AJ Denny said:
If you won't to point out whats wrong with the article, by all means feel
free to do so. But it still seems fine to me. And Slate usually has a pretty
good nose for BS anyway. If it was as bad as you suggest, they wouldn't use
it.
Absolutely. First, a definition:
False Dilemma Falacy
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/fd.htm
A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while
in reality there
are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the
"or" operator.
Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common
instance
of this fallacy.
Now, consider a sample of Hitchens' statements:
1) Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or
overwhelming economic interest), or they do not.
[Perhaps they can influence U.S. policy.]
2) As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed
Bush's removal of it, or they did not.
3) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at
all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few.
[There is no inconsistency in believing that no troops should've been
sent,
but if you're going to send them anyway, you better do it right.]
4) President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What
is that about, by the way? Isn't he supposed to be an unceasing
planner for future aggressive wars?)
[In other words, Bush can be either a guy who takes a lot of vacations
or an unceasing planner of future agressions, but not both. Why not?
And BTW,
does Moore actually state Bush, personally, is an unceasing planner of
future
aggressions?]
5) More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his
chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for
seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many
are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a
Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself.
But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's
roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael
Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a
hectic, crazed impulse.
[In other words, there are only two choices: Bush could've sat there
for 7 minutes, or he could've leapt from his stool like a
maniac.Certainly
other presidents would not have done any better. Yeah, right.]
There's clearly a pattern of logical fallacies, which are hard to
spot, and therefore impress most readers. Most of the rest of the
article can be summed up as a diatribe of superfluous name-calling.
In fairness, the least weak point (which Hitchens is not the first to
bring up) is that Richard Clarke has taken responsibility for the
Saudi Flights. Richard Clarke was working for the White House when he
did that, so the White House is clearly not off the hook. The fact
that Richard Clarke was later critical of the administration doesn't
undo anything really. Richard Clark at least apologized.
Finally, I would note that the article is titled "The Lies of
Michael Moore" and yet, surprisingly, there article does not point
out a single clear-cut lie in Moore's movie. It's actually easier
to make a case for the lies of Hitchens (starting with the title of
his article.)
--Joe
