You are familiar with this particular logical fallacy aren't you? You present too opposites as the only possible answers, excluding any potential middle positions. It's a great way of forcing a hardline position, and precluding any compromise.
Jonah Goldberg's latest article uses this device to great effect. It's about Rush Limbaugh's recent drug problems, and, of course, it covers the familiar bases of talking about how mean-spirited Liberals are. Goldberg does take the notable step of admitting this reaction may be in fact justified. "But look: Rush Limbaugh never pulled any punches either. I may agree with many of his views and I may even subscribe to his hard-hitting style from time to time, but I can't muster a huge amount of sympathy or surprise when it comes to the beating he's receiving."
Goldberg also decries the media focusing on the hypocrisy, rather than focusing on the actual sin of taking illegal drugs. But that's not exactly the problem. The argument is not really, as you postulate, between those who think all drugs should be legal and those who favor locking up all addicts as criminals. Granted, those are two positions in the argument, but there is a middle ground.
We spend an enormous amount as a society to lock up criminals for possession of drugs. We spend comparatively little helping people get off drugs. Comparatively wealthy drug users from Rush Limbaugh to white suburban kids get the opportunity to go through rehab; poor Black and Hispanic kids don't. If rehab is the answer for Rush Limbaugh, why isn't it the answer for everyone?
No comments:
Post a Comment