“That’s offensive, harmful, and unhelpful”: The ethics of responding to arguments with allegations

I fixed the link 

Responding to arguments with allegations has several fallacious components. Firstly, it's a non sequitur. Secondly, it's a red herring. Thirdly, if the allegations are personal, then they would qualify as ad hominem remarks. All fallacious.

The practice of responding to arguments with allegations can perhaps be best described from a psychological perspective: it is classic blameshifting, i.e., avoidance of issues through use of diversionary communication by assigning blame to another. Wish there were a logic term for this practice of blameshifting.

Page not found

Thanks for posting the article. I, too, found it interesting and extremely relevant for today's cancel culture. I can think of a myriad of experiences and topics where I've encountered or even deliberated the ethics of my own argument and style of debate.  Of course, much of it has to do with the debate forum. Obviously, the free-wheeling internet has become more of a saloon, than salon, and the arguments tend to be more pugilistic than productive. While there's nothing I enjoy more than a rowdy philosophical, rhetorical, or theological donnybrook, I can easily question the productivity, futility, or potential harmfulness of the substance and style of those in contention. Ultimately, I'm of the opinion that anything that helps the writer or claimant organize their thoughts and facts in words and sentences, no matter how heated the argument, is a good thing.

The topic of race comes to mind.  I've often questioned why and how we can continue fostering the concepts and terms of race, racism and racist attitudes when there really is no such thing as race to begin with. It is an obsolete, archaic classification that has long been proven false. In fact, what we're really talking about is just another expression of ignorance, prejudice and xenophobia.

White supremacists claim they are a superior race, just as the Nazis did. Anti-Semites espouse hatred towards the Jewish "race", when there reality there is no such thing as a Semitic race. The word Semite or Semitic actually refers to a  diverse group of common speaking languages from a specific region, and not skin tone, religion, or ethnicity. So by using the term, for or against, we are perpetuating a falsehood that is as nonsensical as referring to an airplane as an iron horse. Yet, if you argue there is no such thing as race you will no doubt attract the condemnation and abuse of those who have a lot at stake in perpetuating its use either way.    

Like most things, context is essential. If one is in a social situation, the conversation is not for investigation, but banter with the goal of social interaction. In this case, those of us who are polite try to avoid offending somebody. 

"Don’t consent to be hurt and you won’t be hurt – this is a choice over which you have control" ~ Epictetus. Nonetheless, if the listener is overly sensitive, then we should place that in the “tough luck” category and change the topic.

However, if the context is discussing the truth or validity of a particular proposition, then feelings are irrelevant. Indeed, one may enhance the investigative process with courtesy and politeness, it does no good to allow that to drive the investigation toward the truth.

Excellent! Brought to mind the wonderful book Coddling of the American Mind. In my discussions with other atheists, as a member of the LGBTQ+ community, and person with mental illness, I encounter the now ubiquitous “trigger warning” warning often. I worry that trigger warnings are being weaponized, used as a means to stifle, manipulate, or shut down communication altogether. If I voice an opinion contrary to that of the group, I am accused of not understanding the issue, not respecting others and their identities...Basically, it is safer to remain silent.