A Short Compendium of Contemporary Political Fallacies
| August 7, 2008
| Tim
In order to think clearly, it's helpful to know a number of logical "pitfalls" to avoid. "Fallacies" are kinds of arguments which seem right, but are really wrong. They don't always produce a clearly wrong result -- indeed, that is part of their allure. But they allow us to embrace error by relying upon arguments which we would otherwise find laughable, if other nouns were substituted.
There are a number of fallacy lists out there already but I thought it would be fun to compile a short list of the fallacies which seem, when I listen, to constitute about 80% of the political dialog in our country. The names are made up; some of the fallacies may already be noted under other terms. (If so, feel free to comment to that effect.) The illustrations are chosen for their contemporary political value, and for comic effect.
And yes, many of these are brain-dead stupid. So it's all the more fascinating to me, in a morbid way, that they're so ardently offered and believed.
Fallacy of existing harm
If something has already been harmed a little, we should never be concerned about inflicting still more harm.
Argument: Please don't chop my legs off!
Fallacy: What's the problem? You've already lost a hand!
Argument: Gay marriage will damage the institution of marriage.
Fallacy: The institution of marriage has already been damaged by straights!
This form of argument only succeeds if there is a particular threshold where damage no longer matters. For example, I might wish to take my cell phone in the water, but its not a problem if it's already completely ceased to function because I dropped it. However, no such argument can be sustained in the examples above: Just as you can always feel a greater level of pain while conscious, the degree of harm to families can also be increased indefinitely.
Further, if harm exists already, that's usually all the more reason to avoid further damage. A person who has lost one ear is even more worried about damage to their remaining intact perceptual facilities. A person who has lost one appendage will be successively more worried about loss of the others.
(Note that I'm not here to show that the second argument is true. Whether it's right or wrong, unlike the answer given in response, it's not clearly fallacious.)
Fallacy of potential benefit
This is the converse of the previous fallacy: We shouldn't do X if Y can deliver the same value.
Argument: I could earn extra money by taking a job.
Fallacy: You shouldn't take a job because you could earn extra money by collecting interest from large investments.
Argument: We should drill for oil because prices are too high.
Fallacy (Obama '08): The same result could be achieved by airing up our tires fully and keeping our cars perfectly tuned.
As above, the argument is not fallacious if there is a threshold: Perhaps the person in the first example only desires a certain amount of money. In that case, it might be just as good to get the remaining funds from one source as from another, and less work might be preferable. But in the second example, there is no stated threshold: If dependence upon foreign oil is bad, then all measures should be embraced, not just one partial measure.
The other relevant question is one of realism: Does the first person have a huge chunk of non-interest-bearing cash sitting around? If not, then it's sort of silly to argue she can avoid work by investing it. Similarly, in the second example, we might ask if it's possible that everyone in the US could suddenly, for years on end, keep their engines perfectly tuned and tires fully inflated. If that were likely, why isn't it happening already? And how could a politician change that?
The fallacy of absolute narcissism
We may only be concerned about problems which impact us personally.
Fallacy: Saddam wasn't a threat to us!
Fallacy: How would gay marriage harm your marriage?
Fallacy: Against abortion? Don't have one!
While we're at it, shouldn't we also argue that we shouldn't be concerned about genocide in the Sudan, human rights violations in China, or starvation in Ethiopia because it's doesn't impact us personally?
In the first example, the alleged underlying argument is that we should only intervene internationally when our own interests are at stake. And presumably, if Saddam had successfully unified the mideast under his rule, started a war with Israel, or at least tried to do any of these things, this wouldn't have had an adverse impact on US interests. Therefore, Americans shouldn't care about Saddam's massive torturing of his own citizens, his tendency to attack his neighbors, his longstanding pursuit of banned weapons, his payments to terrorists, etc.
In the second and third arguments, the standard argument is that children will be harmed or killed. All kinds of social programs are created on the basis of purported benefit to children, so it's not clear why suddenly the only metric for the morality of, say, gay marriage or abortion, should suddenly be impact to the adults participating in the debate. Of course, it's up to the one speaking to demonstrate why this principle should be true: Healthy human beings are concerned when others suffer.
The fallacy of absolute altruism
We should never take any actions which benefit us.
Fallacy: We went into Iraq for US interests!
Fallacy: Don't save that man from drowning -- it would make you look like a hero!
Savvy observers will note this is the exact opposite of the previous fallacy. There, we heard we shouldn't have gone into Iraq because they hadn't attacked or harmed us personally. In this case, we hear that we shouldn't have gone in because we would derive benefit from doing so. One might think it comical to apply both arguments, but apparently those make such arguments are deaf to irony, especially where their own positions are concerned.
Goodness or harm is measured by the sum total of an action's impacts -- not by the feelings of the participants. The man saved from drowning could usually care less what motivated his rescuer. Likewise, I doubt the children liberated from Saddam's "children's prisons", and their families, gave a single thought to whether their liberation helped "US interests." And it's probably true that tax breaks help the rich: but why don't most Democrats seem to care at all whether they help the poor, too?
As in the previous case, it's up to the one making the argument to show it's inherently immoral or wrong to act in any way which benefits you.
(Odd, coming from the group who argues that all (sexual) behavior is fine as long as "no one is harmed" -- where "no one" and "harmed" are very narrowly defined. "No one" apparently excludes one's spouse (present or future), children, loved ones, the people who voted for you, stockholders, and one's sexual partner. And "harm" apparently excludes emotional damage done to all of these, betrayal of trust, lying, economic damage, possibility of blackmail and conflicts of interest, transmission of STDs, etc.)
Argument by motivation
Where the previous two fallacies were concerned with objective results (an action is or isn't permissible if it benefits us) a third type of fallacy focuses on our alleged intent. All actions which have good intent must result in good results, all actions which have bad intent must result in harm.
So we don't have to ask if minimum wage actually helps or hurts poor minorities. We only need to note that we (allegedly) "care". We don't have to have a debate as to whether socialized medicine actually works where it's been tried. We only need to note that we "care" about the sick, and our opponents presumably do not. Therefore, socialized medicine must deliver a good result, or at least should not be discussed in detail.
Proof by team membership
An argument is only valid when someone on my team offers it.
Gore, 2000: Social security is facing a crisis.
Democrats: He's right! Vote for him!
Bush, 2005: Social security is facing a crisis.
Democrats: Liar! Fearmonger!
The fallacy of "progress"
All "new" things are better than all "old" things.
Example are copious: In 2004, I kept hearing that "anybody" would be better than Bush. (Really? Stalin? Hitler? Mao? Kerry?) Here in 2008, Obama runs on a platform of vaguely-defined "change". Global warming is such a threat that we must "take action, now" -- but it doesn't seem such people are at all concerned about whether the action will even work, and what other impacts it might have.
Putting aside the question of whether many of the "progressive" political ideas of today are really a "change" at all (many have been tried countless times before in history), it's not true that all changes are better. If I take half your money away, you'd certainly agree that was a "change", but I don't think you'd usually agree it was an improvement.
Proof by bumper sticker; Proof by fiat
All arguments can be refuted by stating a belief you hold. Your rebuttal is even truer when it's stated with more emotion, or repeated more often.
Argument: The war in Iraq saved lives. Here, let me show you the evidence...
Fallacy: No war for OIL! Bush lied, people died!
Theist: ... therefore your last argument was circular; a fallacy.
Atheist: Atheists are rational! God doesn't exist!
Sceptic: Hmmm... weren't these policies all failures when Carter tried them?
True Believer: YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!
Fallacy of universal approval
Because France, China, Russia, Venezuela, and 15 Arab nations can't all be wrong.
This form of argument only succeeds if there is a particular threshold where damage no longer matters. For example, I might wish to take my cell phone in the water, but its not a problem if it's already completely ceased to function because I dropped it. However, no such argument can be sustained in the examples above: Just as you can always feel a greater level of pain while conscious, the degree of harm to families can also be increased indefinitely.
Implicit in the 'gay marriage' argument is that gay marriage will harm society. Possibly, but many advocates of such a stance tend to be weak on demonstrating such harm (unless you consider a reduction in population a 'harm.') I could also understand the slippery slope argument that legalizing gay marriage would hurt the ability of churches to hire who they chose and to preach their message. However the inherant assumption in this argument seems to be is that same sex unions are of vastly inferior quality to heterosexual unions. That may or may not be true (especially with male-male unions), but most people I've heard arguing for such a stance don't make a good argument for said harm.
The same result could be achieved by airing up our tires fully and keeping our cars perfectly tuned.
IIRC, Obama's answer was in response to what people could do as individuals. Obama compared it to drilling to emphasize the importance of the measure. Of course, I don't think the comparison is accurate. Also, one of the reasons that people don't inflate their tires too much, aside from laziness, is that doing so reduces the tire's contact surface, reducing control of the vehicle.
Underinflated tires are a must in snow, since they 'pop' the impacted snow out of the treds.
Fallacy: Saddam wasn't a threat to us!
That's not a fallacious argument if it's in response to a claim that Saddam was a direct threat to us, which many people did seem to believe prior to Iraq. I'm not saying it's true or false. Just that it's not automatically fallacious in that context (though it may or may not be true.)
Fallacy: We went into Iraq for US interests!
Well, if the opposing argument was "We went into Iraq for US interests, but liberating Iraqis was a sufficient justification for the move." I could agree that the previous argument was fallacious.
But I've never heard anyone make such an argument.
I suppose the underlying issue there is whether or not the war has made Iraqis better off. I'd suspect that most supporters say 'yes' and most opponents say 'no.'
I can see both sides for the pro and anti war arguments, and don't honestly know what the best course would have been (though resent a bit how it was sold to the US public.)
Savvy observers will note this is the exact opposite of the previous fallacy. There, we heard we shouldn't have gone into Iraq because they hadn't attacked or harmed us personally. In this case, we hear that we shouldn't have gone in because we would derive benefit from doing so.
I don't see this as contradictory (assuming the view that Iraq had not threatened the US, which could be shown false.) People are allowed to use
force to defend themselves or others. They are not allowed to use force to pursue purely economic goals.
And it's probably true that tax breaks help the rich: but why don't most Democrats seem to care at all whether they help the poor, too?
I think that's because of another fallacy; there's only one pie to be split so many ways. It cannot be grown or shrunk. In other words; economics is viewed as a zero sum game.
While I'm not a fan of tacitly accepting illegal immigration, the whole "They're stealing our jobs" is another example of this view. Cheap labor can create more jobs rather than using them like a scarce resource (though it does tend to undermine mechanization.)
The % of people working as farmers is a fraction of what it was 200 years ago, but we don't have 70% unemployment.
To clarify;
This form of argument only succeeds if there is a particular threshold where damage no longer matters.
Well, there's also a certain threshold under which damage may not constitute a logical argument against a proposition, even if such damage matters. (And different people may have different views of what constitutes damage, of course.)
For instance:
Person A: We must stop illegal immigration! 10% of all illegal immigrants are theives!
Person B: So? 10% of all Americans are thieves as well.
Assuming purely for the sake of argument that these statistics were actually correct and that the numbers couldn't be improved upon with better filtering of immigrants, they should debunk the argument that immigration should be prevented because some immigrants are thieves.
The question here is not whether more thieves are harmful, but whether there is a sufficient difference between two groups to justify discriminating between them based on a given standard. The argument (right or wrong) is that there isn't a sufficient difference to justify discrimination based on our current standards.
Ryan!
Great to hear from you as always! Hope all is well in your world. Thanks for your thoughtful comments!
Implicit in the 'gay marriage' argument is that gay marriage will harm society. Possibly, but many advocates of such a stance tend to be weak on demonstrating such harm...
I'd agree with you on both counts. Part of the problem with the second argument is that most critics think they "know", at nearly a gut level, that this is a bad move, but since it's never been tried before, it's a bit hard to be sure exactly why.
Looking backward, a similar debate might have been the debate over no-fault divorce. The argument was made that if a spouse felt dissatisfied, it would be better for all (including the children) if they left the relationship and found another situation where they felt more fulfilled.
Critics at the time probably had nothing more to go on than (a) a gut feeling that wasn't quite right, and (b) some dusty old biblical commandments about the importance of staying with one's spouse. Neither were very persuasive.
But, in retrospect, they were right: Now that we've experimented on our entire society, we have reams and reams of hard sociological data showing that divorces has horrendous effects on children, the crime rate, substance abuse, sexual abuse, promiscuity, and even suicide rates.
I should probably write more about "gay marriage" at some point, since I agree with you that most critics don't make a very strong case against it.
But the point above isn't whether gay marriage is good or harmful (I can see people thinking either way) but rather the utter vapidness and shallowness of the response: "Well, how will it hurt your marriage?"
However the inherant assumption in this argument seems to be is that same sex unions are of vastly inferior quality to heterosexual unions.
"Inferior" is one of those words. It presumes a set of values. It any given homosexual union "inferior" in terms of emotional depth? I wouldn't necessarily bet on it. It is "inferior" in terms of providing what children need? I would guess so, since I think children need a parent of each gender. There are lots of potential metrics and one should clearly spell out which ones are being applied when making such a judgment, either way.
IIRC, Obama's answer was in response to what people could do as individuals.
A number of the statements I make above take the larger context into consideration, and assume the reader will also.
The way he phrased it, it doesn't sound to me like he was answering "What can we do as individuals, to help?" Instead, he seems to have been rebounding off the subject of plans to drill, and opposing the idea:
"We could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups."
Given that Barack has generally opposed drilling, it would seem fair then to take his overall position as advocating such measures, and (at the time he made this statement) opposing drilling. Hence my analysis above.
Re: "Saddam wasn't a threat to us!"
That's not a fallacious argument if it's in response to a claim that Saddam was a direct threat to us...
I agree with that much. But I've never heard it used in that context either, which shows what a straw man it is: Nobody was arguing that Saddam was a direct, immanent threat to the people of the US, so it's a bit odd, no? to hear it offered as if it were a rebuttal of something.
Instead, I usually hear the argument offered as a reason we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. For example, people say: "We had him all bottled up", or, more absurdly, "Iraq never attacked the US." For example, in Fahrenheit 9/11:
On March 19th, 2003, George W. Bush and the United States military invaded Iraq, which had never attacked or threatened to attack the United States. A nation that had never murdered a single American citizen.
The falsity of this statement entirely aside (or don't we remember the Gulf War? and the attempt to assassinate GHW Bush?) -- the underlying rule must therefore be that it is immoral to militarily oppose governments which don't threaten us directly.
As such, it's another example of the form of argument that "if something isn't harming one directly, one has no business getting involved", as the other two were.
I argue this is fallacious, because we clearly reject the form when other nouns are substituted. "You attacked that woman's rapist. That was wrong: How were you personally being threatened? He'd never attacked you!"
Re: We went into Iraq for US interests!
Well, if the opposing argument was "We went into Iraq for US interests, but liberating Iraqis was a sufficient justification for the move." I could agree that the previous argument was fallacious. But I've never heard anyone make such an argument.
It would seem fallacious regardless, as most people won't accept the same form of reasoning when applied to their own actions. Doing X is wrong because X is in your interest. (Indeed, half the time, that seems to be the sole reason X is said to be right.)
I don't see this as contradictory... [people] re not allowed to use force to pursue purely economic goals.
If the argument is made as carefully as you describe it, then, yes, I'd agree: it's not necessarily "contradictory". "We went in purely for money, and it's wrong to attack a nation which never attacked us for money." That's merely false, not fallacious. (Since there were clearly security and stability concerns above economic ones, and I can't see any way that we've especially profited financially.)
But often it seems that little more than "it is in/not-in our interest?" is used as the sole litmus test. Bosnia is apparently okay because it didn't have oil. Iraq is apparently wrong because it does. That's what "no war for oil" distills (excuse the pun) down to.
Re: Tax breaks.
In other words; economics is viewed as a zero sum game.
Years ago, I would have agreed with you. But I *have* discussed this with Democrats, extensively, and, in my experience, when presented with evidence for non-zero-sum-ness, they don't say: "Oh! I hadn't thought of that." Indeed, they understand win/win pretty easily in many areas.
Instead, after seeming to get it for a moment, they go back to arguing about my motives: I'm some kind of apologist for the wealthy -- as if I hadn't just presented them with statements of my concern for the poor, and offers of more economic evidence.
I thus suspect, in those cases, it's more about being afraid to give up a cherished belief. And about the potential "moral rebound". (Republicans are evil because their policies hurt the poor, therefore their motives must be bad. So if the Democrat's policies are found to harm the poor instead, they would be subject to their own verdict. And motive wouldn't be everything. That possibility is mentally intolerable.)
While I'm not a fan of tacitly accepting illegal immigration, the whole "They're stealing our jobs" is another example of this view.
I actually DO believe, on a certain level in the free flow of labor, all other things being equal.
But all other things are NOT equal. With labor flows culture. I'm perfectly happy with the quality of Mexican labor as hired here; I'm not at all happy about the interjection of Mexican political preferences. And I believe illegals are more likely to resist US culture than legal immigrants, who agree to various things as part of their oath.
Secondly, we have a welfare state, which means that "cheap labor" can actually cost far more than it delivers. Milton Friedman was eventually convinced of this by his wife: You can't have open borders where you also have a welfare state.
Third, asymmetrical laws distort the situation: If it's harder for low-cost labor to flow across border than high-cost labor, and the porousness goes only one way, then various inefficiencies can result.
In particular, there's some validity to the "stealing our jobs" argument in such cases. If illegal immigrants do jobs "off the books" in ways Americans can't, then there's an indirect governmental subsidy to their actions.
Also, if there's a free flow of labor only for the lowest ranks of work, but not others, then you end up with a situation where low-paid American workers DO face a dilution of market (and depression of their wages) where higher-paid Americans will not. Particularly if you consider a nation which produces far more unskilled laborers than skilled ones.
The case you address in your second comment isn't a case where there's any "damage" at all. The overall crime rate isn't changed. That would be a case of mistaken damage, not a case where more damage wouldn't hurt.
In fairness, I should probably also include this argument about the possible harms of same sex marriage which addresses a common fallacy of people confusing their reaction with the reaction of the marginal case, and the results of that over time. link
Put another way; people say things like "I wouldn't have a child out of wedlock just to collect welfare, therefore noone else would do so."
Which is, essentially, a fallacious statement. People have different values. "That's why" Megan McArdle remarks "We have elections."
Interesting article! Thanks for the link!
I don't always agree with "Jane Galt", but she paints situation I tried to describe above -- the difficulty of making detailed predicitons -- better than I do. (Of course, she's paid to write; whereas I have to cram this in next to an actual life.)
This argument is compelling and logical. I would never become an unwed welfare mother, even if benefits were a great deal higher than they are now. It seems crazy to even suggest that one would bear a child out of wedlock for $567 a month. Indeed, to this day, I find the reformist side much more persuasive than the conservative side, except for one thing, which is that the conservatives turned out to be right. In fact, they turned out to be even more right than they suspected; they were predicting upticks in illegitimacy that were much more modest than what actually occurred--they expected marriage rates to suffer, not collapse.
And, as Bill Cosby must now note, full-time, collapse it did.
I also nod to Megan's humility in saying "I have no opinion on gay marriage, and am not planning to develop one. Marriage is a big institution; too big for me to feel I have a successful handle on it." And Megan's one of the brighter people I might point to.
And that leaves to people like me and gay activists to try to convince you of one side or the other. And I share, to a smaller extent, her fear about the enormity of the task: it is a big subject.
But let me point this out: What's the default? Is it just we social conservatives who must PROVE that harm will be done? Isn't there an equal, if even greater burden (given the precautionary principle, and lessons like the one Megan just detailed) to also PROVE that no harm -- or even a net overall benefit -- will result?
How did the "default" assumption become that we must, of course, completely modify every aspect of society (even something as core and ancient as marriage) unless a few neolithic sticks-in-the-mud like me are able to make an absolutely airtight case that certain harm will result? ;-)
The fact I have to ask that question shows where things are truly going. I'm definitely on the losing side in the short term.
Nobody was arguing that Saddam was a direct, immanent threat to the people of the US, so it's a bit odd, no?
Supposedly, many people were led to believe that Saddam was behind 9-11. At least, that's the narrative that I heard
at the start of Iraq war II.
Harris Poll: 64% Americans believe Saddam Hussein had "strong" links to al Qaeda
link
The 5,000-word letter is a rambling treatise outlining what Mr. Hussein asserts are the false reasons the Bush administration used to justify the war in Iraq, from illicit weapons to links with Al Qaeda.
link
I noted that ABC and Ross -- back in October and November 2001 -- were the driving force, really the exclusive force, behind news reports strongly suggesting that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were responsible for the anthrax attacks on the U.S.link
Of course, she's paid to write; whereas I have to cram this in next to an actual life.
If it makes you feel any better (or maybe worse) I believe this was from back before she got her job with the Atlantic and was still writing pro-bono. Though she was being paid as a reporter, I believe.
Isn't there an equal, if even greater burden (given the precautionary principle, and lessons like the one Megan just detailed) to also PROVE that no harm -- or even a net overall benefit -- will result?
I'm curious what such proof would look like.
On the bit above about zero-sum games: Though most such conversations are private (some are in e-mail, some are in person) I was reminded of my attempt to actually discuss the economics of healthcare with "Christian Democrat."
I'd point to that result as, well, a bit more extreme in degree, but not at all unusual in character. When I laid out what seemed to me a reasonably coherent case that waste would far outstrip savings from profits, the evidence itself was ignored. Instead, I was allegedly a "lobbyist" (who was apparently so stupid he thought a zero-comment blog was an opinion leader of some sort). So there was much accusing and banning and claiming to know malevolent motives, etc.
That's not a failure to be able to comprehend the argument. That's a sign the argument was, if anything a bit too clear, and that an emotional reaction resulted. You and I usually try to change our minds when that happens, or at least modify our position to use better arguments, so that sort of "non-linear" response isn't something we tend to think of, because we don't usually go there instead of considering the evidence. (Sometimes, admittedly, I react that way when I think the evidence ISN'T being engaged, but that's not quite the same.)
But it happens rather frequently, in my experience.
Tim: Nobody was arguing that Saddam was a direct, immanent threat to the people of the US, so it's a bit odd, no?
Ryan: Supposedly, many people were led to believe that Saddam was behind 9-11. At least, that's the narrative that I heard at the start of Iraq war II.
Yes indeed! I remember hearing that over and over, and reading it in newspaper articles, etc. Yet ask for evidence of where the Bush administion offered that assertion, and all I heard was an answer which boiled down to little more than "mind control" -- some random excerpted statement or another (out of thousands, natch) was supposed to have subtle keywords or something which carried double meaning.
I can understand why random, everyday people might have drawn that conclusion. And in fact, there's a good bit of post-hoc evidence that Saddam was quite a lot more cozy with al Qaeda than anyone thought at the time. But, rightly or wrongly, it didn't have much to do with the administration's actual case.
Take the anthrax attacks, which you just mentioned: Did you read the recent WSJ editorial I posted the link to? The anthrax was, according to the author, weaponized in a manner which would require a well-funded, multi-discipline, coorindated effort -- the sort of thing a well-funded and technologically ept government, not a lone researcher, would be able to pull off.
There's probably a limited number of answers to such questions and, at the time, it was rather reasonable, giving thinking on Iraq's WMD desires and our lack of detailed knowledge on each program, to figure Iraq very highly among possible suspects.
Again, that's a conclusion a thinking person might draw from the evidence itself (read the WSJ editorial to see what I mean) -- so it's a bid odd we'd have to draw the conclusion that "the administration" brainwashed us into thinking that. (Especially since their FBI did everything possible, apparently, to encourage us to think the exact opposite way.)
I'm curious what such proof would look like.
Well, again, the question could be asked either way. How do you prove sum total harm? Doesn't look, as far as I can see at the moment, any easier or harder than proving a sum total benefit. Each side has to consider all the same pros and cons and prove the ones they prefer, and dismiss or refute the ones which argue against their position.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Notes from Today |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Persuasion Though Fear and Intimidation »
|
This form of argument only succeeds if there is a particular threshold where damage no longer matters. For example, I might wish to take my cell phone in the water, but its not a problem if it's already completely ceased to function because I dropped it. However, no such argument can be sustained in the examples above: Just as you can always feel a greater level of pain while conscious, the degree of harm to families can also be increased indefinitely.
Implicit in the 'gay marriage' argument is that gay marriage will harm society. Possibly, but many advocates of such a stance tend to be weak on demonstrating such harm (unless you consider a reduction in population a 'harm.') I could also understand the slippery slope argument that legalizing gay marriage would hurt the ability of churches to hire who they chose and to preach their message. However the inherant assumption in this argument seems to be is that same sex unions are of vastly inferior quality to heterosexual unions. That may or may not be true (especially with male-male unions), but most people I've heard arguing for such a stance don't make a good argument for said harm.
The same result could be achieved by airing up our tires fully and keeping our cars perfectly tuned.
IIRC, Obama's answer was in response to what people could do as individuals. Obama compared it to drilling to emphasize the importance of the measure. Of course, I don't think the comparison is accurate. Also, one of the reasons that people don't inflate their tires too much, aside from laziness, is that doing so reduces the tire's contact surface, reducing control of the vehicle.
Underinflated tires are a must in snow, since they 'pop' the impacted snow out of the treds.
Fallacy: Saddam wasn't a threat to us!
That's not a fallacious argument if it's in response to a claim that Saddam was a direct threat to us, which many people did seem to believe prior to Iraq. I'm not saying it's true or false. Just that it's not automatically fallacious in that context (though it may or may not be true.)
Fallacy: We went into Iraq for US interests!
Well, if the opposing argument was "We went into Iraq for US interests, but liberating Iraqis was a sufficient justification for the move." I could agree that the previous argument was fallacious.
But I've never heard anyone make such an argument.
I suppose the underlying issue there is whether or not the war has made Iraqis better off. I'd suspect that most supporters say 'yes' and most opponents say 'no.'
I can see both sides for the pro and anti war arguments, and don't honestly know what the best course would have been (though resent a bit how it was sold to the US public.)
Savvy observers will note this is the exact opposite of the previous fallacy. There, we heard we shouldn't have gone into Iraq because they hadn't attacked or harmed us personally. In this case, we hear that we shouldn't have gone in because we would derive benefit from doing so.
I don't see this as contradictory (assuming the view that Iraq had not threatened the US, which could be shown false.) People are allowed to use
force to defend themselves or others. They are not allowed to use force to pursue purely economic goals.
And it's probably true that tax breaks help the rich: but why don't most Democrats seem to care at all whether they help the poor, too?
I think that's because of another fallacy; there's only one pie to be split so many ways. It cannot be grown or shrunk. In other words; economics is viewed as a zero sum game.
While I'm not a fan of tacitly accepting illegal immigration, the whole "They're stealing our jobs" is another example of this view. Cheap labor can create more jobs rather than using them like a scarce resource (though it does tend to undermine mechanization.)
The % of people working as farmers is a fraction of what it was 200 years ago, but we don't have 70% unemployment.
Posted by: Ryan W. on August 7, 2008 02:13 PM