Can you analyze Rand Paul's assertion without fallacy?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Paul said in a recent fund-raising email that I responded to with a donation "The lesson we should all be taking away from this is not “My political opponents should not be able to spy on me without a warrant.” The lesson should be that “NO ONE should be allowed to spy without a warrant.”
Since the point was made wrt Senate's debating about the continuation of FISA law, does Rand strike a chord that resonates with logic?
Does it matter in the real world? Will a single voice drown out the apparent trading of tu quoque that seems to be going on here?
Answers
1The complaint from the right is the charge that the FISA warrants were issued improperly because of political motivations. The FBI defense centers on the evidence that there was no political motivation behind the warrants. He is saying that defense is invalid because political motivation should not be the determining factor (at least that's what I think he is saying).
But there are two things that strike me in this statement. First, he is admitting that there was no political motivation, which has been, despite his protests, the prime complaint of those attacking the FBI investigation. This is definitely moving the goalposts. Second, he is implying there was spying going on without a warrant, but the whole complaint from the right is about a warrant that was issued. This is also a strawman, or a red herring.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course