(no subject)

[theweaselking]

" See, we’re not fighting to have Christians executed. We’re not fighting to have Christians arrested. We’re not fighting to have forceful conversion of Christians. We’re not fighting to have Christians fired. We’re not fighting to break up Christian marriages. We’re not fighting to have anti-Christian bigotry championed in schools. We’re not fighting to have Christian kids bullied to the point of suicide. We’re not fighting to get anything FROM Christians or to do anything TO Christians. We have no vested interest in fighting Christianity – only in defending ourselves AGAINST it.

This is a war – but it isn’t two sides attacking each other. It’s one side constantly attacking and the other side constantly defending."

Comments

[graethorne.livejournal.com]

Quite.

[silmaril.livejournal.com]

What was the formal name of the fallacy he's quoting? You know, the one about there being "two sides to this war" being a red herring? Something about the false middle, it's just not clicking in my head...

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I think you mean "excluded middle".

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

Not quite excluded middle. That would be suggesting I think there IS a middle ground, while I'm outright denying that the middle ground is acceptable.

This is more the "Argument to middle ground" or "false compromise" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation and, relatedly, "false balance" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance (the need to present both sides in this war as equally to blame or equally valid, despite one side doing the attacking).

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I wasn't suggesting that there was a middle ground. Only that she was thinking of "excluded middle".

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

That's what I mean :) the fallacy she's thinking of isn't really the one I'm invoking. Or not intentionally anyway