Challenging Specious Arguments

spe·cious

   [spee-shuhs]  Show IPA

adjective

1.

apparently good or right though lacking real merit;superficially pleasing or plausible: specious arguments.

2.

pleasing to the eye but deceptive.

3.

Obsolete . pleasing to the eye; fair.

---------------------------------

Frequently, I find people who are hanging onto truly superficial analysis of an argument.  And they hang onto it tighter and tighter the more evidence is against it.  Their arguments at the surface seem plausible... they seem to fit... but, any deeper analysis and the entire thing falls apart.

Today, many people are running around with sets of talking points that they use as a bludgeon.  Beyond that bludgeon you will find little deeper than specious arguments.  

When challenging a person for their specious argument - it is more likely that they will turn their attacks onto you. 

When they are attacking heavily, anyone, be it Obama or Romney, or any politician - their attitude is set for attack.  People who follow some leaders are likely to be more fervent than others.  If they feel challenged they will not feel secure on their issues so they will attack you.    

The challenge today in this Democracy is that massive quantities of people have been turned into political weapons like this.  

What passes in their mind for analysis of a situation usually sums up the entire economy into a sentence.  There simply is no depth. 

This is dangerous to Democracy.  How can we really talk problems and find solutions if people are just on attack?

Some would come out and actually be ready to attack you and cause damage to your real life.  

Is there a way to avoid those people?  Have conversations with those that are more reasonable?

Can one simply avoid topics that seem to draw those people out of the wood-works every time?

Martin Luther King did not try to convince the most heavily racist that civil rights should be granted.  I remember learning that he tried to find the moderates.  He only spoke with the people who would listen to reason.

Today - the goal of the Republican party is to cleanse itself of moderates.  Dick Luger, Orin Hatch, and Senator Olympia Snowe, all fell prey to that.

Will the style of our Democracy continue to be based on brutal attacks where facts don't matter?

Is there a way for us to go deeper - beyond specious arguments?  Does anyone really care?