The Hobby Lobby Haters' Harangue

Hello again. We had not scheduled a post in the planner today, but after coming across this ludicrous lunacy we couldn't help but point it out.

If you are aware, Hobby Lobby had attempted to file a case with the Supreme Court to win an exemption from providing copay-free birth control coverage to its employees. The owners of the company explain that providing the coverage would run against their personal beliefs. Justice Sotomayor tossed the case back to the lower courts with some legalese thicker than pea soup and here we are.

Annie-Rose Strasser of the site Think Progress ("Hard hitting political news and analysis") had the following to say:

This ignores two obvious points — first, that Plan B is not an ‘abortion-inducing’ drug, as Hobby Lobby claims, and second, that the company may well end up paying more to avoid covering contraception than they would simply providing access. It also takes a twisted view on the ‘Freedom of Religion’ argument; the company is actually forcing its owner’s religious beliefs on all employees, no matter their personal religious views.SOURCE

First fault: bad math. Somehow "two obvious points" become three, or perhaps Strasser is recognizing that the final point is not obvious and, upon further inspection, fallacious. Either way the statement is a reflection/indictment of the failures of public education. But we digress.

Ludicrous Lunacy #1a & #1b: Strasser makes the point that the owners of Hobby Lobby continually and incorrectly refer to Plan B as an 'abortion-inducing' drug, citing Planned Parenthood for the distinction between contraceptive drugs and 'abortion-inducing' drugs. So far as we can tell, Strasser's terminology is correct and Hobby Lobby's is not. Fallacy #1a: Hobby Lobby.

However, Strasser's semantic squabble bears a some resemblance to a strawman: your terminology is incorrect, hence your entire argument is false†. Not so. Regardless of whether or not Plan B aborts a pregnancy, Hobby Lobby is suing to gain an exemption to providing coverage that they view distasteful and unethical on religious grounds. To give a terrible comparison: no matter how much their customers may feel entitled to receive it, the government cannot force a kosher butcher to sell bacon. At least, it has chosen not to in the past. 

Ludicrous Lunacy #2: Strasser continues, "the company may well end up paying more to avoid covering contraception than they would simply providing access." Observe the carefully crafted ignoratio elenchi in its natural habitat. The ignoratio elenchi--or irrelevant conclusion--is true in its self-contained sphere of existence, but completely misses the point. In conversational settings the appropriate response is, "Yes, but what does that have to do with the price of rice in China?" Hobby Lobby is arguing ethics not finances. The two are quite unrelated (though we frequently find that poverty of ethics and poverty of purse run in the same political circles). Also, the phrasing "simply providing access" implies that it is a simple matter both financially and ethically to just provide access.

Ludicrous Lunacy #3: Finally, we reach the claim that "the company is actually forcing its owner's [sic]‡ religious beliefs on all employees" and thus infringes upon the employees' freedom of religion much the same as Hobby Lobby claims the Government has infringed upon theirs. No. No, that's not how it works at all. The US Government has infringed upon the religious sensibilities of Hobby Lobby's owners by obligating them to provide coverage to their employees that they view unethical. Hobby Lobby's owners are legally bound. On the other hand, should Hobby Lobby continue to not provide access to contraceptive care for their employees, the employees can still go out and buy it on their own. Since 1972, employees of Hobby Lobby who wanted "the pill" went to the local pharmacy and bought it themselves. No one ever claimed religious discrimination because their employer didn't provide it for them, precisely because it is in now way discriminating against them.

The whole argument draws heavily upon fallacy, rendering it almost entirely untenable. So, following the methods applied by Think Progressive, Avenge-the-Strawman has elected to start the following petition (which we hope will someday become a Supreme Court case):

We, the undersigned, do hereby file suit against our employers for the following unlawful and unconscionable infringement upon our religious freedoms: 
     Claim: That they, our employers, have willfully withheld from us, their employees, access to monthly subscriptions to Netflix. 
     Claim: That their failure to do so constitutes a flagrant infringement upon our religious freedoms as upheld in and duly protected by the Constitution. 
     Claim: That our request is justified by the fact that it is cheaper for them to provide the service for us than it would be for them to file a countersuit. 
     Claim: That a continuation of the status quo only furthers the religious discrimination to which we have been subjected. 

Signed, 
Avenge-the-Strawman

† The faulty logic resembles a strawman but differs significantly in form. Traditionally, a strawman is constructed on an oversimplification, exaggeration, or caricature of an opponent's argument. In this case, however, the strawman is an accurate portrayal (indeed, it is a direct quote) of the other side's position. This fallacy, then, is the strawman's half-brother: correctly disproving a weak point of the opposition, but claiming a death-blow rather than a flesh-wound.

‡ Hobby Lobby is owned by David, Barbara, Steve and Mart Green and Darsee Lett. Hence owners' is correct and not owner's as used by Think Progress. 

Blitz Week (XTD) 1-6: Miracle on 34th Street (1994)

It seems to be a law in Hollywood that all good movies must be remade and milked for all the story's worth. Miracle on 34th Street (1947) is no exception; it spawned no less than three rip-offs--two TV movies (1959 and 1973) and a feature length film in 1994. We'll gloss over the TV movies (they're never much account anyway), but you may be familiar with the 1994 movie remake. We'll pull two good fruit cakes from this courtroom scene.

Mr. Collins (Prosecution): I object, your honor. This is irrelevant, immaterial, and absolutely ridiculous. Mr. Bedford is making a mockery of this court. He's not even established that there's such a person as Santa Claus.

Mr. Bedford (Defense): Your honor, I would ask Mr. Collins if he could offer any proof that there is no Santa Claus.

Mr. Bedford uses the fallacy argumentum ad ignoratiam or argument from ignorance: The defense's claim is true if the prosecution cannot disprove it.

To set up the second fruit cake, a little girl has just handed Judge Harper a dollar bill. After some reflection he states:

Upon inspection ... you will see the words, "In God We Trust." We're not here to prove that God exists, but we are here to prove that a being just as invisible and yet just as present exists. The Federal government puts its trust in God. It does so on faith and faith alone. ...

Now, if the government of the United States can issue its currency bearing a declaration of trust in God without demanding physical evidence of the existence or the nonexistence of a greater being, then the State of New York, by a similar demonstration of the collective faith of its people, can accept and acknowledge that Santa Claus does exist, and he exists in the person of Kris Kringle! 

We find no less than two informal logical fallacies and a lexicological error in this Jerry-rigged judicial justification. First, Judge Harper commits a petitio principii (begging the question) by declaring a priori and without proof that Santa Claus is "a being just as invisible and yet just as present". The purpose of the inquest is to decide on Santa's existence, and yet the judge begins his argument by assuming certain traits of the being whose existence is in doubt. Second, he constructs a partial false analogy by comparing Santa Claus to God, stating that they are both "invisible" and "present"*. This he does not use as his principle proof but as a secondary support to the eventual ruling. 

The last error is lexicological in origin. Judge Harper reasons that because the Federal Government posits its Faith in God without physical proof, then the State of New York can place its faith in Santa Claus without physical evidence as well (Nota Bene: the selective use of capitalization). Faith properly ascribed (and capitalized) is a belief in things not seen that are true. On the other hand, faith improperly ascribed (and not capitalized) is a belief in things not seen that are not true. 

Regardless of your supporting arguments, only "faith" can be applied to belief in Santa Claus. Should you be of the opinion that the term "faith" should be both to belief in God as well as to belief in Santa Claus, that is your prerogative. However, we at AtS say faith in Santa Claus and Faith in God.

Merry Christmas!

* Had the Judge declared, "Because God is invisible, is present, and is real; and because Santa is invisible and present; then Santa is real," it would have been a complete false analogy. As is stands, the Judge left the analogy incomplete and used it not as his sole primary argument, but merely as a feel-good aside to give an air of security and wholeness to his logic. 

Blitz Week (XTD) 1-5: Miracle on 34th Street (1947)

Everything was moving along just great: we had a full head of steam, four posts behind us, and clear rails ahead. Then somebody threw a switch on the rails and the whole train of thought got side-tracked. We're back now to finish up the extended Blitz Week with a few Grinchy logical errors.

TopTenReviews ranks Miracle on 34th Street (1947) fourth on its list of Top Ten Christmas Movies. Pick a different review site and you'd likely get some variation, but M34St would probably land in everybody's Top Ten. It's a quaint classic. A department store Santa claims to be the genuine article and somehow the question lands at the feet of the New York Supreme Court. After a tense courtroom scene, the judge is persuaded by the defense's logic and proclaims the man to be the real Santa Claus. The quality of the defense's logic, however, should be qualified.

Fred Gailey: Your Honor, every one of these letters is addressed to Santa Claus. The Post Office has delivered them. Therefore the Post Office Department, a branch of the Federal Government, recognizes this man, Kris Kringle, to be the one and only Santa Claus.

Judge Henry X. Harper: Uh, since the United States Government declares this man to be Santa Claus, this court will not dispute it. Case dismissed. 

The Fed to the rescue! I'm sure the Jolly Old Elf never saw that coming. Granted it is a defense of the indefensible, and perhaps the logic is sufficient in a court of law--the body that gives the court its authority apparently recognizes the statement as fact--but the judge's answer reeks of legalistic side-stepping. An appeal to authority neither proves the point nor increases the burden of proof.

Blitz Week 1-4: The Fyce and Obesity

If you have never read William Faulkner's "The Bear", we strongly recommend it. The narrative hinges about a young boy on a bear hunt in Mississippi years ago. In addition to the dogs used for tracking, the hunters have brought along what they call a fyce: a diminutive dog into whose tiny frame has been packed the self-confidence of a Kodiak. The fyce's utility lies not in powerful jaws nor a fear-striking presence, but in its relentless, yapping pursuit of animals a hundred times its size and more. Usually carried in a bag, the fyce is only set loose once a bear has been tracked and cornered. The fyce's job is to cause the bear to bay.

Today--or this early morning, rather--the imagery of the fyce hits close to home: not content with picking on the logic of the NY Times' editors, we have decided to go for the LA Times as well. Luckily for the LA Times, the error is not made by them; they merely reported it.

Not that it matters one iota as far as logical cohesion is concerned, but here at AtS we don't go in much for popular culture and pop music is considered anathema. It should come as no shock then that we cannot name a single song recorded by Beyonce (in spite of her 16 Grammy awards). De gustibus non est disputandum, but we digress. The LA Times reports that Beyonce's recent $50 million advertising deal with PepsiCo has drawn the undoubtedly unsolicited opinion of The Center for Science in the Public Interest. In a letter addressed to the artist, the CSPI attempts to make the case for abandoning the advertising deal because of the impact sugary drinks have on the health of Americans:

I read with disappointment the news of your $50-million endorsement deal with PepsiCo. I urge you to reconsider your decision for the sake of your fans' and the general public's health. ... More than any other category of food or beverage, sugary drinks are associated with increased risk of weight gain and obesity, which increase the risk of diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. Sugary drinks also cause tooth decay and other health problems. ... [B]y lending your name and image to PepsiCo, you are associating your positive attributes with a product that is quite literally sickening Americans. 

The logical error here is buried fairly deep, buts its outline is easily distinguished without much digging. Before getting to it, however, we would like to point out that the CSPI's aim is meritorious of its own right and not a matter to be sniffed at. Perhaps this chosen line of attack is used as a last resort or a "kitchen sink" maneuver. The extremity of ones circumstances, however, do not open the door to thin reasoning.

The error we find in this argument is one that in spite of widespread popularity has never been rightly named. Then again, want of stature hardly deters the fyce, and a want of name is scarcely an impediment to this backward thought process (my but we are getting good mileage out of the fyce comparison). Put succinctly the nameless error goes something like this--Someone else is to blame for my problems. Just like in the Christmas song "I'm Gettin' Nuttin' for Christmas", the problem isn't so much "I broke my bat on Johnny's head", it's "somebody snitched on me."

Nearly one in five children and adolescents is obese in America, and more than one in three adults. America has a big problem. Americans' love for overeating is further compounded by our love for responsibility. Yes, you read it right--our love for responsibility. Right on up there with apple pie and baseball. We feel that if something is wrong, then someone must be held accountable--so long as that someone is someone else. I drink so much soda it threatens my health--that darned, wicked soft drink company is to blame. I spilled hot coffee in my car and burned my leg--how dare that fast-food chain abuse me. There's more tar in my lungs than at La Brea--I'm suing Philip Morris for every dime they've got! It's so easy to find someone else to blame for the problems we create, and it's so much more fun than trying to fix it ourselves.

Will Beyonce's Pepsi commercial make people want to buy more Pepsi products? Yes, PepsiCo believes that to the tune of $50 million. Is PepsiCo responsible for fueling the obesity epidemic? Better go ask that one to the man in the mirror.

Blitz Week 1-3: The Makings of a Compromise

The more I read about the Fiscal Cliff and the reality TV worthy performances being delivered by members of the Administration and Congress in their various efforts to resolve the issue, the more convinced I am that it would greatly benefit from being remade as a black-and-white Charlie Chaplin short. Apart from the fact that it may end disastrously for the country, it is a comic farce of Capitol Hill proportions. And fortunately for us, the whole affair is riddled with logical fallacies. 

Today's false logic comes courtesy of The New York Times' editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal, from an editorial published Dec. 18th, 2012. Coming off the heels of what the author calls "a more-than-generous budget deal" proffered by the President, the editorialist relates that Speaker Boehner rejected the deal "arguing, absurdly, that the president’s plan was unbalanced". The editorialist goes on to say, "their intransigence is astonishing because the deal that Mr. Obama has put on the table should make it easy for them to say yes. The president has met Republicans halfway on tax increases...[and] he also met them more than halfway on spending cuts." 

Did you catch it? The red flag is the word "halfway." This logical fallacy goes by many names--the argument to moderation, the false compromise, the gray fallacy, and the golden mean fallacy. It comes from the false thinking that when two parties disagree, the correct course of action is to be found halfway between their positions. Drawing from the discussion of stare decisis, the overarching aim of a debate must never be forgotten: it is not simply to find the quickest solution or even a solution that both sides can agree on, but to find the correct solution. Unless you are trying to strike a compromise between a bowler who always ends up in the left gutter and a bowler who always ends up in the right gutter, the correct solution is not to be found by merely striking the mean.

Car shopping typically begins with the buyer and seller making initial offers and then making counter-offers until an agreement is reached. If I offer $10,000 and the dealer counters with $17,500, the dealer would much rather that I settle for meeting him "halfway" than for sticking closer to my bid. Of course, both the seller and I know that we will make counter-offers so we pad our initial bid to favor the outcome we desire--he raising the amount from what he would really take and I lowering it--further obfuscating the "correct price" that is supposedly found lurking between us.

The purpose of Congress is not merely to find new legislation that "make[s] it easy for them to say yes", but to find new legislation (if it is deemed necessary) that makes the most sense for the country. The correct course of action is made so because of its substance, not because of its location.

Addendum: Yes, the second reference is a Wikipedia article. No, Wikipedia is not a scholarly source. And yes, it would be illogical to presume that the reputation of a source determines the quality of the goods that come from it; undoubtedly Antonio Stradivari must have also made some fiddles fit for firewood in his lifetime and it is most certain that not everything Made in China will break after three uses.