Monday, April 12, 2010

Lieberman falls back on an old canard

Dropping 'Islamic extremism' term is 'Orwellian and counterproductive'

“The failure to identify our enemy for what it is, violent Islamist extremism, is offensive….”

Why does he feel the need to complain about this policy on purely subjective grounds?

Criticisms of objective reality based on purely subjective criteria are fundamentally invalid.

Anything can be “offensive” to anyone at any time and for any reason, including no reason at all. It is an argument that has absolutely no rigor attached to it. One that can be made without anything to substantiate it. This is why it is a favorite the left. Anyone can claim to be “offended” when presented with facts they cannot refute. Leftists love to shift the rules of evidence from the real to the subjective when they have a losing argument (and they cannot lie outright), and this is merely the easiest way for them to do so.

So why is Lieberman doing it here? He undermines his own position when he trots out that old canard, and needlessly so because the factual arguments he does make are very strong.

I think it must be second nature to him, something he does without really thinking about it or understanding what it is that he is actually doing.

No comments: