(no subject)

[ebonlock]

The Doughy Pantload actually made this argument on the subject of the Larry Craig debacle:

But I’d like someone to walk very slowly through the argument that it’s hypocritical to A) indulge in anonymous gay sex in seedy locations and B) oppose gay marriage. Last I checked, the common definition of hypocrisy involves saying one thing and doing another. Well, Craig wasn’t trying to marry anybody in stall #3 was he?

Do you suppose he does this on purpose? Is it some sort of weirdly ironic performance art? How can someone with this loose a grasp on rational thought do things like hold down a job, drive a car, tie his shoe laces? And why, in the name of all that's holy, does someone pay him to drool on his keyboard like this? It's like the people at National Review are determined to convince us all that there is no just and loving god, that life is inherently unfair, and that intelligence, talent and skill will always lose out to family connections amongst the aristocracy. If that is their goal I would have to say they've succeeded abundantly.

Comments

[chrisber.livejournal.com]

I'm sure there's a technical name for the logical fallacy of taking an extremely precise example and using it to deny the overall statement. Or maybe it's just called nit-picking.

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

I suspect there is a term for it. Of course one gets the feeling that Jonah must be "walked slowly" through most arguments at the best of times.