Arguments of convenience

[Darth Wong]

How many political arguments are mere arguments of convenience, ie- "I don't really believe this, but I'm going to use it anyway because I hope it will score points in debate"?

Of course, the pre-eminent example of arguments of convenience is creationists cherry-picking scientific papers or discoveries in order to support their case. If they actually believed that scientific papers were worth anything, they would not be creationists.

Running a close second is gay-marriage arguments. After centuries of legalized divorce, decades of turnkey divorce and pre-nuptial agreements, and spectacles like Las Vegas drive-through weddings, only an idiot could possibly believe that people are suddenly standing up for the "sacred institution of marriage" now because they actually care about its sanctity and not because they just dislike gays. And the "think of the children" argument is even worse, because these same people have absolutely no problem with convicted pedophiles and murderers getting married as long as they're straight. Really obvious examples of arguments of convenience.

But this behaviour is by no means confined to the right wing. Look at the most common argument against censorship of pornography: the First Amendment. Well gee willikers, that may be a really powerful argument in American politics, but can any honest person seriously believe that you are actually engaging in expression of ideas when you sell pornography? What's the idea that they're worried about the government suppressing? That women like big dicks? It's an argument of convenience.

Can anyone think of any others?

[wolveraptor]

Crackpot scientists who attack the idea that accredited scientists are more reliable than unaccredited ones. They know damn well that Joe Schmoe high-school grad's Theory of Medicine is absolutely worthless, and wouldn't take it seriously themselves. They just don't feel the same rule should apply to them, because they know they're right.

[General Soontir Fel]

Look at the most common argument against censorship of pornography: the First Amendment. Well gee willikers, that may be a really powerful argument in American politics, but can any honest person seriously believe that you are actually engaging in expression of ideas when you sell pornography? What's the idea that they're worried about the government suppressing? That women like big dicks? It's an argument of convenience.

It's a preemptive defense. When your opponent's position amounts to "PORN IS IMMORAL!!!", and a good part of the target audience agrees, you're not going to score points by claiming otherwise. The implication of the First Amendment argument is, "I also don't like porn and would like it gone, but I place the principle of free speech above my dislike of porn."

In addition, since there's no clear definition of what porn is, "there's no expression of ideas" is not entirely true. A clip of a woman's ass being penetrated doesn't amount to much, but you certainly can express serious ideas in pornographic films, and in erotic fiction. With the free speech argument, you don't have to draw the line.