![]() ![]() (Note I'm not arguing any of the cases above, merely using them as examples. So if the opponent is claiming the US camps worth some international approbation, then by this yardstick, they pretty much prove the point that the Chinese camps are worthy of a good deal more. Finally, the US internees are about 80,000 in number currently (and 40 people in Guantanamo), vs. In contrast the US camps are only for non-citizen potential immigrants (a class with less legal status, if arguably no less moral status), 2) who cannot labor, 3) until their place in an input queue is reached, 4) for anyone no matter race or politics who comes across the southern border, 5) in some large part due to the fact emergency funding has not been forthcoming, 6) and upon exiting will never again find themselves in. Uighur re-education camps, unlike the US border camps, 1) imprison only citizens, 2) forcing labor, 3) until custodial whim is met, 4) of people selected for politics and ethnicity, 5) where budgetary factors played no role in incarceration, 6) where internees may find themselves returned time and time again. Unlike the straw man, which involves a distortion of the other party's position, the red herring is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, diversionary tactic. Instead the US side can benefit from you handing them this yardstick. As an informal fallacy, the red herring falls into a broad class of relevance fallacies. (If it wasn't the US speaking, but say France, speaking, then it's not hypocritical, but just a red herring.) Since it is the US speaking in your example, you could say it is being hypocritical, but to mention that would be ad hominem. says that China should be punished for its human right violations, then a valid argument against it would be "Guantanamo Bay" and "the migrant detention centers" for which the U.S. Is that the punishment you're calling for for GW? Or in contrast, if you think GW should get a pass for 20 million purposeful deletions, perhaps HRC's lawyers accidentally deleting 30,000 should likewise get a pass?įor instance, if the U.S. What should we do if it instead were 20 million? And it wasn't just her own emails but those of most of the entire administration? Hear out what punishment they'd suggest in that case. Instead, you can accept the yardstick they're handing you: 30,000 accidental deletions are enough to jail? Fair enough. ![]() Furthermore that was done not as a mistake but purposefully.Īt this point, you don't win the argument by saying merely that the opponent is hypocritical. ![]() Bush administration, deleted possibly 20 million emails. That's hypocritical when her predecessors as Secretary of State, Rice and Powell, together with the entire G. However, their statement, instead of hypocrisy, might also be viewable as an admission of of a cultural valuation, which can then be used against them.Įxample: A Republican says Hillary should go to jail because she deleted 30,000 emails. Attacking your opponent for hypocrisy is, at its base, attacking your partner, which is the very definition ad hominem and thus a well-known fallacy. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |