Fallacies in Letters to the Edtior

• The following letters either point out the fallacy in an opponent's argument or commit a fallacy in the process of its own argument.
• Choose from Straw Man, Red Herring, Ad Hominem or False Analogy
  

  A

  Don't ban all guns — just attack weapons

• Posted Oct. 15, 2015 at 2:01 AM
  
  
  

  In typical fasion there’s been pushback from the National Rifle Association and its members since the killings in Oregon. The propaganda is that the government (headed up by that liberal we hate) wants to take our guns away. But no one is advocating that.

  The problem is not gun ownership, but the type of gun that is owned. No one denies the right to own a pistol to defend one’s home. No one denies the right for hunters to own rifles. What is questioned is the need to own assault rifles that spew out hundreds of bullets in a matter of a minute. These have been the weapon of choice in most of the mass murders.

  Why does the NRA defend the sale of these weapons? It says that if they are in the hands of good, sane people, they could be used for defense. That is a false argument. Ask people who defend the right to have assault rifles, and they will say that they are to protect against the real enemy — the U.S. government — when it attacks our homes to take our guns away.

  When paranoia leads to such imbecilic reasoning, cooler, more rational people must enact stopgaps against the ease with which attack weapons are obtained.

  Michael Williams

  Brewster

  
   B
  

  • Democratic debate was so pleasantly adult

  • Posted Oct. 15, 2015 at 2:01 AM
    
    
    

    What a difference between the first Democratic debate and the clown shows the Republicans put on.

    No name-calling, no misogyny, no bigotry, no thinly veiled racist dog-whistle code words like “thug” or “urban” or “takers,” no xenophobia, no religious intolerance, no warmongering, no personal insults, no blanket criminal condemnation of any segment of our population, no kowtowing to the National Rifle Association, no prostrations before the altar of the gun lobby, no claims of running under God’s personal endorsement.

    Instead the candidates politely and knowledgeably discussed and — yes — debated the central issues facing our nation today: the economy, foreign policy, Syria, Russia, Iran, infrastructure, trade, climate change, education, tax reform, Wall Street reform, empowering the middle class, elevating the poor, the minimum wage, wage equality, women’s rights, immigration reform, Social Security protection, Medicare expansion, veterans care, green energy and much, much more, including the right-wing Supreme Court’s bastard child and constitutionally protected core of political corruption, Citizens United.

    They presented real and viable solutions and alternatives without hyperbole or outrageous and impossible claims. No mass deportations, no 2,000-mile walls, no cakewalk through Syria, no bull.

    The adults were in the room. And it showed.

    Tim Crowninshield

    Sandwich

    
    C
    

    • Let Obama take lead on changing gun laws

    • Posted Oct. 13, 2015 at 2:01 AM
      
      
      

      In his 2013 State of the Union address, President Obama laid down an ultimatum for Congress: “If Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will,” he said with respect to ... climate change.

      After the Umpqua gun massacre, he stated: “... we can actually do something about it, but we’re going to have to change our laws. And this is not something I can do by myself. I’ve got to have a Congress and I’'ve got to have state legislatures and governors who are willing to work with me on this.”

      With all due respect, if he can enact executive orders to protect the environment or grant amnesty to illegal immigrants, he can certainly do the same with mandatory background checks. He shouldn’t blame Congress, legislatures or governors, nor the National Rifle Association. He should just look in the mirror if he wants to see who owns this. His carbon footprint would appear to be much more important to him than the chalk outlines around dead Americans.

      Kevin Keras

      Yarmouth Port

     D
    

    • Tribal instincts govern our political antagonism

    • Posted Oct. 13, 2015 at 2:01 AM
      
      
      

      It is easy for liberals to demonize conservatives as being selfish, greedy, heartless and mean-spirited — oversimplifying by dismissing them as excessively afraid of change, complexity and novelty, suggesting that conservatives have a simplistic model of the world, with no compassion for the poor and no political shades of gray as regards same-sex marriage, gun control, economics, abortion and other incendiary issues.

      I would like to assume that conservatives and liberals alike are sincere, are patriots, and that our differing opinions are well-reasoned and deserving of respect. But that’s just an attempt at mutual survival.

      What is it that both sides fail to understand? It’s that, at our core, we are all — liberals and conservatives alike — irrational creatures, governed first and foremost by our reptilian brains, acting on impulse, satisfying our most basic hungers and desires without regard for social consequences. Then we rationalize our behaviors, fiercely defending our decision-making, belief systems, buying habits, artistic choices, religious convictions, political persuasions, and complex human emotions as if there were some logic to them. There isn’t. It’s all hot air, borne from a lack of self-awareness and an unwillingness to honestly recognize and confront our tribal instincts.

      Peter A. Schaible

      Brewster