Are there any fallacious arguments here?

 

 

See new posts

This is coming from a post from Matt Walsh. 

The push by some ostensibly on the “Right” to convince men to abandon marriage and family life is not only foolish and wrongheaded but deeply insidious. These are bad actors intentionally leading men deeper into hopelessness. Many of these people are single and childless and know nothing about family life. In fact it’s clear that they are driven mainly by resentment and loneliness. They call this bitterness “red pill” or whatever but it’s much simpler than that. They’re envious, starved for attention, and have despaired of ever finding companionship in life. Rather than fix themselves they try to spread their misery around.

 

But whatever your motivations, if you are coming out against the family, against marriage, then you are agreeing with the Left on the most fundamental and consequential of all issues. They want to tear down the institution for their reasons, you for yours, but you both are enemies of the most essential building block of civilization. I see no meaningful distinction between you. You’re all a part of the same zombie horde trying to tear to pieces a thing that you don’t understand. 

 

There’s no question that marriage presents certain risks and potential hazards to both men and women alike. It’s true that family courts are stacked against men. It’s true that divorces happen too often and they are ugly and terrible. But the answer is not to abandon the family, thereby abandoning civilization itself. That’s not a solution. That’s simply surrender. If you want to be a coward and send you the white flag in your own life, that’s fine. Trying to recruit others into your cowardice is the worse evil.

The post by Matt Walsh contains several logical fallacies, cognitive biases, and examples of poor reasoning. Here is an analysis of some key points:

1. **Ad Hominem Fallacy**: The argument attacks the character of individuals who advocate against marriage and family life, labeling them as "bad actors," "envious," and "starved for attention" rather than addressing the substance of their arguments. This shifts focus from the argument to the individual and uses personal insults as a rebuttal.

2. **Hasty Generalization**: The claim that many people advocating against marriage are single, childless, and driven by resentment is a broad generalization without supporting evidence. It assumes a characteristic of a few as being representative of the whole group.

3. **Strawman Fallacy**: The argument suggests that those against traditional views of marriage are aligning themselves with left-wing ideologies, without acknowledging the diversity of reasons individuals may have for their stance. It simplifies and misrepresents the opposition's arguments to make them easier to attack.

4. **False Dilemma Fallacy**: The post sets up a binary choice: either support marriage and family as traditionally conceived, or be an "enemy" of civilization. This ignores other possible positions, such as advocating for reform in marriage laws or supporting alternative family structures.

5. **Slippery Slope Fallacy**: The argument presents the abandonment of traditional marriage as leading directly to the collapse of civilization, without providing evidence for such a causal connection. It assumes drastic consequences without substantiating how they inevitably follow from the initial action.

6. **Appeal to Fear**: By asserting that abandoning the family is equivalent to abandoning civilization, the argument plays on the fear of societal collapse to discourage opposition to traditional marriage without engaging with the critiques presented.

These logical issues undermine the overall argument, as they shift focus from addressing the complexities of the debate on marriage and family structures to attacking individuals and instilling fear. To construct a more robust argument, it would be necessary to engage directly with the opposing points of view with evidence and logical reasoning.

Specifically, what is the question?