Debate and Logical Fallacy.

One of the things that I find quite fascinating is the study of logical fallacies. You might very well think that I am a bit of a nerd and not share my enthusiasm at all, such is the nature of subjective things. However, regardless of whether you find it interesting, I think the importance will always hold. When somebody causes others to arrive at an improper conclusion through a crooked line of reasoning, then in the very least they are being quite reckless about whether or not the truth will come out. If somebody deliberately continues to use fallacies even after their mistake has been pointed out to them, that, in my opinion, comes very close to lying.

If you suspect that somebody has hoodwinked you in the course of a debate or discussion, it’s always worth doing a google for ‘logical fallacies’ and then running through the list to see whether one has been used. They usually involve a sneaky intellectual sleight of hand which misdirects the audience. There are many good resources to be found via google, such as The Nizkor Project.

To give you an example, I can remember an occasion when an RNID apologist packed not one, not two, but three logical fallacies into a mere two word portion of one sentence. You may think that my claim here is rather outlandish, but let’s see what you think after I have broken it down in a scientific manner. The speaker, in response to a criticism of RNID referred to the critics as a ‘vociferous minority..’
‘Vociferous,’ according to Chambers means ‘loud and forceful, especially in expressing opinions.’ The first question you should ask of such a statement is ‘how does this relate to the actual criticism it is addressing?’ The answer was that it did not; it was an irrelevant misdirection. If Solomon expressed his wisdom a bit louder, that fact does not make his wisdom less wise. The only thing that would make it less wise are the words themselves.

Secondly, the use of the word ‘minority’ is an argumentum ad populum; it is trying to say that because not all that many people share a view, that view must be wrong. There was a time when the overwhelming majority of people thought that the earth was flat and that the sun descended into the sea. In the 1930s many Germans thought that Adolf Hitler was the best person to lead Germany. The fact that many people thought something most certainly did not make it right. Conversely, the fact that not many people might think something does not make it wrong.

Finally, the two words combined, ‘vociferous minority’ is an argumentum ad hominem or personal attack - it is attacking the persons making the argument rather than attempting to refute the argument itself. This is a particularly unpleasant fallacy because it not only misleads the audience, but maligns the target. Even very clever people use this tactic because it gives them an ‘out’ – it’s a lot easier to shoot the messenger if you can’t deal with the message.

Watch out for those fallacies – they are nothing more than dirty tricks!

The Royal National Institute for Women.

Hello, allow me to introduce myself. I am Tim, the chief executive of the RNIW (the Royal National Institute for Women.) We are the largest charity representing the 40 million women in the UK. We aim to make the world a better place for women.

I acknowledge that my RNIW appointment has caused a certain amount of consternation among some ranks of the charity's membership indignant about another "him" being chosen to lead the charity. "Of course I expected those opinions to be expressed one way or another," says Tim. "And, of course, if there was an equally capable candidate who was a woman, the job should have gone to them. But the trustees have a responsibility to appoint the person they think best suits the role, and they thought that was me."

Although we have no women on our senior management team, we are pleased to declare that 10% of our workforce are women. Our stated objects include the better treatment, training and employment of women.

Although our trustees would very much like to hear the views of women, it is difficult for them to do so because of the sheer number of women and the trustees have very demanding jobs and due to the voluntary nature of the role, we feel it would be unreasonable to ask them to do so.

Your gift will help us to make the world a better place for women. Alternatively, you may like to remember women in your will.

Note: Women are not allowed to criticise RNIW because we help a lot of women.

Regards,

Tim, CEO (Salary £120K)

Bob,
Doug,
Derek,
Trevor,
Archibald,
David.

Senior management Team (Salary £80K)

Any objections?

RNID and Discrimination.

One of the principles that RNID like to adhere to is that of non-discrimination. They tend to state that they will always pick the ‘best person for the job irrespective of disability.’ Outwardly this sounds very noble and high-minded, but of course the real test is whether or not it withstands a close examination based on facts and reason. Once you have peeled away the gold plating, is this approach really as good as it sounds? Let’s see if ‘discrimination’ really is such a dirty word when placed in the context it is being used.

I would have thought that RNID saying that they pick the ‘best person for the job irrespective of disability’ is a bit like saying that we will pick the best person for the job of doctor irrespective of medical qualifications! It presumes, incorrectly, that the ‘disability’ – deafness – is irrelevant to the job. On the contrary, personal experience of deafness is an important involuntary qualification. Put simply, if you are deaf, you will know better about deaf matters.

But even if deafness were irrelevant to the job, would this approach be fair? I think not. All the evidence, including RNID’s own research has shown that deaf people face glass ceilings at every level of employment, thanks to discrimination. So by insisting that we compete with those who don’t face such discrimination, they are actually discriminating against deaf people!

And isn’t RNID supposed to discriminate in favour of deaf people? Where does it say in their stated objects that they are working for the ‘better treatment, employment and training’ of everybody, ‘irrespective of disability?’ RNID are very selective about when they are a charity. They insist on their right to exist as a charity and certainly to collect money as a charity, but all of a sudden they suspend their charitable status when it comes to giving out the jobs, especially the best jobs! This is why I have said time and time again that deaf people are being used.

On the surface, RNID’s ‘non-discriminatory’ approach seems noble and high-minded. But a quick examination of it in context shows that it is counterfeit, sham, bogus, phoney. I am not advocating that deaf people should be charity cases, but if RNID are going to insist that we are, they cannot pick and choose when to be a charity as it suits them.

RNID New Trustees.

RNID recently announced the arrival of five new trustees onto the board. I don't seem to recognise any of these names from the deaf world. Can anybody enlighten us? Are they deaf or hoh? What is their connection/interest to/in deaf people?

From what little information there is, it doesn't sound as if they have that grassroots empathy with deaf people and thus an understanding of our issues and priorities. Do they know what it's like to be treated as inferior or ignored because you are deaf and/or don't hold the "right" opinions? Do they know what it's like to spend years on the scrapheap? Or to be made to feel that your voice counts for nothing?

If this is yet another extension of paternalism then it won't be enough to say that RNID are not listening to deaf people. It would be fairer to say that they are deliberately ignoring deaf people, even some of their members. After all, we have in many different ways been expressing our discontent about this 'everything about us, without us' approach for years.

If you have any information or comments, please let us know.

Edit: Here's the response from RNID: Of the five trustees, two have hearing loss, one has a deaf brother, one is a Professor of Audiology and the other owns a nightclub chain and has worked with RNID on protection of hearing for his employees and customers.

Whether or not that is satisfactory is, as always, a matter for deaf people. My opinion is that it could be worse, but I would like to see at least a few people from more humble or grass root backgrounds who understand things like disempowerment and unemployment.

Different rules for Deaf People?

When people talk about the importance of better representation for minorities or women, it’s very clear exactly what they mean – to actually increase the numbers of the relevant people in the places where they are underrepresented. So if there are not enough women or ethnic minorities in Parliament, for example, they will try to increase the numbers.

Yet when it is shown that deaf people are underrepresented in Parliament or even their own organisation, all of a sudden the rules change. All of a sudden it’s not all that important to increase the numbers of the people who are underrepresented. It is now acceptable to water down that principle and have third parties representing us instead. It’s suddenly acceptable to have somebody who is the father, the mother, the grandson, the sister or the brother of a deaf person step in and do it for us. Sometimes the connection is even looser.

So why is there one rule for deaf people and another rule for everybody else? Could it be because some people have decided that we are ‘not good enough’ to represent ourselves? If so, that is not genuine representation, it is paternalism.

If somebody was a true friend of deaf people, wouldn’t they want the same things for deaf people as everybody else? Wouldn’t they want deaf people to have the fishing rod and fish for themselves rather than keep them dependent, throwing little fish at them from time to time? Wouldn’t they want deaf people to do things for themselves, to act and speak on their own behalf?

When Jackie Ballard was in Parliament, she worked to improve the representation of women. She has been described as a feminist and in one website, as ‘one of the driving forces in campaigns to get more women into Parliament.’

Now Ms Ballard is in the best position to do the same thing for deaf people in Parliament and especially at RNID. I hope she will do it.

Feedback from the Trustees.

If you look to your left, there is a link named ‘Ouch!’ under the heading ‘The Issue.’ The first post was a letter that I sent to all the RNID trustees some time ago which identifies my two main areas of concern. The first paragraph talks of the need for deaf people to have a say or suffrage at RNID. In respect of feedback on this issue I have some good news and bad news. Unfortunately the bad news is more recent, so I’ll start with that.

Somebody suggested to me that I contact RNID trustee, Malcolm Bruce MP because nobody amongst all the trustees is more likely to understand the importance of democracy and having a hand in your own affairs. Incidentally, Jackie Ballard has compared her role to that of an MP in the last ‘one in seven’ magazine.

My e-mail was as follows:

Dear Mr Bruce,

I'm not sure if you have received my letters to you in your capacity as RNID trustee at Featherstone Street. I am a deaf person who, amongst others, have been concerned about the disenfranchisement of deaf and hard of hearing people at RNID.

There has been some discussion of this matter by deaf people here:

Draft letter to RNID Trustees

RNID claims to represent all nine million deaf and hard of hearing people of the UK, but does not give us a say or a vote in matters which directly concern us. This excerpt from the above site explains what I would like to see implemented:

"I think, in the age of internet, there are better ways to expedite a feedback process. I see the role of trustee as rather like that of an MP – where the interests of constituents are carried forward through surgeries/consultation."

I would like to ask whether you agree that deaf people should be able to have a free say on matters which concern them and, if so, whether you will press for deaf people's suffrage at RNID.


Yours sincerely,

Although I received a very nice reply from Mr Bruce’s assistant informing me that Mr Bruce will respond, that e-mail was sent on October 12^th (over two weeks ago) and I have still not heard back from him. This means that I will have to take the provisional view that Mr Bruce does not think it’s very important for deaf people to able to have a suffrage or say at their own organisation.

However, there is some good news too. Another trustee, Dr Judith Langfield, instructed the executive assistant to the chief executive to write to me to say that she will bear my comments in mind. The most promising and enthusiastic response came, unsurprisingly, from Jeff McWhinney, who thanked me for my efforts and gave me some good news on the training of deaf people at RNID senior level.

So there you have the catch so far – a bit of a mixed net.