that what is popularly known is right.

Now, you see, Galileo was not talking of which politician was the better ruler or some such item of opinion which you could easily have a strong conviction against because you do not like the way he wears his moustache or some such important reason. Nope, our man was talking about the sun and earth and moon and about what went around what...and he backed it with observations. What, you see, we call science and what we assume is not subject to opinions. (An idea that scientists would scoff at...at ANY point in time scientists HAVE held opinions, it is just laymen who think there are no opinions in science. Einstein famously said, "God does not play dice" when faced with quantum physics or, more specifically, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Today there are multiple opinions about the nature of the universe - string theories, membrane theories, multiverse theories, what have you. Yet, people think of Science as absolute. The Truth MAY be absolute but what we KNOW as Science...THAT is different.)

So, if Galileo can be blinded for proclaiming a scientific discovery which the populace did not agree with, what's the point of fighting the populace on issues related to man-made things - like linguistics, governance, social norms etc? Yeah, yeah, I hear you, you say that Galileo was blinded by the Church and are off on your rant against religion. But, pray tell me, IF the populace had not believed that the Church IS right always and HAS the authority to act as it did, could the same thing have happened? No.

The ONLY thing which can fight argumentum ad populum is another logical fallacy - Authority bias. IF someone in authority opposed the popular opinion, the populace can be swayed. But, remember, authority itself HAS to be granted BY the populace. As in, the true authority on Science, of the two, was Galileo and not the Church. But the populace granted authority to the Church to decide on matters of science as well. Ergo... (WHY do I call Authority Bias a fallacy even when it supports the right thing? Because, the people who ACCEPT the ruling think it is right ONLY because an Authority has said so and not on any other rational basis.)

Now, the populace makes itself heard very loudly indeed thanks to social media. One only hopes that, where it is wrong, an acceptable authority stands in opposition to correct the error.

Otherwise, one fine day, we may find ourselves expecting to float in the air because the populace has repealed the law of gravitation!

Recency bias

There is this strange thing about who people choose to call the G.O.A.T (Greatest Of All Times, in case you are still under the rock from where I just recently crawled out). It always happens to be someone who is currently alive and performing at the top of his ability. It's like, somehow, we are lucky to be alive at the exact time when the G.O.A.Ts in all spheres have graced our planet with their presence. It's such a pity that our forefathers did not produce any G.O.A.T in ANY sphere and, what's worse, our children will also not produce any G.O.A.T in ANY sphere since our own lot are not only the 'greatEST' but also the greatest of ALL times!

Or, perhaps, there have been greats, even greatests, in all times. Perhaps, Viv Richards, Gary Sobers and Don Bradman would also qualify as greats and Virat Kohli, Babar Azam, Steve Smith et al may only be AS great as these chaps and not the GREATEST. What gives credence to this bizarre idea that ANYONE from the past can be as good as Virat (OR Babar OR Steve OR...) is this strange thing in logic called 'Recency Bias'.

Apparently, human beings are wired to consider what happened recently as more important, better, whatever as compared to what happened earlier. OR, like our movie villains, especially those who play politicians, often say...'Public Memory is short'. Which is why you tend to value today's performers as far better than anyone from yesteryears. AND, yes, an accusation of corruption today will send voters rushing back to favor the people accused of genocide yesterday. THAT is recency bias in logic AND politicians, especially, thrive on it because ANY crime, as long as it does not result in a punishment long enough to disqualify them, will be forgotten or condoned pretty damn quick.

Which is also the reason why old fogies like me hardly find conversational traction except among other old fogies. I mean, you could have saved a townful of people in the eighties from a pandemic but all that talking about it will get you is a huge yawn and a 'there he goes again'. Meanwhile, the chap who created an APP to buy chips faster yesterday can talk of it practically incessantly...till, of course, the next sensation knocks it off the pedestal. Recency bias at work...and you thought logic wasn't of any relevance to your life.

Now that you know it, do not pass off this "What have you done for me lately?" attitude of your colleagues or family or friends as mere selfishness and lack of gratitude. It's recency bias at work!

Argumentum ad populum

THIS should certainly have got the academics into hot water. I mean, 'Vox Populi, Vox Dei' (The voice of the people is the voice of God) after all and these guys have the gall to say that to consider something correct because it is the popular belief is a logical fallacy? Come on, did anyone bother to get their brains examined?

They really need to be reminded of Galileo. Everyone KNEW that the Earth was the center of the universe, so obviously it was true. And, yet, that chappie persisted in putting the Sun at the center of the solar system and look what happened to him. It is a different thing that, once everyone started believing that the Earth was NOT the center of the Universe, God changed things around to make THAT true. After all, Vox Populi Vox Dei...or, in this case, the action of Dei.

Never mind, though. God still has human beings as the center of the Universe...everyone says so. And THAT shall BE true till such time as everyone starts believing otherwise. As though we would. Anyone who dares say that we are NOT the center of the Universe will be hounded out of life, unless an alien species conquers us.

To more mundane things...Everyone KNOWS that we shall ALL benefit as long as we all pursue our own goals to the exclusion of everyone else's. THAT is what keeps the wheels of commerce running and that is absolutely important for the world to keep spinning on its axis. Till some day the wheels come off...

What beats me though is that, nowadays, people do not all seem to believe in the same things. But, never mind, we have what are called 'echo chambers'. Everyone who believes otherwise than we do is cast away into the outer darkness viz blocked, unfriended, whatever, and we are surrounded by people of whom we can say 'Everyone believes as I do'. That is, indeed, the ideal world to live in...and some day we shall enter the outer darkness and exterminate those vermin.

It is surprising though that people say that this is a logical fallacy - that to believe that what everyone 'knows' is necessarily true - and that they have proof that will Trump our belief. As though any proof ever can! Vox Populi IS Vox Dei, after all, and even God cannot make us believe otherwise!

Survivorship bias

You know, there are some things that seem so apparent when someone says it but never as clear when it happens in real life. Take this 'survivorship bias' for example. It is a widely prevalent logical fallacy. Like all logical fallacies, this too is one of those things which you nod wisely when you hear of it while going about committing it with gay abandon.

"You know I think that jumping off the sixth floor is not at all fatal"
"Why do you say so?"
"Well, everyone I have met, who has jumped, is still alive"

I was flabbergasted. I mean, come on, faced by something like that too many questions jostle your mind for you to be coherent. How many such people could he have met? How did he meet even one? AND how on Earth did he expect to meet someone who had NOT survived?

THAT is the easiest example of the 'Survivorship Bias". If the only people you meet after something like that are the ones who survived, how can you draw a conclusion from that?

By now, you are all nodding and finding it funny that ANYONE could draw a conclusion like that. Let us try another one on you.

"I think you can easily make money playing on the stock markets."
"Really?"
"Yup! I met some twenty people in a stock market seminar who knew nothing about it before and have been making money on it for the past five years."

Nice. You are the next Warren Buffet. But...if 80 other people had also started off at the same time and become bankrupt do you expect to meet them at a seminar on the stock markets? Obviously, you did not also pursue your research with the beggars at the traffic lights. (Exaggeration, of course, but then separating a writer and exaggeration IS tough!) Could it be survivorship bias...those who survived and thrived DESPITE not knowing anything about the stock markets?

"Bill Gates is a school drop-out and look at him. I think your chances of being hugely successful is better without education."

Really? AND how many school dropouts have you studied other than Gates?

"To become a successful writer you do not need to know good English. Or even be a reader..."

Ye Gods! Now, go back to the first example and STOP laughing at THAT guy!

Argumentum ad baculum

Academics are such spoilsports. If you find an easy way to do things, they find a way to tell you why it is wrong and why you should not be allowed to do it. Of course, not that what they say stops you from doing what you really want to do but...you know, it is sort of nice to also have people applauding you for doing things and these guys get in the way of that.

"I think this movie is the best that we have ever seen."

"Why?"

"Because I will smash your face in if you do not agree."

How nice to get your way without long dissertations about the stone face of the actor, the mumbled dialogues and all the rest of it. But no...they call it a logical fallacy...'argumentum ad baculum' is the phrase they use. AND, as you know, someone throws a word like that you are too flummoxed by the phrase to even come back at them. Of course, they do it from the safety of THEIR homes, else you could bash some sense into them.

Argumentum ad baculum apparently means an appeal to force...that a conclusion has to be accepted because the consequences of not accepting will be...err...detrimental to your health. Though, yes, it could also mean detrimental to you in some manner other than health, as well.

Not always is it that straightforward. There is this prevalent anti-Muslim rhetoric that has a hold in the hinterlands of India.

"These people are dangerous. We need to impose population control on them."

"Why so?"

"They have this plan of producing so many children that they will become the majority and again rule over us."

Conspiracy theories of this sort are always an appeal to force. Accept this conclusion and work accordingly or the consequences will be horrendous.

Then, of course, every single blind believer is fed on a pure diet of 'argumentum ad baculum': Allow women to wear this and that is the death of our culture; Allow people to do that, and that is the end of our Nation...

Such a useful philosophy for the leaders of the world. AND the academics HAVE to get in the way.

Never mind them, though...NOW they are being taught to understand that argumentum ad baculum can be used on THEM as well. So, yes, soon you can expect to see this mentioned, not as a logical fallacy, but in the list of supremely logical methods of debate!

Tu quoque

(There seems to be a promo by Amazon of my book "A Dog eat Dog-food World" which has been made available at about 25% of the list price. So, for a princely sum of Rs. 29/= you can possess and read the ebook. Click on the yellow book-cover to the right)


Have you wondered why common things tend to have uncommon names? Or get referred to by uncommon, rather hifalutin terms? Must be because telling it in an everyday manner makes it sound so...ordinary...that saying it does not get you those oh-what-a-genius looks. AND, of course, really being a genius is sort of beyond you.

Take this one for example. Sounds like a logical fallacy that only an expert would come across or understand, right. 'Tu Quoque'...roll it round your tongue. Feels important, does it not?

THEN, consider this...

"You better buckle down and study every day, sonny! Life is competitive and the earlier you learn that the better."

"But, Grandpa said you never opened a book through school except when forced to..."

There are times when you wonder why your parents never get off your case. Just as you thought that, at last, they had lost their hold on your life...

Now, if sonny thought that studying every day COULD help him in life but YOU were preaching what you yourself did not practice - somewhat like knowing that a controlled diet is important for good health even while laughing at the fact that the guy who was preaching it was known to have a meal every hour on the hour - well, if sonny thought THAT, then you do not get to roll that 'Tu Quoque' off your tongue. For there is no flaw in his logic in calling you a hypocrite...though, yes, you would get back with "Do as I say, do not do as I do".

The problem is when he decides that the advice is incorrect because YOU did not practice it. In other words, if the chap who is putting forth a point is hypocritical enough not to apply it in HIS life it does not necessarily invalidate the point. To consider that the hypocrisy of the one who proposes a course of action necessarily invalidates the correctness of that course of action is the 'Tu Quoque' fallacy.

Of course you could simply say, "Just because the preacher is a hypocrite, you cannot consider what he preaches to be wrong". But then, that sounds only like common-sense. Say 'Tu Quoque' fallacy...now THAT practically shrieks of Wisdom!

Nirvana

"Vinu is weak in Maths, Rohit. I think we need to send him for some Maths tuition"

"As though that is going to jump his marks up from 40% to 100%. And improve his Physics, Chemistry and Biology scores from 60% to 90%"

Yeah, Right! And the wife was probably thankful that he did not want the Maths tuition to make Vinu bat like a Tendulkar, bowl like Shane Warne and field like Jonty Rhodes as well. (Yeah! I know...old fogy, so dated comparisons. Thank your lucky stars that I did not start on acting like Dilip Kumar and all that jazz!)

There are these guys who have no other job than to hunt around logical fallacies and give them a name. Given that human beings operate more on fallacies than on logic (Remember the number of times people have smugly smiled at you, after uttering some totally idiotic gem of illogic, and touted their victory in an argument? So there), these chaps probably find 24 hours per day too few to be going on.

Anyway, they have managed to get around to this one. In fact, they claim that our man has managed to hit two related fallacies in his one piece of dialogue. First, he sees the tuition as useless if it will not jump that performance from 40% to 100%, as if jumping it to anything less, like say 90%, is hardly worth the effort. THAT, they have named the 'Perfect Solution fallacy' - that if the solution does not eradicate ALL the problem, then it is not worth it. Like, you know, not cleaning your house at all unless you can be sure of ridding it of every single speck of dirt.

AND, not content with one piece of illogic, our man has gone on to attempt an entry into the Guinness book of world records with another. Not only should the solution be perfect for THAT problem, it should eliminate ALL related problems or it is not worth it. THAT they named the Nirvana fallacy. (WHAT? You saw the title and expected me to talk of how the soul achieves...You been here before? Yes? AND expected it of me? Ever considered going to a psychiatrist?)

Essentially, the chap, who holds onto the Nirvana fallacy closer than to a lover, prefers no solution rather than a solution that will not bring about instant Nirvana. Somewhat like not cleaning the house at all, even if you will rid it of every speck of dirt, because it will only get dirty the next day anyway. Unless a solution can be found that will clean the house and ensure that it will never get dirty, let no-one try ANY solution.

In a land of quick fixes our man is a lone lamp of perfection. And, these idiots will ridicule his attempts to make the world perfect by calling it names?

But wait...

"The pipe to the kitchen sink is corroded and is leaking, Rohit. So is the bathroom pipe"

"Get me that M-seal..."
"Why do you always go for these jugaad solutions?"

"Come on. You want a magic solution to all problems? You know what is wrong with you? You suffer from the Nirvana fallacy."

Follow the Leader

You know what, every time you really enjoy something, there is always some spoilsport who rains on your parade. But this one really took the cake. I mean, all of us know that the world's favorite pastime is 'Follow the Leader', so you would have thought that no-one would dare point fingers at that. Goes to show that there is nothing really safe and dependable these days.

There you are comfortably assuming that if your leader says, 'Sugar sucks', you can count on it to 'suck'. AND, if later he says that what he actually said was 'Suck on Sugar', you can be sure that it is YOU who misheard him. In other words, you are sure that just following your leader will lead to Heaven on Earth and straight to Heaven after death - if, that is, your leader will allow your death to happen. And then there is this foolish notion in a science that some idiot calls 'Logic' which talks of something called 'Authority bias'.

Apparently, when your revered leader says something and, of course, you KNOW it is right, then you MAY be suffering apparently from 'Authority bias'. THAT you take something to be right only on the strength of your leader saying so is biased thinking; that the leader can be wrong (horror of horrors!) sometimes, or even all the time. Of course, they do say things about any authority - like your teacher, your religious book or whatever - but you do know that all that is only a snide attempt to hide the fact that they are trying to make you disbelieve what your leader says.

The next thing they will do is that they may ask me to believe that the other stupid fellow, who claims to be a leader, can be right at times or even all the time (Oh! You mean they already have? The perfidy of these people). The hell with them. If they do not know my leader is always right, we will beat the idea into their heads!

Literally! THEN they will develop their own Authority Bias or whatever they call it!

Post Hoc

These Latin tags are addictive, you know. Or, maybe, it is that 'Look how learned he is' looks that I got the last time. Ah! There were sizable component of 'Is it really this moron talking?' mixed in but still...

So, here I come with what is referred to as the 'post hoc' fallacy. 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc', I say knowledgeably, and you all nod in appreciation. Ah! Not appreciation but incomprehension, was it? Well, the phrase says, "Afterwards, therefore because of", that's all. In other words, if you think that just because one incident happened before another incident the second incident was caused by the first incident, you are falling into this fallacy. Unless, of course, it is true.

Well, like you switch on the fan and the fan starts rotating, you are right in assuming 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' - it IS your putting the switch on that caused the fan to rotate. But if you switch off the fan, and the entire area blacks out, can you assume that your putting the switch off CAUSED the black-out? IF you do, THEN you are committing the post hoc fallacy in logical thinking.

Almost all superstition rests on this fallacy. It is Friday the 13th and I stubbed my toe, so it is BECAUSE it is Friday the 13th that I stubbed my toe. Like Friday the 13th has been declared the "Stub my toe' day. He sneezed in the morning when I left for office, and my manager rejected my leave application. So, it is his sneezing in the morning that sent some vibrations over to my manager and disturbed his mind. Chaos theory never works as nimbly as when it comes to personal life and its superstitions.

Add to the mix that thing I discussed earlier in this blog - Confirmation bias (I really must find a Latin tag for this) - and these things get cemented in place. Any day something good happens when the other chap sneezes is forgotten - you do not even bother to think back if he sneezed if something good happens - and every day when something bad happens gets added to the evidence and written in stone. And, of course, when something bad happens and he had not sneezed in the morning, it must only be because he sneakily sneezed silently! So, post hoc IS ergo propter hoc, even if the entire world opposes your conclusion.

Well, sometimes post hoc IS ergo propter hoc, but not as clear to all as the switch-fan combo. AND if you want to tell others that it is so, you should not overstate your case. Like saying, when your favorite party is in government, that everything from the monsoons to the success of Rajnikant's movie is because of that. AND when the party that has earned your antipathy rules, anything from the Indian cricket team's losses to your pet dog's illness is because of that. In all that wide list, SOME things would well be 'post hoc ONLY ergo propter hoc' but a lot of it is likely to be fallacy. If you attribute everything then you become like that chap who cried 'Wolf'. No-one believes you about the wolf, even when you can show the place where a chunk of flesh was bitten off your bottom.

But that has never stopped anyone, has it? People still do it even if it is like saying that the chap standing behind me in a queue is my son (After me, therefore because of me?) AND get furious when they are not believed.

If someone changes after reading this, miracle though it may be, would it still be a fallacy to say 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'?

Non Sequitur

There was this time when using Latin tags was the heights of sophistication. So, you would die rather than use 'Therefore', when you could use 'Ergo' and so on. Actually, though, I am mistaken in saying 'was' there - it is still widely prevalent.

Latin tags are a great help in developing jargon. You respect an economist for saying, 'Ceteris paribus' and look down on that stupid wannabe who blabbers, "Other things being the same". As for the philosophical debate, you can scream 'ad hominem' and blame the other guy for bringing in personalities into an intellectual debate. If, on the other hand, you merely said, 'You should discuss the point, not call me names', then you are merely whinging.

Naturally, I was very fond of this phrase - 'Non Sequitur'. It has such wide application, considering how many types of logical fallacies it covers and how prevalent it is in real life. The problem, though, is that you will find it easier explaining Einstein's theory of relativity than why what someone is saying is a 'Non Sequitur'.

It is seemingly simple. All that 'Non Sequitur' means is that there is no logical connectivity between two statements though the chap who was propounding them thinks there is.

Take this - 'Yesterday, he gave me an apple and his name was Rajesh. Now, you gave me an apple, so your name must be Rajesh." Do you think that the second statement follows from the first, logically? That is a non sequitur (of a specific variety called 'affirming the consequent', though that is not really important to this discussion).

Easy-peasy? So you do not see why I find it difficult to explain when something is a non sequitur? Well, how about this one - "A baniya cheated my grandfather. You are a baniya, so you will cheat me". Easy to prove the non sequitur? Not really is it? And even tougher when this whole damn lot gets bundled into "All baniyas are cheats".

Ah! Well! Racism/Casteism is difficult to argue against. It should be easier in other circumstances, obviously. So, let us see.

"Fanatic Hindus think all science has been developed by our ancients. So, anyone who proposes to study our history for ancient science is a fanatic Hindu"

Absolutely logical? Why am I even proposing this as a non sequitur? Quite. Saying that there may be SOME useful science in all those eons of civilization is not the same as saying all science was developed by our ancestors? Mere hair-splitting, of course.

Or, perhaps, this

"Pakistan raises issues about Indian Government's treatment of Kashmiris. Anyone who raises any issues about Indian Government's treatment of Kashmiris is pro-Pakistani"

Quite. I mean, my enemy WILL try to see fault in everything I do, so anyone who points out any fault in whatever I do is obviously an enemy. How can it be a non sequitur? A good friend would point out your flaws so that you can improve? Nonsense...no such chap will ever be my friend!

And that accounts for why I found that this term was fairly useless in elevating me as an intellectual in the eyes of my audience. I could not find one single place where I could use it to others' satisfaction!

Straw Men

We, humans, apparently love to give names that are in diametric opposition to the nature of what is being named. Like 'Little John' for someone who towers so high that you need a phone to speak with him even when you are...err...face-to-face, if the phrase may be used even when the two faces are separated by a meter of height. Like 'Common Sense' for the one thing that is so uncommon that people generally react surprised and hurt if they find it in what someone says to them.

So, it is no wonder that everyone speaks of logic, assumes that he is behaving, thinking and speaking logically...and the list of logical fallacies is longer than almost any laundry list you can think of. In fact, it is quite likely that if we blanked out all that is illogical in what is spoken in the world, the world may well be so silent that one would be justified in thinking that it is populated by deaf-mutes.

This straw man thing, though, which we seem to have carried into urban areas in a sort of nostalgia for the rural scarecrows, is so widely prevalent that its absence can single-handedly mute almost every single verbal bully in your vicinity. There is no such mute button, alas, and so...

"This demonetization policy could have been better implemented."

"You are an anti-national supporting the criminals and the corrupt."

Ah! You are not even questioning the impact of the policy, only questioning the implementation so how does it tell the other guy that you are opposing the policy in order to let criminals and the corrupt go scot-free? This sort of thing is a typical use of the 'Straw Man'. You avoid discussing the issue of implementation by distorting the comment and arguing against that distortion rather than the original comment.

"Shut down all illegal abattoirs"

"I am Hindu but I should be free to eat what I want"

Of course, except if you want to turn cannibal. But, pray, why is shutting down illegal slaughterhouses an impediment to your eating habits? Question the implementation if the implementation is spreading beyond the 'illegal' but what in THIS order itself makes it seem like it is against your eating habits? To claim limitation of freedom WHERE it is being limited is logical. To claim it where it is NOT is a Straw Man.

Straw men, though, practically outnumber real men and women in the world. You can hardly wish someone 'Good Morning' without someone getting on your case - "Why do you want only the morning to be good?" You cannot warn someone about even a fire hazard without someone else spouting, "So what? Would you want humanity to go back to hanging from trees and being afraid of fire?" My nightmares are full of countries where Straw Men march up and down, vote in people to power, set the rules by which we need to live.

And I wake up and find that...maybe I am not just dreaming after all.

False Equivalence

A eight year old boy pushes a girl off a swing in a park and sits on it himself. As is customary, the screaming match is far hotter between the mothers than between the children.

There is always a third person, who comes in to cool down tempers and ends up becoming the main target of the more aggressive party if not both parties. This time, it is the mother of the girl who has been lobbing all the missiles while the mother of the boy was mainly engaged in defensive action. And, so, when the mediator comes in saying,"Please don't fight over it. Boys will be boys", there is an explosion.

"Yes! When he grows up, he will rape girls and people like you will say the same thing."

Ah! Our luckless mediator only meant that, at the age of eight, it is hardly likely that a boy will be offering an arm to escort the girl in, open doors for her and pull chairs for her to sit on. IF he did and IF the girl is intelligent, she will skip a couple of steps away when he crooks his arm for she would know that it is the only way to avoid an elbow in the ribs; jump back if he holds open a door, especially the auto-close ones, since she knows he is doing it only to let it swing back into her face and laugh maniacally; and would know not to try and sit with the boy pulling the chair, for the chair would be pulled much farther away than necessary. In short, when you are saying 'boys will be boys' about children, it only indicates that they tend to be mischievous, even when they are not malicious, and not that they have license to be criminals.

There is this widespread tendency, though, to make statements of false equivalence, like in this case - equating the downplaying of the mischief of a kid to the condoning of criminal acts by men - and silencing others. It is a nasty habit which used to be generally adopted only by bullies who care only about getting their own way without regard to others. The problem, though, is that it is increasingly being adopted in public debates of all issues.

In the recent discussions about the Jallikattu issue, it was argued that it was long-standing tradition. People promptly countered with 'So, would you argue for Sati and Child Marriage as well?" Yes, tradition is not a sufficient argument to retain a practice. But if, say, the Central Government enacts a law banning the wearing of the Mysore Turban, and one argued tradition, would you still be springing Sati and Child Marriage on the opponents of the ban? This is use of false equivalence again - the discussion has to be about whether the Jallikattu is as heinous as Sati as to warrant a ban DESPITE it being a tradition. To automatically ASSUME an equivalence is to leave no room for discussion; to deny any legitimacy to an alternative viewpoint. To illustrate, there is a tradition of ear piercing for children - male and female - and it is not like children jump with joy at having to undergo it. The conditions are met here - pain is caused to someone who cannot give informed consent and it IS a tradition. As bad as Sati/Child Marriage?

Much the same happens when people grumble about the implementation of the demonetization exercise. They are anti-nationalists who spit on the brave sacrifices of our men in uniform. Really? IF something CAN be done better and has not been, you have to be a traitor to your country to point that out? IF it could not have been done better, in your opinion, and I think that it could have been, I have no respect for my country? To equate criticism of the government to a slur on the country is the use of false equivalence too.

Societies change not by diktat but by evolution. When you seek to change deeply ingrained ideas, you need to be listened to with interest if not respect. Overstating your case engenders disbelief in your veracity and thus to a denial of the concepts that you espouse. If someone is renting a floor of his house out, and does not like meat cooked in his house, he may choose to rent it only to vegetarians. Start calling him a racist and you will end up creating one in him.

False equivalence is one of the most dangerous things in liberal speech these days. People may not be able to logically counter the accusations but, make no mistake, they will be aware that you are being unjust in your portrayal of them and THAT will render them deaf to all that you say, reasonable or not. You do not endear yourself to people and cause them to be open to your thoughts, when you start your speech by calling them incorrigible villains. You end up making them feel that they might as well be hung for sheep as for lambs.

But, then, if changing Society for the better is an unimportant by-product and the main intention is to gain personal popularity, false equivalence IS the way to go. When has Reason ever gone Viral? Only diseases spread that way!