Legitimate Debate?

[jwoodie]

A common thread of argument in these forums is to defend one action, not on its merits but, by pointing out similar actions by others. For example, the current administration's scandals are often justified by pointing to the Watergate and Iran-Contra scandals of previous administrations. Although Watergate is similar in that it was done to benefit the President's reelection, Iran-Contra was done for the benefit of the Nicaraguan freedom fighters, whose aid had suddenly been withheld by Congress.

A. Do you believe that comparison to previous scandals is a legitimate defense?

B. Do you consider the motives behind these actions when evaluating them?

 

[Katzndogz]

No one has ever had a successful defense by saying it was done before so that's justification for them doing worse.

obama falls on his own.

 

[oldfart]

A common thread of argument in these forums is to defend one action, not on its merits but, by pointing out similar actions by others. For example, the current administration's scandals are often justified by pointing to the Watergate and Iran-Contra scandals of previous administrations. Although Watergate is similar in that it was done to benefit the President's reelection, Iran-Contra was done for the benefit of the Nicaraguan freedom fighters, whose aid had suddenly been withheld by Congress.

A. Do you believe that comparison to previous scandals is a legitimate defense?

B. Do you consider the motives behind these actions when evaluating them?

Comparison to earlier scandals is a logical fallacy and this type of argument can easily become an ad hominem as it is used to discredit a source. This is the non-legal equivalent of impeaching a witness by inconsistency in a position. It's an especially pernicious argument in economic controversy when an economist is accused of holding a contrary position decades ago. Personally I would disqualify any "expert" who did NOT change their analysis when facts and circumstances change.

Regarding motives, this also involves possible abuse when it degenerates into an ad hominem, but I think its fair game because on one level a policy must be judged by its success measured by its intended results.

That said, the "you guys did it too" argument is not very satisfying and I think should be avoided. The question should be "Is this a proper thing to do?". If the answer is yes, we need to find a way to stop doing it. If no, then we need to recognize that the other side will use the tactic when it is to their advantage. So should the Senate change its filibuster rules for executive branch and judicial nominations? You can argue either side, and it is fine as long as you don't switch positions with every change of administration.

 

[tipofthespear]

A common thread of argument in these forums is to defend one action, not on its merits but, by pointing out similar actions by others. For example, the current administration's scandals are often justified by pointing to the Watergate and Iran-Contra scandals of previous administrations. Although Watergate is similar in that it was done to benefit the President's reelection, Iran-Contra was done for the benefit of the Nicaraguan freedom fighters, whose aid had suddenly been withheld by Congress.

A. Do you believe that comparison to previous scandals is a legitimate defense?

B. Do you consider the motives behind these actions when evaluating them?

A. No.

B. Yes.