(May 19, 2013 at 8:41 am)A Theist Wrote: It's not Tu quoque if the hypocrisy fits, and it's a perfect fit for your side...
1. Yeah, actually it really is still tu quoque. One persons wrong isn't made right by another person's wrong. Didn't anybody ever teach you that as a kid?
2. No, you have't caught anything. Just saying otherwise and acting as if you have proven something is called the bare assertion fallacy.
Quote:W Bush served in the Texas Air National Guard and was Honorably discharged...
Really, we're going to re-litigate this?
W Bush used his family's influence to get into the national guard so he could enjoy a safe, cushy assignment while avoiding the draft and having to go to Vietnam. This is not disputed by anyone. Even if he did serve and was not AWOL, it's beside the point. It still remains true that Bush cheered on the Vietnam War and then ran and hid in the National Guard.
Ergo, chickenhawk.
Quote:he had no conscientious objections to committing others in a war that we had no business being involved in, especially when it wasn't his ass in the line of fire...
Still waiting for you to prove that Kosovo = Vietnam.
You realize that not all wars are the same, right?
You realize that it's possible to protest one bad war and, in later years, advocate for another war and not be inconsistent, yes?
For example:
Our involvement in WWII: good
Our involvement in Vietnam: bad
So if someone were to ever hypothetically say to someone else "You were in favor of getting into WWII but now you're against the Vietnam War? You're contradicting yourself!" That would not be a valid argument because it's consistent to say "I'm in favor of our involvement in this war but not that war."
With me so far? I'm trying not to use big words per Crate's advice.
OK, so, going really slow here for you, let me map out first W's hypocrisy:
1. Person A cheered on war X
2. Person A wouldn't serve in war X
3. Ergo person A is a chicken hawk
Now, with your "both-sides-do-it" justification for W, Cheney, et al. and why it fails
1. Person B was against war X
2. Person B wouldn't serve in war X
3. Person B later advocated a different war, Y
4. Ergo it doesn't follow that person B is a chicken hawk.
Going back to my WWII/Vietnam contrast, it's not necessarily inconsistent to be in favor of one while being against another. Not all wars are the same.
Your challenge now, to repeat from my previous post which you ignored (just like how you twice ignored my main question from the OP) is to prove that Kosovo War = Vietnam War.
Good luck.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
