|
In my post I said that I am not Laotian, Cambodian, or Thai, and do not feel a need to go to war for those countries. I also said that we could be forever fighting everywhere we perceived "freedom" to be at risk, including Africa, and that I didn't advocate that either. Then you drew a "logical conclusion" that I would surrender America to avoid a war. But why is that the logical conclusion? The logical conclusion is that I am for defending America, and not intervening everywhere where "freedom" might be threatened. I also would favor defending nations of very great strategic importance to us (Canada, England, Kuwait are obvious examples; not in this category--Somalia, Taiwan, Tibet, etc.). You adopt a form of argument called reductio ad absurdum. This method of arguing involves taking a small snippet of what someone said, and drawing the most extreme conclusion you can muster from it. Then you say this is the "logical conclusion" of the other person's argument. People do this when they don't want to, or can't, address the central argument--it's a form of diversion. You don't have arguments that are very solid on why we should die for Taiwan, so you assert that I must also be for surrendering Minneapolis to the Russians. Sorry, but this won't wash. |
