3 ms·
That's not what he meant when he said it though. After characterizing the supporters of prohibition as drooling religious fanatics, he made some pretty good poi
by Udo 14y ago
That's not what he meant when he said it though. After characterizing the supporters of prohibition as drooling religious fanatics, he made some pretty good points about the judicious use of alcohol as a social and physiological enhancer.
He was acknowledging that alcohol could be used for good or for bad things, and he was (maybe from our perspective only) making a good point about the use of polemic, misleading, and ridiculously overblown rhetorics. His was a reasonable argument, a witty meta argument, and a biting satirical observation all at the same time.
The point is, "Soggy" wasn't really undecided on the issue. Hell yeah, I'd vote for that guy.
- addlepate 14y agoRight. Which is why it's so weird to call this a fallacy. It does not strike me as fallacious.
- illuminate 14y ago"After characterizing the supporters of prohibition as drooling religious fanatics" But they wouldn't see that characterization as inapt, or insulting, so it's not a very strong or brave position to take.