First, the term "circular argument" refers to covertly assuming what is, in fact, in contention, in other words, arguing in circles. That is what you are doing. You are in essence saying "it is a weapon, therefore it is a weapon." You are not making any real argument against my distinction, you are trying to blow it off so that, like Humpty Dumpty, words mean whatever you say they mean.
Second, as to my "tactics": if I did not think that it was a crucial distinction, I would not bring it up. It is not semantics to say that the US was deliberately engaging in chemical warfare, it is a serious charge, and therefore it is not semantics to say that, in fact, Agent Orange is not a chemical weapon. That is not getting away from the point, that IS the point.
It may irresponsible to dump something like Agent Orange without regard to who might be standing on the ground below, but it was not an anti- personnel device, it was a defoliant........ |
