Posted by
Juwar74 on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:05:35 PM
One rhetorical technique that conservative talking heads use to muddy an argument is something called "straw man." It is the technique of con-men. Fox News base a good portion of its reporting style on it.
Straw man is considered one of the most subtle of logical fallacies. It is so subtle that the average person would not be able to detect its rhetorical absurdity. But to the more focused mind, a straw man can be seen a mile away.
See if you can find the flaw in Sean Hannity's argument in this imaginary discussion between himself and a weak and self-proclaimed liberal, the type of liberal he seems to always have on either of his shows.
Weak Liberal: We should make marijuana legal. It has been proven to...
Hannity: Hold it, hold it, I'm going to have to stop you right there. First of all, any society with unrestricted access to drugs loses its work ethic. Second, what is it saying to our youth? That it's okay to go for instant gratification.
Weak Liberal: That's just ridiculous.
Hannity: It's not ridiculous. Look at all the crime associated with these drugs. In the inner city, in Appalachia, in our suburbs, and on and on and on.
Weak Liberal: You're focusing on the negative. What about the positives? Marijuana has been proven to help with glaucoma, help relieve pain in cancer victims?
Hannity: So what! Cocaine has positive effects too! Does that mean we should make that legal? The drug problem in this country is already out of control, and just because marijuana benefits the few does not negate the fact that its overall effects is detrimental to families and society at large.
Weak Liberal: Well, uh, uh...You're not, uh, uh, thinking things through...
Hannity: You're not thinking things through! You just want my America to be a "feel good, do good, anything goes." And I won't have it. But thanks for coming in though...Up next..."
I guess I could tell you why Hannity's argument is absurd. But I rather not. I rather leave it up to a game. Tell me why Hannity's argument is so full of holes. Leave your answer in the comments. ; )