Bad Argument: Demand for parity

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

One problem with the MLM industry, and its various shady cousins (the HYIP, the Ponzi, and such) is their reputation. The oldest firms like Amway and Herbalife had been followed by various scandals and lawsuits, while the newer ones have no reputation or started by shady characters or do shady business (sell nothing substantial). One way these firms "manage" their reputation is to encourage its members to "demand parity" in news coverage. For example, if there's an article that reflects negatively on the industry, the pro-industry people would then demand some sort of positive coverage as a "balance" to the negative story. And if they don't get it (or just get a brief mention), they will portray that as some sort of a "bias" against the industry. They may encourage its members to seek parity, or they shill the demand for parity.

While the common adage "there are two sides to every story" is often true, the same thing does NOT apply the FACTS. Rather it is the INTERPRETATION of facts that is subject to debate.  When people started citing "there are two sides", they *may* be trying to imply that the "two sides" are equally valid, when they may NOT, in fact, be equally valid. Demand for parity tries to pin the burden on the critic, trying to portray the critic as "biased" and "unfair" when the facts were not in doubt.

Think about it. If they have better facts, they would have presented them and refuted the facts presented by the critic, thus defeating the critic's viewpoint. The very fact that they had to resort to "but you didn't show the side that's FAVORABLE to us!" means they can't refute the critic's facts, but must instead, try to shout him down.

Sometimes, the demand for parity takes rather curious leaps of logic. Here's one sample comment posted on BehindMLM when the student newspaper at North Texas State University published an article unfriendly to Vemma, calling it a financial threat to young students. The comment at BehindMLM says:

This comment contains a lot of half truths, let's analyze it one at a time. 

1) "My calculus textbook was $220. I haven’t used calculus once in 23 years."

The comment basically said the writer spent a lot of money for education that meant nothing to him. I don't doubt it, but is the message accurate, and furthermore, is it RELEVANT? No. He's using the "pot calling the kettle black" tactic... raise some other issues to derail the discussion. 

2) "Billionaires are buying network marketing companies while universities are putting kids into debt for jobs that are no longer in existence. "

This is such a generality that's impossible to evaluate. Donald Trump STARTED MLMs, which didn't really go anywhere. Warren Buffet only kept Pampered Chef, sold the rest. Even Sir Richard Banson sold Virgin Cosmetics (spun off). So which billionaire is this guy talking about? No idea. Thus, the claim is unsupported, and thus, useless to prove anything. 



Same with "universities are putting kids into debt for jobs that are no longer in existence". Which major? Engineering is always in demand, esp. computer related stuff. SOMEONE has to design / engineer the next iPhone or iPhone killer. So what is this guy talking about? This sort of sweeping generalization is just grandstanding. 

3) "I know a lot of people hate network marketing. More people hate sitting at a desk having their life sold at wholesale."

Another false equivalence. People hate network marketing because of pushy sales tactics, cult-like atmosphere, and suspicious products / services sold at way over cost. Those are valid reasons. The part about "hate sitting at a desk" is a frequent MLM rallying cry to "work for yourself, be your own boss, blah blah blah". It doesn't really mean anything other than the common word "hate". Again, gross generalization. 

4) "I wish this site would publish once a week something positive on a multi billion dollar per year industry."

And here we come to the repartee... The "demand for parity", i.e. you are mean to us. Why can't you be nice to us sometimes?

And why does a multi-billion dollar per year industry NEED some positive coverage?

Ever wonder what the world wide ecstasy (the illegal party drug) industry size is? The answer is 9.8 BILLION dollars WHOLESALE, from a 2003 UN report. That was TEN YEARS AGO. It's probably gone up since.

You see any "positive" coverage of ecstasy industry? How many people it made rich? Of course not.

The size is irrelevant. They are trying to use "size is legitimacy" argument. It's bogus.

All in all, this comment is a very common "MLM style rebuttal" to criticism... cite some gross generalities, then demand for parity.

Related articles

• Bad Argument: The myth of "no saturation"
• Did DSA "throw FHTM under the bus", so to speak?
• Juicing the pyramid: is Herbalife an $8 billion house of cards?
• Who's Rick Ross and What Does He Have to Say About Herbalife?