39 Abandonment of DiscussionRefusal to carry on argument is so palpably not an argument that one might question the necessity of identifying this action as a fallacy. In its crudest form -- where Peter stops talking and begins to pummel his opponent over the head -- no one can fail to realize that reasoning is at an end. The fact, however, is not always evident when discussion is abandoned verbally. Refusal to argue a matter may take the form of claiming that discussion is unnecessary, irreverent, indecent... unmoral, or unpatriotic, and the like, or it may be by resorting to abuse. Personal attacks against an opponent's physical appearance, dress or mannerisms will succeed only where the vulgarity of the audience permits. Abandonment of discussion by these means is often combined with fallacies of the red herring, of ridicule, or of origin.
EXAMPLE COMMENT Paul remarks, "It is a sort of false chivalry that tells us not to speak ill of the dead. After all, we need not fear harming the dead: it is toward the living that our tongue should be charitable." Peter, shocked by what he considers Paul's irreverence, replies sternly, "Paul, you lack respect even for death itself." Paul is challenging a generally accepted custom of our culture. Peter's rebuke amounts to abandonment of discussion since he makes no attempt to examine the soundness of the cultural attitude or of Paul's observation. Peter's comment illustrates the devices of implying that an opponent's position is scandalously beneath notice. Paul, a resident of A-town, is comparing the city planning and zoning development of A-town and B-ville. He concludes, "B-ville, without any particular natural advantages, has been made into a more pleasant place to live than we have achieved here." Peter jeers, "Why, Paul, I suggest you move right over to B-ville." Maybe an effective silencing of the critic, but not of the criticism. Dr. Johnson, after hearing Bishop Berkeley expound his view that there is no material substance, was asked by friends what he thought of Berkeley's idealism. The great man replied by kicking a stone. Johnson's refutation of Berkeley, a form of refusing to discuss the "absurd," is jestingly referred to by philosophers as the invention of a new fallacy, the appeal ad lapidem (to the stone).