Now you’re using the “generalize from the specific” fallacy. We’re moving from talking about Daniel Pearl, who was as much a victim of Al-Queda as any 9-11 victim, not people who fall off roofs.
For the record, I do think it’s a good idea to expose the issue of the 9-11 payments. Why 9-11 victims, and no one else? I tend to agree with the other posters who think that the logic here is flawed.
As for Pearl – I dunno if he bought insurance or not. But I sure hope that bastion of democracy, the Wall Street Journal, did so. He was on their payroll.
I frankly don’t blame Pearl’s widow for doing all she can to help out her child.[/quote]
Not a fallacy, Case. Let’s narrow the focus a bit. Do you think that the widows of reporters on the ground in Iraq right now should be able to lay claim to the 9/11 fund if they are killed by Al Quaeda operatives? Why or why not?[/quote]
They get compensation from the government for combat deaths, actually.
And you ask why I thought you were being insulting? Sheesh.
Tim, none of my arguments were strawmen. You’re misapplying the term. Case argued that Pearl’s widow’s need entitled her to tap the 9/11 fund. I asked how her need was so different from any other widow who lost her husband. Not a strawman, but a valid criticism.
Do they? I’d like to see a link and some figures on reporters for private news organizations being paid for this. If they are, I oppose it. Even if such payments are made, they’re not out of a special 9/11 victims fund, and I’m sure they’re not to the tune of $1.4 million dollars apiece.
Sure, that would be fine. And if Daniel Pearle had died in the WTC, but from a heart attack, I’d be saying his widow should get money like anybody else. I’m not sure how strung-out the hypos could get, but my assumption is that there’s going to be a very bright line between direct victims of the 9/11 attacks, and everyone else.
The problem in Pearle’s case is that he’s not like someone who had lung and skin cancer, because he wasn’t harmed by the 9/11 attacks at all. If there’s a lung cancer charity and my imaginary wife dies of skin cancer, I don’t get to make a claim. It doesn’t matter that they’re both cancer, because the charity people specifically said “lung cancer,” and it’s their right to decide where the cash goes. Similarly, 9/11 and the Pearle kidnapping may both be al Qaeda and both be anti-American terrorism, but that doesn’t make them indistinguishable from one another. I’m not sure what your argument is there. If you’re saying “Well, he wouldn’t have been in Pakistan to be kidnapped if not for 9/11,” even assuming that’s true (who knows?), that’s still a clearly different situation. I might go to New York tomorrow and get killed by a cement mixer driving over to start work on the memorial. That doesn’t make me a 9/11 victim.
And you ask why I thought you were being insulting? Sheesh.
Tim, none of my arguments were strawmen. You’re misapplying the term. Case argued that Pearl’s widow’s need entitled her to tap the 9/11 fund. I asked how her need was so different from any other widow who lost her husband. Not a strawman, but a valid criticism.[/quote]
Okay, maybe I am using strawman incorrectly. I am saying that when you go off on a tangent and make arguments the orignal poster never made, then swat them all down, it’s a strawman.
What Case said was that it was inappropriate to blame the vicitim for seeking compensation. You never addressed that issue.
What you said was that it’s inappropriate to pay money from the fund to every widow in America, to widows of fishing accidents, to widows of roofing accidents, widows of truckers, and widows of reporters from Bosnia. Correct me if I’m wrong but all of the widows in America didn’t just ask for compensation from the fund. Nor did widows of crab fisherman, widows of roofers, widows of truckers, or widows of reporters from Bosnia as for compensation from the fund. Even if any of these widows had asked for compensation from the fund, one could still argue that it remains entirely inappropriate to blame any of them for simply asking for money from the fund, much less this one woman who actually did ask for money from the fund. Do you follow me Dave?
For one thing, it is not a charity giving out the money. This is the govt that we all fund saying that these people’s deaths were worthy of compensation but these peoples deaths over here were not. If it’s a charity, okay what can you do? It’s their money, they can do with it what they like. But if it’s my govt and I have a stake, I think it’s okay to at least ask. I suppose it comes down to how broadly you define the damage from the 9/11 attacks. Bush managed to draw a line from 9/11 to Iraq, and that made a lot of sense to a lot of people. I’m not saying I agree with Bush. I’m not saying I agree with this lady. I just saying I woudln’t dismiss it completely without merit. I sure wouldn’t want to say she can’t even ask.
Tim it’s not a tangent, it’s an analogy. Do you know the word? To state that Pearl’s widow seeking compensation from the 9/11 fund makes as much sense as the widow of a deceased Bosnian reporter seeking such compensation is a clear-cut use of the term and directly addresses the issue.
As for blaming Pearl’s widow, hell yeah, I’m blaming her. I used the word “grasping” in my very first post, after all. Anyone who’s trying to get a big fat check from the government for a completely unrelated death deserves blame. Heck, here’s a quote from an earlier post I made, a post you’ve obviously ignored:
I don’t deny blaming the victim. Why would I? I think think she should be blamed.
Tim it’s not a tangent, it’s an analogy. Do you know the word? To state that Pearl’s widow seeking compensation from the 9/11 fund makes as much sense as the widow of a deceased Bosnian reporter seeking such compensation is a clear-cut use of the term and directly addresses the issue. [/quote]
Dave,
It’s an analogy that doesn’t address why it’s appropriate to blame the victim for asking for compensation.
As I’ve said, that’s the issue you’ve failed to address. You can do it with analogy, simile, or even a simple argument. But so far you haven’t, so I’m calling it a strawman tangent for now. :)
But feel free to continue avoid the issue with this fine discussion of the parts of speech. :)
Tim it’s not a tangent, it’s an analogy. Do you know the word? To state that Pearl’s widow seeking compensation from the 9/11 fund makes as much sense as the widow of a deceased Bosnian reporter seeking such compensation is a clear-cut use of the term and directly addresses the issue. [/quote]
Dave,
It’s an analogy that doesn’t address why it’s appropriate to blame the victim for asking for compensation.
As I’ve said, that’s the issue you’ve failed to address. You can do it with analogy, simile, or even a simple argument. But so far you haven’t, so I’m calling it a strawman tangent for now. :)
But feel free to continue avoid the issue with this fine discussion of the parts of speech. :)[/quote]
Arg. Arg arg arg. I just can’t get through to you, Tim. I know you’re not stupid, so I suspect you’re being intentionally obtuse. Just in case you’re serious, I’ll make one final try:
Why is it appropriate to blame the victim? Because, by congressional statute, only the families of those who died on 9/11 can seek compensation from the appropriately named 9/11 fund. Did Pearl die on 9/11? Nope. Therefore, our victim is at fault here, not the 9/11 fund for saying “Uh, sorry lady, but only people who died on 9/11 get this money.”
Dave, I’m not saying you deny that you think it appropriate to blame the vicitm. Obviously that is your opinion and we disagree.
I am saying your response to Case had nothing to do with your belief on blaming the vicitm. It was what I would call a strawman. I say that because you used an analgoy (seemed more like a tangent to me) to address an issue completely different from the one presented to you.
Look at Case’s post again, the one where he uses “blame the victim” for the first time. For your convenience, here it is:
And so we blame the wife for the husband’s choice of career?
I see that “blame-the-victim” logic is still alive and well.
:roll:[/quote]
Case accuses me of “blaming the victim” for what, exactly? For saying that her husband’s death is no more important than that of any other reporter who’s died while covering a story. Do you see a connnection? I don’t. It’s a complete non-sequiteur. But instead of logic chopping and tossing around terms like non-sequiteur, I tried to steer the discussion back on track by asking Case to explicitly state how he thought Pearl’s widow differed from other widows. This never happened.
If anyone is guilty of falacious reasoning here, it’s Case.
And so we blame the wife for the husband’s choice of career?
I see that “blame-the-victim” logic is still alive and well.
:roll:[/quote]
Case accuses me of “blaming the victim” for what, exactly? For saying that her husband’s death is no more important than that of any other reporter who’s died while covering a story. Do you see a connnection? I don’t. It’s a complete non-sequiteur. But instead of logic chopping and tossing around terms like non-sequiteur, I tried to steer the discussion back on track by asking Case to explicitly state how he thought Pearl’s widow differed from other widows. This never happened.
If anyone is guilty of falacious reasoning here, it’s Case.[/quote]
Are you for real?
Here’s the quote that started us all down this path:
To which I responded:
To which you responded with your bit about reporters dying quip. You completely missed my point about Pearl’s wife. My comments were about her and her kid; you chose to go down the “gee he should have picked a different career” path. Calling her “pathetic” and “grasping” sure sounds like blaiming the victim to me.
Of course I think she’s grasping and pathetic. I said it, I meant it. And I got your point about the kid. It’s tougher to make ends meet without two parents. That’s not an observation that’s going to revolutionize sociology, Case.
My response to this oh-so-meaningful point: so what? Why does her child deserve a government handout? What makes her different from the wife of any other dead reporter? I’ve asked you that question at least 4 times now, and you’ve yet to answer it. In your last post, you dodged it yet again.
Case+Tim- So how can we escape from being accused of blaming the victim? Give everyone who has ever had something bad happen to them(or someone they know) a free pass?
Everyone wants to jump on Markell, but nobody has noticed that Case grossly misused the phrase “blaming the victim”. How was Dave supposed to respond to that point? Case could’ve just as well mentioned that ‘loosely-grouped-Cheetos’ logic or any other random combination of words, because NOBODY IS BLAMING THE VICTIM.
When people talk about blaming the victim, that’s when you apply some blame for a rape to the woman because she was dressed like a slut. That’s blaming the victim logic. There’s no real victim here.
Who are we supposed to ‘blame’ for this woman asking for money she has no claim to, if not her?
Ben, here’s a little test to illustrate teh point:
Question: If you have $5 in your pocket and I ask you for $1 how much money do you now have?
Answer: $5!
My god, it’s not so hard people. She is asking for compensation from the fund. But what if all the widows from all over the world should ask for compensation from the fund. And if the widows start asking, can the orphans be far behind?
Wait, lets’ try another little test. You still have that fiver in your pocket. Now ever single geek in the world is going to ask you for $1. Now how much money do you have in your pocket!
My god, it just boggles the mind. But, yes, let us be quick to assign blame here. By god you just can’t get things figured out unless you first find the guilty party.
Possible point of difference: a reporter being intentionally targeted by Al Qaeda because they think he’s CIA isn’t quite the same as a generic reporter being killed in a war zone somewhere. Then again, the link to 9/11 is right on the edge of plausability.
I can see it either way, really, but really, calling her “grasping?” Why is her asking for some of the funding a moral defect?
I think you can explain the existence of the 9/11 fund strictly in terms of lawsuit protection; if they didn’t think the relatives of the victims would have started suing everyone in sight, the fund wouldn’t exist. That’s not exactly a shining moral reason to establish a fund, so I basically don’t see what’s so bad about her asking.
Think of her asking in terms of due dilligence. It’s her responsibility to look into all avenues for supporting herself and her child, not just the ones you guys think are morally acceptable.
Which brings me to another point: if there’s no bona fide law against it, can asking for money really be that morally challenging? What if she only asked rich people for $1.4M? Still a bad person?
What happend to the old addage, “Can’t hurt to ask?”
