Quote:
Originally Posted by evman150
Your reductio is fallacious because it is question begging - you assume that somehow a museum extolling Hitler's virtues would be legal - which is almost assuredly untrue. You then use this inappropriate assumption as the reductio's cudgel.
|
"Almost assuredly untrue"? Why would it be illegal? [DavidKhan] As a constitutional lawyer, I don't agree at all with that statement. [/DavidKhan]
I mean, I can substitute something else that would be horrible yet legal, like establishing a provincial holiday to mourn babies murdered by abortion, or altering the school curriculum to include extensive material on the benefits of authoritarianism as a system of government. The illegality isn't the point. The point is that for most people, there is a line somewhere that a politician or party can cross that will disqualify them as a candidate, no matter how appealing their fiscal policy appears to be. His statement was therefore quite remarkable, and, I suspect, he wouldn't stand by it in the corner cases.
And either way, it
still wouldn't be a straw man.