Judgmental language is a subset of Style over substance fallacy and Red herring fallacies. It employs insultive, compromising or pejorative language to influence the recipient’s judgement.
Examples
Surgeon general says smoking is harmful to your health. Nowhere in the Bible is said you shouldn’t smoke. So who are you gonna listen to, some quack or Lord God Almighty?
This argument combines judgmental language also with Non sequitur and appeal to authority.
Conscription is the only working way to have a reliable and efficient army. We are far safer when we are defended by our very own sons than by some mercenaries, who will just fight for pay.
Here the judgmental words are “our very own sons” (suppose you are childless or have only daughters?) and “mercenaries”, which imply not only professional soldiers but rather soldiers of fortune. This argument is also a false dilemma: nothing implies that coercion and fear of punishment produces better soldiers than voluntarily, and that a professional army could not be assembled from the nation’s own citizens.
Style over substance is a logical fallacy which occurs when one emphasizes the way in which the argument is presented, while marginalizing (or outright ignoring) the content of the argument. In some cases, the fallacy is employed as a form of ad hominem attack.
Examples of the fallacy
Example One
* Person 1: Who needs a smoke detector? No one ever has a fire in their house, smoke detectors are a waste of money!
* Person 2: What?! You’d rather save a bit of money than ensure your family’s safety? It doesn’t even require hard work. All you need to do is look for places like Aardvark Electric and determine the areas in which they serve, (aardvark-electric.com/areas-we-serve/virginia-highland/) to enquire about someone coming to repair or install one. It really is that simple, and it won’t take up much time at all, and it’s especially better than considering the alternative, like the potential loss of life.
* Person 1: I don’t have to take your insults! Go away!
The fact that Person 2 insulted Person 1 does not alter the validity of Person 2’s argument, nor does it excuse the hasty generalization fallacy that Person 1 has employed. Person 1 is also using a thought-terminating cliché in telling Person 2 to “Go away!”.
Example Two
The Style over substance fallacy is very common in the corporate world
* Person 1: So therefore, you can see by this detailed logic state diagram that our inventory flow can be optimized with this minor software change to the inventory control and tracking modules.
* Person 2: I don’t like the color of the font you are using. Can you make that corn flower blue?
* Person 3: Yes, if the font was corn flower blue on a grey background then the inventory reports would be more readable.
In this case we see Person 1 has performed a detailed logical flow analysis and determined a correct modification to achieve a desired, and correct result. Person 2 and 3 then dismiss the basis of the work entirely because they can only see superficial fonts and colors and thus avoid the business benefits of the analysis.
Example Three
Sometimes, outright non-responses or “stonewalls” are used as a part of style over substance. For example:
* Person 1: Communism by definition and practice is in direct conflict with the principles of Anarchy. How can you consider yourself to be an Anarchistic Communist?
* Person 2: “So Person 3, we should disband the government and make institutions that give money to the poor!”
* Person 3: “Yeah, no government is the best government, let’s have those institutions control everything!”
Example Four
The baseless denial/unreasonable doubt is often an argumentative tool that accompanies circular reasoning, ad hominem or the no true Scotsman fallacy.
* Person 1: Candidate X has been skimming funds from the city! , I have receipts of his transactions and even photos taken of him drilling holes in the town safe!
* Person 2: Your receipts are faked! And for all what you know, he could have been cleaning the safe or that could have been a picture of his twin brother!
* Person 1: But Candidate X is the only boy in his family, and these were printed with the city’s official seal!
* Person 2: That could have been planted there by Candidate X’s opponents! They’re known to be sneaky, because no true member of our party could do something like that!
Example Five
Stonewalling and mocking an unfamiliar concept, usually a form of equivocation.
* Person 1: Person 2, you claim the end is coming because it’s mentioned in your book “Diuretics”, isn’t that a bit of circular reasoning?
* Person 2: (In a confused manner) You know what’s circular reasoning? When the end comes, you’ll be walking in circles trying to reason how you missed out on knowing the end came!
This may also be considered as a variety of a red herring fallacy.
A simpler rendition often given follows:
Teacher: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Student: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn’t like haggis!
Teacher: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.
This is an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy is employed to shift the definition of the original class to tautologically exclude the specific case or others like it.
A universal claim is of the form “All x are y” or “No x are y.” In the example above, the universal claim is “No Scotsmen are brutal maniacal rapists.” The counterexample is given by the Aberdonian, who, it is implied, is a brutal maniacal rapist. The response relies on a continued insistence that No Scots are brutal maniacal rapists, and to thus conclude that the brutal maniacal and rapacious Aberdonian is no true Scot. Such a conclusion requires shifting the presumed definition of “Scotsman” to exclude all brutal maniacal rapists.
In situations where the subject’s status is previously determined by specific behaviors, the fallacy does not apply. For example, it is perfectly justified to say, “No true vegetarian eats meat,” because not eating meat is the single thing that precisely defines a person as a vegetarian.
Exceptions
Some cases where style appears to precede substance exist. One of the few such instances is the Sokal Affair, where physicist Alan Sokal wrote a postmodern-style essay in the journal Social Text without really saying anything; the title of the article itself (“Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”) was nonsense. However, on closer examination, the style that Sokal uses is satirical, and therefore his logical argument is implicit; the style does not precede substance, it instead is the substance.