On the heels of Pres. Obama’s demand that Israel return to 1967 borders, members of the Nacotchtank tribe stormed the White House today, ousting the President, First Lady, and other squatters on their homeland.
Meanwhile, Illinois Indians broke into Obama’s private Kenwood residence, as they began to retake Chicago from the foreign occupation force.
i) As I've often pointed out, citing logician Peter Geach, the tu quoque is not a fallacy. It would behoove you to acquire a scintilla of sophistication before you parrot urban legends.
ii) And your viewpoint is irrelevant to the post, since the post is piggybacking on Obama's viewpoint.
How is the argument immoral? Do you think you'd better evangelize it so it does't go to hell, considering that you view it a proper subject of ascriptions of moral culpability?
Second, hardly anyone thinks all ad hominems (of which tu quoque is a member of the set of) are always fallacious, especially logicians. There's actually a whole ton of evidence you need to bring to bear on the situation if you want to make your charge stick. One especially useful or reasonable form of tu quote argument in political discourse comes in when trying to show a politician's views are impractical. These are called pragmatic circumstantial tu quoques. Some are reasonable, others are not. You have not indicated how Steve's example is an instance of the unreasonable kind (indeed, you don't even seem aware that you need to). Anyway, here's what one renowned expert on informal fallacies, Douglas Walton, had to say on the use of tu quoque arguments in political discourse,
"Although the argumentum ad hominem , or personal attack argument, has been traditionally treated as a fallacy in logic, recent research in argumentation (as cited above) shows that, in many cases,-including cases in political argumentation-ad hominem arguments, as used in conversational arguments, are not fallacious. Research has shown that, while some personal attack arguments can definitely be judged fallacious, many others are quite reasonable (when evaluated in the appropriate context), while still others should be evaluated as weak (insufficiently supported) but not fallacious. As shown in this case study, the real function of an ad hominem argument (when properly used) is to attack an arguer's credibility in order to criticize the argument she advocates."
And the strength of Steve's argument depends on how Obama responds. Walton notes,
"A circumstantial ad hominem argument works in a dialogue by shifting a weight of presumption onto the respondent to reply to the attack, by de- nying the allegation, or by otherwise appropriately replying to the argu- ment. In the absence of such a reply, or in the absence of critical questions raised about the ad hominem argument, it has a sticking power in virtue of the weight of presumption in favor of it. However, if an inadequate, failed, or implausible reply is given, that will make the ad hominem argument much stronger."
—Walton, Douglas, Philosophy and Rhetoric, Vol. 33, 2000. pp. 101-115
Of course, this says nothing about the immorality or illegality of land seizure, only that the Obama administration isn't applying its standards consistently.
It helps to characterize and contextualize the situation with facts.
The Palestinian borders were moved because Israel was attacked and had to defend himself. The Europeans encroached on Indian land and when the Indians fought back, they lost.
Ignoring the fact that all the land belonged to the Palestinians before the UN gave part of it back to the Jews, The European settlers equate to the Palestinians and their Arab Supporters and the Indians equate to the Jews. Both were attacked. Both fought back. The difference is that the Indians lost and Israel didn't.
Obama's policy, following his fellow liberals, is that Israel should act like they lost and just give up land that was given to them along with the land that was won out of self-defense.
Interestingly, in the aftermath Israel built good housing to help the Palestinians, which they refused claiming that Israel built it for themselves. Since the Palestinians refused it, Israel used it themselves. Why let it go to waste? Haven't we as American's rebuilt enemies we have defeated after repelling their attacks? Israel has also welcomed Arabs as fellow citizens over the years giving them every opportunity to prosper alongside Jews in peace.
On the American front, the Europeans have relented of past ills toward the Indians and have welcomed them as fellow citizens, also giving them the right to govern themselves, albeit in part on some of the worst land.
Obama is not consistent in that he is asking Israel to do more than to bend over backwards. He is asking for Israel to subject themselves to a broken back. It would be better to support the Israelis who have offered peace and have had to defend themselves against a people who have steadfastly refused it.
Translation: "Zionists can abuse the Palestinians because American pioneers did it to the Injuns"
ReplyDeleteThe argument is both immoral and a tu quoque fallacy.
i) As I've often pointed out, citing logician Peter Geach, the tu quoque is not a fallacy. It would behoove you to acquire a scintilla of sophistication before you parrot urban legends.
ReplyDeleteii) And your viewpoint is irrelevant to the post, since the post is piggybacking on Obama's viewpoint.
RvdS,
ReplyDeleteHow is the argument immoral? Do you think you'd better evangelize it so it does't go to hell, considering that you view it a proper subject of ascriptions of moral culpability?
Second, hardly anyone thinks all ad hominems (of which tu quoque is a member of the set of) are always fallacious, especially logicians. There's actually a whole ton of evidence you need to bring to bear on the situation if you want to make your charge stick. One especially useful or reasonable form of tu quote argument in political discourse comes in when trying to show a politician's views are impractical. These are called pragmatic circumstantial tu quoques. Some are reasonable, others are not. You have not indicated how Steve's example is an instance of the unreasonable kind (indeed, you don't even seem aware that you need to). Anyway, here's what one renowned expert on informal fallacies, Douglas Walton, had to say on the use of tu quoque arguments in political discourse,
"Although the argumentum ad hominem , or personal attack argument, has been traditionally treated as a fallacy in logic, recent research in argumentation (as cited above) shows that, in many cases,-including cases in political argumentation-ad hominem arguments, as used in conversational arguments, are not fallacious. Research has shown that, while some personal attack arguments can definitely be judged fallacious, many others are quite reasonable (when evaluated in the appropriate context), while still others should be evaluated as weak (insufficiently supported) but not
fallacious. As shown in this case study, the real function of an ad hominem argument (when properly used) is to attack an arguer's credibility in order to criticize the argument she advocates."
And the strength of Steve's argument depends on how Obama responds. Walton notes,
"A circumstantial ad hominem argument works in a dialogue by shifting a weight of presumption onto the respondent to reply to the attack, by de- nying the allegation, or by otherwise appropriately replying to the argu- ment. In the absence of such a reply, or in the absence of critical questions raised about the ad hominem argument, it has a sticking power in virtue of the weight of presumption in favor of it. However, if an inadequate, failed, or implausible reply is given, that will make the ad hominem argument much stronger."
—Walton, Douglas, Philosophy and Rhetoric, Vol. 33, 2000. pp. 101-115
Of course, this says nothing about the immorality or illegality of land seizure, only that the Obama administration isn't applying its standards consistently.
ReplyDeleteThe Jews did not fight back in any organized fashion during World War Two and would have been wiped out in Europe if not for the Allied Victory.
ReplyDeleteTheir standard now is "Never Again".
Israel has nuclear weapons...if they were to go down again, the Samson Option will be employed.
Thats right.
The Samson Option.
And there is nothing you goys can do about it.
The Samson Option.
ReplyDeleteWhat would serve a Jew Hating world for thousands of years of opression and massacres than a nuclear winter?
How ironic that in another Holocaust the opresssors could join us in the ovens!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt helps to characterize and contextualize the situation with facts.
ReplyDeleteThe Palestinian borders were moved because Israel was attacked and had to defend himself. The Europeans encroached on Indian land and when the Indians fought back, they lost.
Ignoring the fact that all the land belonged to the Palestinians before the UN gave part of it back to the Jews, The European settlers equate to the Palestinians and their Arab Supporters and the Indians equate to the Jews. Both were attacked. Both fought back. The difference is that the Indians lost and Israel didn't.
Obama's policy, following his fellow liberals, is that Israel should act like they lost and just give up land that was given to them along with the land that was won out of self-defense.
Interestingly, in the aftermath Israel built good housing to help the Palestinians, which they refused claiming that Israel built it for themselves. Since the Palestinians refused it, Israel used it themselves. Why let it go to waste? Haven't we as American's rebuilt enemies we have defeated after repelling their attacks? Israel has also welcomed Arabs as fellow citizens over the years giving them every opportunity to prosper alongside Jews in peace.
On the American front, the Europeans have relented of past ills toward the Indians and have welcomed them as fellow citizens, also giving them the right to govern themselves, albeit in part on some of the worst land.
Obama is not consistent in that he is asking Israel to do more than to bend over backwards. He is asking for Israel to subject themselves to a broken back. It would be better to support the Israelis who have offered peace and have had to defend themselves against a people who have steadfastly refused it.