A Facebook friend posted the above dishonest, fallacy and false-fact riddled meme as if it was discovered truth. I broke my recent rule of not responding to such garbage by saying, as nicely as I could, “You know, re-posting illogical appeals to emotion like this doesn’t help.” I almost wrote, “I know you’re smarter than this. Why did you post it?” I then listed a few of the logical and factual disconnects in the screed, but didn’t have the energy to be thorough.
I’m hoping one of you does. I think I count 14 factual and logical fallacies, but there may be more. This is how social media makes the public dumber and makes productive discourse impossible.
Another challenge: which is the most ludicrous of those statements? My vote, I think, goes to “If people being executed in the street is fine, it was never about pro-life.” It’s hard to make dumber statement than that.
Ethics Alarms 
Can’t “non sequitur” pretty much cover it?
Thank you, Jack, I am now 10% dumber from having read that meme.
Dear Jenny,
You can make strawmen of our principles all you want, and argue all day against them, but all that will gain you is a smug feeling and “likes” from your friends, and make absolutely no inroads with the MAGA crowd whatsoever. But I know that your entire intent is to make me waste my time answering you. So, perhaps foolishly, I will oblige.
To begin, a little groundwork. A dilemma is only a dilemma if you really only have the two options. If there is any other alternative, such argumentation falls apart. Second, if you are going to address our principles, maybe you should determine what those principles actually are. For example, being pro-Second Amendment is not about shooting people. It is about the right to bear arms against, especially, an overbearing, tyrannical government. Being pro-life does not mean that you believe that no one should die, ever. Third, in any given situation, there may be more than one principle in play, and to ignore that to score rhetorical points is arguing in bad faith. So let’s get into it.
Only a facile examination of the circumstances would equate Rittenhouse and Pretti. Yes, Rittenhouse fired a gun and killed. Pretti was killed by a fired gun. But Rittenhouse was defending a neighborhood against lawless rioters whereas Pretti was interfering with enforcement against lawless denizens of the neighborhood. Even the slightest deeper examination shows that support of Rittenhouse and support of ICE fall squarely under the same principle: defending the innocent from lawlessness. But you are right, neither instance was about the Second Amendment. We would support Rittenhouse had he defended himself with a lethal piece of hardtack, and we would support ICE if they inadvertently killed Pretti with a taser. The principle here, again, is fighting back against lawbreakers. Moreover, your dilemma fails. We can say that Pretti’s death was justified and not believe that he deserved to be killed. We could also accept a ruling against the ICE officers, that their use of lethal force against Pretti was completely unjustified. Our principles remain unchanged and your dilemma falls apart.
Comparing Good to January 6th seems to have, on the surface, a similarity of an unarmed rioter being shot dead. I am at least pleased that you acknowledge that the only person who died on January 6th was the unarmed Ashley Babbitt. But unfortunately, as is evidenced by the thousands of traffic fatalities every year, a vehicle can be a deadly weapon. But what about principles? We are absolutely in favor of the right to protest. We are also, very conditionally, in favor of a protest that, as a last resort, takes arms to overthrow a tyrannical government. We do not support directly interfering with officers in the course of their duty. Because at that point, we have left the realm of protest and entered into a realm of assault. And again, our justification for those very rare instances (cf April 1775) is based upon the clear and imminent threat posed by that which we protest. Protesting in favor of lawbreakers, and in this case, not just breakers of immigration laws, but also of laws against murder, rape, molestation, and abuse, does not rise to the level of taking action against law enforcement. However, I am pleased to state that like you, we find the January 6th riots reprehensible. On the other hand, that does mean that your dilemma, once again, breaks down.
Now for your next example, you do not even present a proper dilemma. A little boy in a bunny hat could be detained, and even detained by immigration enforcement agents without even touching our support of deporting illegal aliens. On the one hand, we would be properly outraged were this an abuse of power or some sort of malicious action by the officers involved. On the other hand, we could take a mere minute to research the details of the circumstances and realize that only a deliberate, gross twisting of the facts could oppose this situation with arresting illegal immigrants. Certainly, one of our principles here, which fits hand in glove with the pro-life principle we’ll address next, is the proper care of children. And frankly, we see the ICE agents taking better care of this particular boy than his parents. But if you are concerned about a boy, who is a legal citizen, being deported with his parents, I would also remind you that we would prefer children to stay with their parents if at all possible, because that is better for the child, unless further evidence shows the parents themselves are a danger to the child.
For your next case, we need to dredge a little deeper into an understanding of pro-life. Pro-life principles state that in the case of a conflict one does not have to meekly surrender his own life at the hands of an unjust aggressor. Just defense of life can, at times, require the use of lethal force. If someone is trying to kill me and the only way to stop that person is through the use of lethal force, I am justified in using that force as there is an innocent life, namely mine, that I am protecting. Now I know that nuance is the last thing you desire, because it doesn’t fit neatly into pithy slogans, but I might also point out that not every death is an execution. A murder of passion, death in a gang shootout, and being shot because you assaulted a law enforcement officer are not executions. Heat of the moment responses, split second decisions made entirely based upon the perceived risk in a highly hostile environment cannot be called executions. Actual executions require premeditation. Where we would agree with you is if we had evidence that said someone was deliberately and with forethought taken into the streets and shot in cold blood. We would be duly outraged. Anyone who is condemned to die should only be executed after all manner of due process has been exhausted. Pro-life principles do not condone the death of innocents. Nothing you have said here even begins to call that principle into question.
Now I would like to believe that I have adequately demonstrated that, contrary to your uncivil, insipid tripe, all our principles remain consistent and strong, but I also know that this was never about demonstrating inconsistencies in our principles. All this was about was to force me to spend time on the defensive, because accusations take very little effort, and defenses take a great deal of time. I will conclude with my own brief accusations.
You are on the side of lawlessness. You support rioting, looting, murdering, and raping if it destabilizes your opponents. Your only beef with Rittenhouse is that he was not useful to you. Your only care for Good and Pretti is that they were useful dupes you could turn into martyrs. Your support of power by any means necessary created the conditions that made Rittenhouse into a hero, and likewise sentenced Good and Pretti to death.
Aaaaaaaand I botched the Billy Madison quote…
Ditto…. both Chris and Bill.
Great job Ryan.
A guest post!