During the 2008 presidential campaign, Republican John McCain never missed an opportunity to remind us of his stay in the Hanoi Hilton, and thereby creating the impression that he was either fit for leadership because of his wartime experiences, or that America owed him a turn at the rudder in a sort of repayment for his sacrifice.
When John Kerry ran for president in 2000, his military service was smeared in ad hominum attacks by a partisan group known as SVBT. Later discredited, the smear campaign (funded by Republicans) was such an egregious example of character attack that it is now known by its own moniker; “swiftboating.”
*
It needs to be pointed out that McCain graduated third last in his class at Annapolis, mostly due to a failure to conform to structure and follow orders. In McCain World, this is known as being a “maverick.” In the real world, it is known as being a “loose cannon.”
He was not a good pilot – he crashed three jet fighters during training before being shipped out to ‘Nam where he crashed a fourth.
He disobeyed a direct order to break off his mission, and as a result of that insubordination was shot down.
As a POW, McCain willingly co-operated so extensively with the North Vietnamese in exchange for favorable treatment over a three-year period that his fellow American prisoners gave him the derisive nickname “Songbird.”
Primary Source
The Ever Popular Gun Lobby
.
From a recent email:
“The bill that is being pushed in 18 states (including Illinois and Indiana) requires all ammunition to be encoded by the manufacturer in a data base of all ammunition sales. So they will know how much you buy and what calibers. Nobody can sell any ammunition after June 30, 2009 unless the ammunition is coded.”
This email is rife with intellectual dishonesty and deception, falsely implying that the big, bad gummint is gonna take away your guns by any means, sneaky or otherwise.
If you actually read the proposed laws, you quickly see that the point is to provide some way of tracing a point of origin for bullets used in crimes committed with handguns.
The assertion that "Nobody can sell any ammunition... unless the ammunition is coded" is a lie. The proposed legislation applies to pistol (handgun) ammunition only.
The claim "so they will know how much you buy and which calibers" is a paranoid slur to create the idea of a malicious spying operation secreted somewhere in the marble halls of DC, and attempts to misdirect attention away from the point of the proposal.
Legislation like this is proposed in response to public outcry for something, anything to be done to enable police to have more clues to pursue criminals, and courts to have more recourse. So the actual "enemy" of "gun lovers" is other citizens, not an oppressive, evil government operating in conspiratorial secrecy.
Nobody is going to "deprive" anyone of ammo. For instance, there are thousands of people who make their own bullets in basements and garages. But these are not the people doing drive-bys and sticking up convenience stores. They are serious hobbyists who take their guns to a range (or out hunting) and compete over accuracy and precision and muzzle velocity and impact vectors and all the fine minutiae that makes a hobby rewarding and worth having.
The point of the proposed law is to be able to trace a box of ammo bought at K-Mart by a 15 year old with fake ID, which then winds up in the Kevlar vest of a police officer or the head of a hapless passerby.
“Any privately held uncoded ammunition must be destroyed by July 1, 2011. (Including hand loaded ammo.) They will also charge a .05 cent tax on every round so every box of ammo you buy will go up at least $2.50 or more!”
These claims are not included in any of the legislation I read, so this is undoubtedly a fear mongering tactic pulled out of the email author's butt in a sleazy attempt to add gravity and credence to the argument.
It certainly makes sense that there will be an additional cost to stamp a number on each bullet, but victims of gun violence are not going to be sympathetic to scare tactics about the rising cost of a recreational item. “OMG! Starbux is going to raise the cost of every cup of coffee by $1.00!!! Be afraid! Be afraid! Be afraid!” No, if that happens, you'll just drink less Starbux coffee, and folks who want to shoot might buy a few less bullets. Either scenario is unlikely.
“If they can deprive you of ammo they do not need to take your gun!”
Folks who generate this sort of intellectual dishonesty aren't shooting up the ghetto, but they are resisting every attempt to legally suppress gun violence in the name of personal freedom. It is a false argument.
The pro-gun lobby could probably be an enormous help to this issue by taking an active role in developing legislation and technology to alleviate the problems that are driving all gun restrictive legislation - criminals accessing and using guns.
On the other side of this issue, people seeking laws to restrict gun ownership and use are just as guilty of their own intellectual dishonesty, commonly using a logical fallacy called "appeal to emotion." Oversimplified, "gun crimes are horrible, so guns should be outlawed." Jim Brady's wife capitalized on this to get the Brady bill passed, after her husband was shot in the assassination attempt on Reagan.
However, it needs to be stated that the same arguments were put forward in opposition to the Brady Bill (OMG! They’re going to take away our guns!!!), but the passage of the bill has not measurably slowed gun ownership. Unfortunately it is also not possible to reliably prove how much gun violence has been averted by a waiting period, either.
From a recent email:
“The bill that is being pushed in 18 states (including Illinois and Indiana) requires all ammunition to be encoded by the manufacturer in a data base of all ammunition sales. So they will know how much you buy and what calibers. Nobody can sell any ammunition after June 30, 2009 unless the ammunition is coded.”
This email is rife with intellectual dishonesty and deception, falsely implying that the big, bad gummint is gonna take away your guns by any means, sneaky or otherwise.
If you actually read the proposed laws, you quickly see that the point is to provide some way of tracing a point of origin for bullets used in crimes committed with handguns.
The assertion that "Nobody can sell any ammunition... unless the ammunition is coded" is a lie. The proposed legislation applies to pistol (handgun) ammunition only.
The claim "so they will know how much you buy and which calibers" is a paranoid slur to create the idea of a malicious spying operation secreted somewhere in the marble halls of DC, and attempts to misdirect attention away from the point of the proposal.
Legislation like this is proposed in response to public outcry for something, anything to be done to enable police to have more clues to pursue criminals, and courts to have more recourse. So the actual "enemy" of "gun lovers" is other citizens, not an oppressive, evil government operating in conspiratorial secrecy.
Nobody is going to "deprive" anyone of ammo. For instance, there are thousands of people who make their own bullets in basements and garages. But these are not the people doing drive-bys and sticking up convenience stores. They are serious hobbyists who take their guns to a range (or out hunting) and compete over accuracy and precision and muzzle velocity and impact vectors and all the fine minutiae that makes a hobby rewarding and worth having.
The point of the proposed law is to be able to trace a box of ammo bought at K-Mart by a 15 year old with fake ID, which then winds up in the Kevlar vest of a police officer or the head of a hapless passerby.
“Any privately held uncoded ammunition must be destroyed by July 1, 2011. (Including hand loaded ammo.) They will also charge a .05 cent tax on every round so every box of ammo you buy will go up at least $2.50 or more!”
These claims are not included in any of the legislation I read, so this is undoubtedly a fear mongering tactic pulled out of the email author's butt in a sleazy attempt to add gravity and credence to the argument.
It certainly makes sense that there will be an additional cost to stamp a number on each bullet, but victims of gun violence are not going to be sympathetic to scare tactics about the rising cost of a recreational item. “OMG! Starbux is going to raise the cost of every cup of coffee by $1.00!!! Be afraid! Be afraid! Be afraid!” No, if that happens, you'll just drink less Starbux coffee, and folks who want to shoot might buy a few less bullets. Either scenario is unlikely.
“If they can deprive you of ammo they do not need to take your gun!”
Folks who generate this sort of intellectual dishonesty aren't shooting up the ghetto, but they are resisting every attempt to legally suppress gun violence in the name of personal freedom. It is a false argument.
The pro-gun lobby could probably be an enormous help to this issue by taking an active role in developing legislation and technology to alleviate the problems that are driving all gun restrictive legislation - criminals accessing and using guns.
On the other side of this issue, people seeking laws to restrict gun ownership and use are just as guilty of their own intellectual dishonesty, commonly using a logical fallacy called "appeal to emotion." Oversimplified, "gun crimes are horrible, so guns should be outlawed." Jim Brady's wife capitalized on this to get the Brady bill passed, after her husband was shot in the assassination attempt on Reagan.
However, it needs to be stated that the same arguments were put forward in opposition to the Brady Bill (OMG! They’re going to take away our guns!!!), but the passage of the bill has not measurably slowed gun ownership. Unfortunately it is also not possible to reliably prove how much gun violence has been averted by a waiting period, either.
As I Say, Not As I Do
When Newt Gingrich cheated on his wife, that was apparently perfectly acceptable to his peers.
When Bill Clinton cheated on his wife, he was nearly hounded out of office by Republicans led by Gingrich, who orated passionately about the moral rectitude apporpriate to elected office, at the same time he was having an affair. Not only is this the basest form of hypocrisy, but intellectually dishonest because the issue of Clinton's infidelity was presented to the American public in a way that suggested Clinton should be held to a different, higher standard than Gingrich and other adulterers in elected office.
When Bill Clinton cheated on his wife, he was nearly hounded out of office by Republicans led by Gingrich, who orated passionately about the moral rectitude apporpriate to elected office, at the same time he was having an affair. Not only is this the basest form of hypocrisy, but intellectually dishonest because the issue of Clinton's infidelity was presented to the American public in a way that suggested Clinton should be held to a different, higher standard than Gingrich and other adulterers in elected office.
Guilt by Association
In campaign speeches, Sarah Palin made numerous allegations about Barack Obama’s “associations” with “domestic terrorist” Bill Ayers.
Republicans were conspicuously silent about John McCain’s actions, not alleged associations – actions - in the Keating 5 scandal that resulted in the collapse of Savings and Loan banks.
Republicans were conspicuously silent about John McCain’s actions, not alleged associations – actions - in the Keating 5 scandal that resulted in the collapse of Savings and Loan banks.
Slippery Slope (Logical Fallacy)
Definition:
In order to show that a proposition P is unacceptable; a sequence of increasingly unacceptable events is shown to follow from P. A slippery slope is an illegitimate use of the “if-then" operator.
Examples:
- If we pass laws against fully automatic weapons, then it won't be long before we pass laws on all weapons, and then we will begin to restrict other rights, and finally we will end up living in a communist state. Thus, we should not ban fully automatic weapons.
- You should never gamble. Once you start gambling you find it hard to stop. Soon you are spending all your money on gambling, and eventually you will turn to crime to support your earnings.
- If I make an exception for you then I have to make an exception for everyone.
Proof: Identify the proposition P being refuted and identify the final event in the series of events. Then show that this final event need not occur as a consequence of P.
Argument From Ignorance (Logical Fallacy)
Definition: Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must ether be known to be true or known to be false. However, "Lack of proof is not proof."
Examples:
i. Since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, they must exist.
ii. Since scientists cannot prove that global warming will occur, it probably won't.
iii. Bill said that he is smarter than Jill, but he didn't prove it, so it must be false.
Proof: Identify the proposition in question. Argue that it may be true even though we don't know whether it is or isn't.
False Dilemma (Logical Fallacy)
Also Known as Black & White Thinking, False Dichotomy, Bifurcation Error.
Description of False Dilemma
A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning":
1 .Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
2. Claim Y is false.
3. Therefore claim X is true.
This "reasoning" is fallacious because if both claims could be false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false. That this is the case is made clear by the following example:
1. Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=12.
2. It is not the case that 1+1=4.
3. Therefore 1+1=12.
In cases in which the two options are, in fact, the only two options, this line of reasoning is not fallacious. For example:
1. Bill is dead or he is alive.
2. Bill is not dead.
3. Therefore Bill is alive.
Examples of False Dilemma
1. “You’re either with us, or you support the terrorists.”
2. Bill: "Jill and I both support having prayer in public schools."
Jill: "Hey, I never said that!"
Bill: "You're not an atheist are you Jill?"
Description of False Dilemma
A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning":
1 .Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
2. Claim Y is false.
3. Therefore claim X is true.
This "reasoning" is fallacious because if both claims could be false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false. That this is the case is made clear by the following example:
1. Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=12.
2. It is not the case that 1+1=4.
3. Therefore 1+1=12.
In cases in which the two options are, in fact, the only two options, this line of reasoning is not fallacious. For example:
1. Bill is dead or he is alive.
2. Bill is not dead.
3. Therefore Bill is alive.
Examples of False Dilemma
1. “You’re either with us, or you support the terrorists.”
2. Bill: "Jill and I both support having prayer in public schools."
Jill: "Hey, I never said that!"
Bill: "You're not an atheist are you Jill?"
And You are Lynching Negroes (Logical Fallacy)
"And you are lynching Negroes" (Russian: "А у вас негров линчуют", Polish: "A u was biją Murzynów") is a counter-accusation made repeatedly by the Soviet Union during the Cold War whenever the United States government criticized the Soviet Union for human rights abuses. This phrase is common in modern Russian and Polish usage to refer pejoratively to this type of rhetorical device.
Such counter-claims would be made both in propaganda for internal consumption as well as in propaganda targeted at the West. The claim made sense in the 1960s when it originated, as there were in fact lynchings of African Americans going on in some U.S. Southern states, but with the subsequent success of the U.S. civil rights movement the claim became more and more hollow as the Cold War progressed. It can be considered a type of ad hominem counter-attack in that it avoids actually addressing the substance of the issue, but instead attempts to discredit the opponent and change the topic of the conversation.
Such arguments are a logical fallacy in that they seek to derail the discussion from one topic to another one without addressing the issues previously brought up. The reasonable thing to do would be to counter accusations in a substantive manner, and present counter-claims separately.
Similar kinds of counter-claim are widely used by many people and governments when they wish to deflect criticism. An example would be a statement, often repeated in various forms by North Korea's Korean Central News Agency, saying that American criticism of crimes of the Communist regime have no merit because the United States is guilty of violating people's civil rights, of war crimes dating back to the Korean War, and of crimes and misdemeanors committed by U.S. servicemen in South Korea.
Such arguments are a fallacy if intended to exempt the accused party from responsibility. However, a valid rhetorical use is to counter the other party's claims of moral high ground, which are often used to justify their position.
A more recent and well-known example involves the use the events of Abu Ghraib scandal to discredit the American policy in the Middle East and specifically American overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the occupation of Iraq. The United States used claims of prison torture and "rape rooms" as some of its pretexts for invading Iraq, but this position was later weakened by the scandal. The Abu Ghraib incidents do not weaken arguments against the former regime on the basis of its prisons, but they do weaken arguments supporting invasion as a proper American response.
Valid counter-accusations may have long-lasting effects, weakening the position of the accused long after the offences end. This was the case with lynchings and this is the case with the Abu Ghraib incidents, according to former United States Vice President Al Gore, who said, "One of the most tragic consequences of these official crimes is that it will be very hard for any of us as Americans—at least for a very long time—to effectively stand up for human rights elsewhere and criticize other governments, when our policies have resulted in our soldiers behaving so monstrously."
Such counter-claims would be made both in propaganda for internal consumption as well as in propaganda targeted at the West. The claim made sense in the 1960s when it originated, as there were in fact lynchings of African Americans going on in some U.S. Southern states, but with the subsequent success of the U.S. civil rights movement the claim became more and more hollow as the Cold War progressed. It can be considered a type of ad hominem counter-attack in that it avoids actually addressing the substance of the issue, but instead attempts to discredit the opponent and change the topic of the conversation.
Such arguments are a logical fallacy in that they seek to derail the discussion from one topic to another one without addressing the issues previously brought up. The reasonable thing to do would be to counter accusations in a substantive manner, and present counter-claims separately.
Similar kinds of counter-claim are widely used by many people and governments when they wish to deflect criticism. An example would be a statement, often repeated in various forms by North Korea's Korean Central News Agency, saying that American criticism of crimes of the Communist regime have no merit because the United States is guilty of violating people's civil rights, of war crimes dating back to the Korean War, and of crimes and misdemeanors committed by U.S. servicemen in South Korea.
Such arguments are a fallacy if intended to exempt the accused party from responsibility. However, a valid rhetorical use is to counter the other party's claims of moral high ground, which are often used to justify their position.
A more recent and well-known example involves the use the events of Abu Ghraib scandal to discredit the American policy in the Middle East and specifically American overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the occupation of Iraq. The United States used claims of prison torture and "rape rooms" as some of its pretexts for invading Iraq, but this position was later weakened by the scandal. The Abu Ghraib incidents do not weaken arguments against the former regime on the basis of its prisons, but they do weaken arguments supporting invasion as a proper American response.
Valid counter-accusations may have long-lasting effects, weakening the position of the accused long after the offences end. This was the case with lynchings and this is the case with the Abu Ghraib incidents, according to former United States Vice President Al Gore, who said, "One of the most tragic consequences of these official crimes is that it will be very hard for any of us as Americans—at least for a very long time—to effectively stand up for human rights elsewhere and criticize other governments, when our policies have resulted in our soldiers behaving so monstrously."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)