But Lamont hasn't fallen into this trap. The author proffers no evidence that he or his campaign has.
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.
Well mag, why is the writer warning Lamont not to do what he isn't doing?
I assume you don't poison dogs with antifreeze. Fair enough, right? But there are people in Pittsburgh who DO poison dogs with antifreeze!
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.
I wasn't aware that Holocaust denial was a left/right issue.
Magodesky, you're off topic again
you failed to include this important contextual information:
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.
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?
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.
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]
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?
magodesky: Comparing Lamont's relationship with random bloggers to Mel Gibson's relationship with his father is a little absurd.
Unless there's a very specific connection, it's absurd to hold Lamont responsible for everything that every person who supports him says.
If there is no reason to suspect they might do it, there is no reason to warn them not too.
*wonders what the latin for 'argument from complete obliviousness' is*
« 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
Buy a Shirt