re: #519 Charles

Mr. Johnson,

Again, I appreciate your response.

Contrary to your claim, I do understand and recognize a straw man argument. I dare say that you may be the one who fails to understand the term. The straw man fallacy occurs when one misrepresents a position, typically an opponent’s position. In short, your application of the straw man fallacy arises from your misrepresentation of a group, “the Right,’ through generalization derived from grievances specific to individuals.

Just to be clear: you claim (correctly, I think) that persons A, B, C, et al. committed certain offenses (X, Y, Z, et al.) with which you do not wish to be associated. However, you generalize this to a group (i.e., you misrepresent a group) as justification for parting with that group. Your employment of the straw man is not with respect to the individuals you cite, but rather it lies with the generalization (i.e., with respect to the group) that you derive, thus forming the justification for your parting with the group.

In order to demonstrate that you have not, in fact, misrepresented the group, you must demonstrate that the offenses are, in fact, generalizable to all members of that group. In other words, you must demonstrate that the characteristics of the subset that you indict apply to the entire set; if not, you have misrepresented the set.

Again, I do not take issue with your reluctance to be associated with “the Right.” I just find it odd that your argument rests on the same fallacy which you accuse Prager of committing and for which you criticize him.

As you yourself wrote, your posts over 2009 have amply demonstrated your complaints of individual malfeasance. Even your post, “Why I Parted with the Right,” could be forgiven for the application of a fallacy—it was merely your justification for your choice. However, accusing Prager of committing the straw man argument and criticizing him for it when this is the very basis for your choice is, at best, disingenuous (even if the straw man is Prager’s sole device).