Childishness

Whatever one’s position on the desirability or plausibility of government funded health insurance, this remark is just plain childish:

>About one thing, Hillary Clinton is, remarkably, both clear and opaque: Jefferson is anachronistic. “We can talk all we want about freedom and opportunity, about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but what does all that mean to a mother or father who can’t take a sick child to the doctor?” Well, okay, what does “all that” mean to someone stuck in congested traffic? Or annoyed by the price of cable television? What does Mrs. Clinton mean?

One can always make this kind of fundamentally crappy, not to mention dishonest, argument. For anyone’s view x, replace it with something manifestly different, then claim they are also arguing for that different thing. For those of you playing along at home, try this out on your friends. See if it works.

3 thoughts on “Childishness”

  1. Can this argument really be considered a straw man, as it is not simply attacking a weakened version of Mrs. Clinton’s view, but one altogether unrelated?

    “Jefferson is anachronistic”

    She is somehow suggesting that the principles of the Declaration of Independence are dated?

    “We can talk all we want about freedom and opportunity, about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but what does all that mean to a mother or father who can’t take a sick child to the doctor?”

    Clearly the subjects of that sentence are those that would speak of those lofty principles and neglect the health status of American’s children. Can the man read?

    *As opposed to the principles themselves… Might this be a nonsequitur?

  2. I think Senator Clinton’s been talking to Lugones. What good is freedom in name if one is not free to execute the conclusions of one’s practical syllogisms?

  3. Jeremy I think you’re intuitions are right, although Mrs. Clinton likely wouldn’t claim Lugones’s support. Steven, a “non sequitur” is a general term for a fallacy–some use it to cover unidentifiable but problematic arguments (some use “ignoratio elenchi”) this way. But you’re correct to point out the sheer silliness of Will’s point. I stuck it under “straw man” for its shallow understanding of Clinton’s claim about freedom. It certainly has some odor of the red herring, however.

Comments are closed.