|
On the other hand, anyone who uses accusations of racism as a distraction from the actual argument is using a tired old tactic that, while sometimes effictive, is logically a fallacy.
"Do you think the KKK has a right to march through a Jewish town to show their hatred?"
"Yes"
This situation is different, because it involves free speech and not property ownership. That is Rand Paul's fallacy. But someone could quite easily call a person who said "yes" in this situation a racist as well. And why not? It makes just as much sense.
Rand Paul very well could be racist, but this doesn't "prove" it. It just "proves" he's an insane libertarian who wants the government out of everything, to the extent that is obviously harmful to society.
I understand why people are quick to label him with such a thing, because it is a great way to destroy a person's credibility. But it's bad argumentation and really just stupid.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore