Skip to content

Reductio ad Phobium – because Phobia is the only reason people disagree

December 11, 2016

Reductio ad Phobium – because Phobia is the only reason people disagree.


Within the span of my adult life there has been a major cultural shift in social attitudes. Much of these attitudes were driven by the principle of non-judgement. Or to put it in simpler terms, moral neutrality on all issues. Post-1960’s and 1970’s created the wave of moral nihilism and moral anarchism that persists to this day. Some have described this as a direct result of Cultural Marxism but I have my doubts about the degree to its total influence. Just because an issue aligns with a goal of a cultural Marxist it does not prove that it was being driven directly by them. Extremists can come from any political, religious or social direction and as a result, can often surprise us with their rapid rise to power.

Take for example the ‘Safe Schools’ program that is pushed into the education system. Parents were not consulted about the program despite its subject matter that focused on explicit sexuality. Their concerns were ignored by school principals who adopted the program. Anyone who dare question the government’s plan was instantly accused of being a Homophobe. Even the Australian opposition leader Bill Shorten decried the ‘Safe Schools’ criticism as nothing more than ‘Homophobia’. And there it was. The ultimate conversation stopper: Homophobia.

To be accused of homophobia in Australia (and much of the western world) is to be accused of being worse than Hitler. Traditional religions that had long-standing definitions of sin and human behavior were now portrayed as the central core of homophobia. In the new world when Homophobia is the ultimate crime, tradition religious teachings were criminal teachings. They had to be destroyed.

Initially, the term Homophobia was used exclusively by activists who wanted to silence all criticism of their demands. Why use the term of ‘phobia’ when a more accurate term would be ‘opponent’? It was simply a tactic used to smear their opponents as pathological emotional cripples who secretly tried to hide their own ‘queer’ desires. ‘Phobia’ means that all opposition to an issue was based solely upon primal fears. In any argument, fear is irrational and invalid emotion. The activist argument went further, making the unfounded argument that the ‘Phobia’ was based upon the secret dread of catching homosexuality. Therefore, people accused of ‘homophobia’ were not just irrational, pathological, mentally ill and wrong, they were ultimately, repressed homosexuals themselves. No other possible answer was ever presented by the activists and unfortunately they have never been challenged on the issues.

The history of Gay activism is not the central reason for writing this post but the ramifications of their argument style (their argumentum) is. The central key of the activist’s argument was to make ‘phobia’ the unchallenged premise. The conversation stopped being about points of view once some was called any kind of ‘phobic’ because you do not have to argue with a mentally ill person. In true pseudo-Freudian style they should be forcibly cured of their secret fears. In true circular reasoning the opponent is crazy because only a crazy would oppose their plans.

Today the ‘phobic’ tag has been applied to a whole range of activist and social causes. For example: Those that question radical Islam are ‘islamophobic’ just as those that oppose the ‘Safe Schools’ programs are ‘transphobic’. Some in social are taking the argument to the furthest extent by arguing that men who refuse to date transsexuals are ‘transphobic’. The argument is the same despite being applied to two uniquely different situations. Yet it has not prevented a whole cottage industry growing out of the ‘Phobic’ accusation.

‘Reductio ad phobium’ is to reduce an argument down to the logical fallacy that all opposition to a proposal is based upon fear. Being a logical fallacy means that using ‘Reductio ad phobium’ invalidates its own premise and reason to be taken seriously – it is not a logical argument. Instead it is an appeal to emotion and ad hominem attack upon a person’s character and mental health. The people making the ‘phobic’ accusations do not have access to the inner thoughts of those that present an opposing argument and therefore cannot make judgement about the state of their mental health. In most cases the accusation are coming from people who are not even mental health professionals. Yet the politically convenience of using ‘Reductio ad phobium’ continues unchallenged.

Editorial Comment:

Critic: This is the most Homophobic post I have ever read. You must be very homophobic yourself.

Response: I hate to catch it.

Critic: Also where is the ‘Trigger Warning’ for your upsetting article?

Response: Here you go…

Advertisements
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: