i’m sure i could try to think of objective stuff that make the comparison invalid (one person commiting murders presumably for profit through extortion can’t really be justified by personal experiences of the sniper when growing up; huge simplification i know), but i would like to try to think of it in more general terms.
can anyone else offer their opinion on why this comparison is weak? any opinions that justify rush’s stance are welcome also.
sorry for the word salad, i had to take some ephedrine today.
I don’t see the point in Limbaugh’s essay (and the repeated pictures of him are creepy in a Saddam-esque kind of way). Who is campaigning for the sniper’s rights, or suporting him in his cause? It may be comforting to dismiss anyone who challenges the status quo because they feel (rightly or wrongly) that they’ve been screwed by the system by ridiculing them as a bunch of miscreants, but I can’t think of anyone (sane) who views a methodical killer and extortionist as sympathetic. Comparing civil-rights marchers to some imaginary pro-sniper group is bizarre, to say the least.
When the sniper is eventually caught, Rush will probably the fact that he gets a court-appointed attorney as a symbol of criminal justice favouring the criminal (i.e. “This psycho shoots 12 people and he gets a free attorney and free room and board while in jail?! What have the liberals done to our once-proud justice system? etc etc”), but that’s just Rush being Rush.
I have to admit that the weight loss suits him, though.
in my opinion, he’s just trying to discredit opposing opinion by making it seem foolish.
i’m actually arguing about this article on a video game forum (ppl like to talk about politics), and i’m just having a problem expressing clearly why the comparison doesn’t mean much.
all i know is that the article lacks perspective if rush really equates things the way he does in the article. all i can say is that it feels wrong.
If you’re looking for the logical flaw, thats easy. It’s a classic straw man, he’s attacking a viewpoint that absolutely nobody has.
In order for the comparison to be valid, Germany (or the EU) would have to have been killing people at random, or, perhaps to better suit the metaphor, randomly attacking targets with military force (or perhaps in Rush’s view even randomly placing protectionist tariffs). But they haven’t done that, have they? So where’s the comparison? A terrorist cell might be another matter, and I think here the comparison could be valid, depending on the specifics. But then, I haven’t heard anyone with anything close to a mainstream left or democrat viewpoint say that we should appease terrorists which have attacked the US diretly. Straw man again.
No, he hasn’t. Why isn’t the comparison valid? Easy. Look at the score card: Sniper 11, Saddam 0. Saddam hasn’t even fired a shot.
In fact, I could easily see turning this argument around and asking Rush: Does your desire to disarm Iraq mean you are now pro gun control?
tourbot’s critique is correct, Limbaugh is attacking an idea that no one has presented.
For a little more argumentative ammunition, check out this article by William Saletan on Slate. It was written last September 20[sup]th[/sup] on a similar theme, people who questioned how our actions provoked the terrorist attacks on the 11[sup]th[/sup].
He says we ask the question in part as a means of regaining control over the situation, but that it’s an illusion to seek control that way. He uses the analogy of a rat in an experiment. The rat learns which lever gives food and which gives an electric shock. But even if he learns how to avoid the shocks, the rat is not in control of the experiment.
It’s not an open and shut case, to be sure, but it’s more compelling than the Limbaugh article.