Changing The Subject

One of the hoariest of all rhetorical techniques, prominently featured in the verbal arsenals of the dishonest, is the change of subject. He who fancies himself to be on the losing end of an argument will frequently invoke this tactic, or a variation thereof, in the hope of extracting himself from an indefensible position.

Moreover, when competently executed, it works more often than not. The key to "competently executing" the change of subject is to make the new topic one that's difficult to distinguish from the old one. If the practitioner can pull this off -- and if he chooses his new battleground with care, of course -- he will frequently snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, while his opponent will find himself puzzled by how the exchange "got off track."

We have an example of that today at PJ Media, where Walter Hudson has posted an insightful article about the severance of sex from procreation:

An act which epitomizes connection has become detached from its vital moorings, divorced from marriage, divorced from love, and – most consequentially – divorced from parenthood....

Though atheistic, [Ayn] Rand condemned a few choices as sin, including the refusal to think and the rejection of reality. Detaching the sex act from its natural consequence commits both. Sex may result in children. Competent adults know that going in, and stand responsible for the lives of any children they may produce regardless.

There exists a certain irony in the fact that, while Rand’s overall philosophy remains on the fringes of popular culture, her views regarding sex, reproduction, and parenthood have been roughly and broadly adopted.

Hudson seques from that into a discussion of the implications for the abortion culture, in which he makes a critical point that far too many "women's rights" advocates would prefer not be raised:

Rand’s philosophy holds that one man’s need places no moral claim upon the life of another. Thus, if we drive past someone injured on the side of the road, we have no duty to assist them. However, if we hit someone with our car while driving, a duty to assist emerges. That’s why states properly prohibit hit and runs.

The same principle applies to procreation. A neighbor in need has no moral claim to your assistance. However, a child which exists as a consequence of your own action does. [Emphasis added by FWP]

Hudson's point is extremely well made. Indeed, it could hardly be clearer. But look at what a pro-abortion commenter tried to do:

You know, the democrats with Obama are doing everything they can to basically destroy the economy. ObamaCare, global warming BS, all kinds of regulations that hamper business and limit economic opportunity. Now we hear they are using the IRS to persecute conservative political organizations and the NSA to spy on all of our phone and internet usage.

Yet, instead of targeting these issues and using them to argue in favor of limited government and more economic freedom and opportunity, we get conservatives who obsess over what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms and want to regulate everyones' sex lives.

Its very clear to me why democrats continue to be elected and why Obama, in particular, was re-elected last fall. [Emphasis added by FWP]

Note the shift of subject from procreation back to sex -- and in particular, to conservatives' supposed desire to "regulate everyone's sex lives."

Hudson and others rebuked the above commenter for attempting to change the subject. That indicates both an awareness of what was being attempted and a determination to stand the appropriate ground, both laudable. But it won't put an end to attempts to change the subject, especially on topics as sensitive to the Left as abortion.

I've been on the receiving end of that tactic many times, as has just about everyone who writes from a conservative or libertarian perspective:

• You address: The negative physiological and psychological consequences of homosexuality.
  They claim: You want to put "those faggots" in jail.
  
  
• You address: The terrible damage being done to the underclass by the welfare culture.
  They claim: You hate poor people and want them to starve.
  
  
• You address: The disproportionate number of violent crimes committed by Negroes and illegal aliens.
  They claim: You're a racist who hates "brown people."
  
  
• You address: The anti-Constitutional overexpansion of the federal government.
  They claim: You're a miser who cares about nothing but his wallet.
  
  
• You address: The use of environmentalist pieties to shut down human enterprise.
  They claim: You want to poison the poor with dirty air and water.

And on it goes: in each case a change of subject designed to derail your argument and get you to try to defend against a vicious slur. To respond to the slur is always a mistake, no matter how you do so. But most of us find it hard to resist.

All I can recommend, from my own years of fencing over political subjects, is this riposte:

"You're trying to change the subject. That's out of order."

Then go on with your chosen argument. After that, you can preen yourself on having proved how smart you are.