|
|||
But neither Hitchens nor anyone else can produce the name of a single prominent "liberal"—as opposed to a radical literary figure or European intellectual—who actually opposes military action against Osama Bin Laden. So when someone like me mentions, for instance, Chomsky then Weisberg dismisses him as a crank. When I mention Oliver Stone, Weisberg says "No, he's a literary figure." This is what is known as the No True Scotsman fallacy; it's a form of victory by definition. He's dynamically altering the definition of "Liberal" on the fly to exclude anyone who does oppose the war, and by so doing prevents anyone from bringing up a counterexample. His argument is tautological because he gets to define what a "liberal" is, and his definition is "left wing people who don't oppose the war". It's also meaningless because his use of the term no longer coincides with the normal usage. He's creating his own language, and it isn't English anymore (though it sounds a lot like it) The rest of us think that Chomsky and Stone are liberals. If Weisberg doesn't like being associated with them, he better go talk to them and try to convince them to change. (discuss) Tim Blair points out this classic example of a liberal who opposed the war and, in late October, declared it a failure. |
|||
