Quote:
Originally posted by smooth
It's called a red herring
A straw man is when one builds a weak caricature of the opponents argument and argues against that instead of the stronger point the opponent actually made.
Anyway, I doubt the "anti-war crowd" is excusing political bribery, even if the motivation fits in with their bias against invasion. It appears they are using similar arguments conservatives have been leveling at their position throughout the duration of this fiasco.
Interestingly, most anti-war folks I know were against all interested parties--not just the US. Of course they are going to align themselves with an entity with enough clout to actually stand up against the US and UK, I don't see what is distressing you about that so much.
Aligning oneself with a group with enough power to support one's cause doesn't imply agreement with all acts of the entity, right? After all, that has been the rationale from the conservative side for some time.
|
You are right about the argument being a red herring and not a straw man.
My appologies.
As to the rest, it seems you are making the same argument: because conservatives do it, it must be ok for liberals.
I'll remember that.
I'll also remember what you've said about aligning yourself without necessarily agreeing with everything that entity espouses.
My own view is simplistic and perhaps even quaint to the modern, forward thinking, 21st century intellectual: Two wrongs don't make a right.