Theocratic authoritarians deserve the same fate as any other authoritarian. Hopefully a swift drop onto a meat hook.
Political Humor
Welcome to Political Humor!
Rules:
- Be excellent to each other.
- No harassment.
- No sexism, racism or bigotry.
- All arguments should be made in good faith.
- No misinformation. Be prepared to back up your factual claims with evidence.
- All posts should relate to politics and be of a humorous nature.
- No bots, spam or self-promotion.
- If you want to run a bot, ask first.
- Site wide rules apply.
- Have fun.
I hope someone has the guts to bring this up at the Supreme Court hearing (if there is one).
I am hoping for years....
The last potatoe in the bag that just doesn't look right and rubbery.
This is known as a Tu Quoque fallacy.
I'm not speaking to the in/validity of her underlying whatever. I'm speaking to this form of logical fallacy.
If we're being pedantic, you're approaching the fallacy fallacy, which is when you dismiss a point for being argued with a fallacy instead of addressing the point, and this isn't saying anything about the argument she's making. It's just pointing out hypocrisy. So no fallacy fallacy and no ad hominem.
No one has said gay marriage should be legal because this woman's a hypocrite, or that she's wrong because of that.
At best this is an insult. It's not even libel because it's just the truth.
Further, questioning the character of the person making the argument isn't always invalid. It's not a solid argument in it's entirety but "I find her argument uncompelling because her behavior is inconsistent with a belief in her own argument, and furthermore her behavior casts doubt as to her credibility and reliability as a good faith participant in this discussion".
It's not that her argument is wrong because of her past, it's that it's not worth consideration.
Who looked at her and said “I wanna marry that!”
Still looks like Benjamin Franklin to me.
Obviously her husbands weren't wowed by her appearance. She must have a heck of a personality.