SubscribeBut Lamont hasn't fallen into this trap. The author proffers no evidence that he or his campaign has.But Davis never claimed that they had. He says that they shouldn't. That's a very different thing. And in fact, right before the section that you quoted, Davis even says, "Moreover, the support he gets from these haters should not be attributed to Mr. Lamont--nor should he be blamed for their extremism, bigotry and intolerance. But he ought to denounce them."
It's not that different at all. The thinly veiled implication here is that if Lamont doesn't denounce them, he'll be tarred as being just as bad as them.Thank you for explaining what Davis meant to say. Because that's not at all indicative of a straw man.
Well mag, why is the writer warning Lamont not to do what he isn't doing?Why would you warn somebody not to do something after he's already done it? A warning, by definition, comes before the act in question.
I assume you don't poison dogs with antifreeze. Fair enough, right? But there are people in Pittsburgh who DO poison dogs with antifreeze!That's really a bad analogy. For one thing, the hateful commentary that Davis is talking about is hardly an isolated incident. This isn't just one or two crazy people that can simply be ignored. Over the past 3-4 years, there's been a growing trend of increasingly hate-filled vitriol on the left. The comments listed in Davis' article are representative of the sort of talk that has become downright commonplace. And the Connecticut race has been a particularly heated one. So no, I don't think it's inappropriate to warn Lamont against falling into that trap. And I think it would be a good idea for leaders on both the left and the right to denounce the people in their respective parties who engage in such rhetoric.
Magodesky and all other people from around Pittsburgh should not fall into the trap of poisoning dogs with antifreeze, as some people from Pittsburgh do.
Do you get it now?
Sure, that's what I'd want my senator to spend his time doing, denouncing individual blog comments.Right, because obviously it's impossible for someone to comment on a trend without talking about every single individual case that makes up that trend. Also, I don't want my senator to be wasting his time denouncing individual racists. So obviously, it was wrong for political leaders to publicly denounce racism against Arabs following 9/11. They should have just continued going about their business and hoped for the best.
I wasn't aware that Holocaust denial was a left/right issue.Who said that it was? I'm just pointing out that people on the left have no problem with using the exact same argument that they now claim to be illogical whenever it suits their purposes.
Magodesky, you're off topic againI'm talking about an article linked to in the original post. How exactly can that be interpreted as "off topic?"
you failed to include this important contextual information:I'm sorry. I must have mistaken this for an open dialogue. I didn't realize that you just wanted to answer your own questions. By all means, don't let me get between you and your soapbox.
I'll tell you why - because by issuing the warning, he builds the association, in the minds of readers, that Lamont has something to do with this "liberal McCarthyism".
You and I both know that rational people do not go around warning others against unethical or immoral behaviors unless these others have demonstrated a tendency for behavior of that sort.That's not always necessarily the case. It's not always about the personal behavior of the person in question. It could be a matter of the situation. My mom tells me to be careful every time she sees me get in the car. Not because she's worried about my driving ability. It's simply because driving is an inherently dangerous situation.
Do you think that maybe the writer had an agenda in writing this? Like maybe his boss is running for the senate or something? And he wants to discredit his opponent?Ahem.
I'd like to end on a positive note, so congratulations on learning the term "straw man" today. I'm sure your friends will think you a right smart feller once you use it in their company.I never really considered it all that impressive, and I seriously doubt my friends would either. But I suppose everything is relative. After all, I wouldn't want to disillusion you just because I happened to already be familiar with the term. If it's new to you, that's all that matters. So I'm glad that you, at least, learned something new.
The point, magodesky, is that he's saying that Lamont should be denouncing people, some of whom he names, not a trend. In fact, the word trend doesn't even appear once in the article. [/can't believe I have to explain this shit]The only thing sadder than this argument is the fact that you actually believe it to make sense. I'm going to try one more time to explain this to you. I'll go as slowly as I can because I know that you have a history of not being able to understand basic English.
Comparing this kind of nearly anonymous ranting to Rush Limbaugh (audience: in the millions) and Ann Coulter (audience: in the millions) is the work of a useful idiot, and I'm sure the Journal editors were cackling in their beers when they received it. But still, since he insists, here it is: I denounce all crackpots everywhere. Happy, Lanny?Personally, I'm not sure owning the 'useful idiot' label is really any better than the 'crackpot' one.
magodesky: Comparing Lamont's relationship with random bloggers to Mel Gibson's relationship with his father is a little absurd.I think you misunderstand my point. Allow me to clarify.
Unless there's a very specific connection, it's absurd to hold Lamont responsible for everything that every person who supports him says.I'm not saying that he is responsible. And neither, by the way, is Davis. However, the fact is that there has been quite a bit of hatred coming from the left during this campaign. And as someone who currently has quite a bit of influence in the Democratic Party, it probably would be a good idea for him to publicly denounce the kind of people that Davis is talking about.
If there is no reason to suspect they might do it, there is no reason to warn them not too.If someone's in politics, there's plenty of reason to suspect that they would engage in hateful rhetoric.
*wonders what the latin for 'argument from complete obliviousness' is*If anyone would have heard that phrase often enough to know, I was sure it would have been you, boaz. But honestly, if you have to continuously be dense, do you think you could at least do it without all the snarky comments? It might help.
« Older So we all have our favourite question site. And we... | Sex in prehispanic times.... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by mk1gti at 10:07 AM on August 14, 2006