Hello again. We had not scheduled a post in the planner today, but after coming across this ludicrous lunacy we couldn't help but point it out.
If you are aware, Hobby Lobby had attempted to file a case with the Supreme Court to win an exemption from providing copay-free birth control coverage to its employees. The owners of the company explain that providing the coverage would run against their personal beliefs. Justice Sotomayor tossed the case back to the lower courts with some legalese thicker than pea soup and here we are.
Annie-Rose Strasser of the site Think Progress ("Hard hitting political news and analysis") had the following to say:
This ignores two obvious points — first, that Plan B is not an ‘abortion-inducing’ drug, as Hobby Lobby claims, and second, that the company may well end up paying more to avoid covering contraception than they would simply providing access. It also takes a twisted view on the ‘Freedom of Religion’ argument; the company is actually forcing its owner’s religious beliefs on all employees, no matter their personal religious views.SOURCE
First fault: bad math. Somehow "two obvious points" become three, or perhaps Strasser is recognizing that the final point is not obvious and, upon further inspection, fallacious. Either way the statement is a reflection/indictment of the failures of public education. But we digress.
Ludicrous Lunacy #1a & #1b: Strasser makes the point that the owners of Hobby Lobby continually and incorrectly refer to Plan B as an 'abortion-inducing' drug, citing Planned Parenthood for the distinction between contraceptive drugs and 'abortion-inducing' drugs. So far as we can tell, Strasser's terminology is correct and Hobby Lobby's is not. Fallacy #1a: Hobby Lobby.
However, Strasser's semantic squabble bears a some resemblance to a strawman: your terminology is incorrect, hence your entire argument is false†. Not so. Regardless of whether or not Plan B aborts a pregnancy, Hobby Lobby is suing to gain an exemption to providing coverage that they view distasteful and unethical on religious grounds. To give a terrible comparison: no matter how much their customers may feel entitled to receive it, the government cannot force a kosher butcher to sell bacon. At least, it has chosen not to in the past.
Ludicrous Lunacy #2: Strasser continues, "the company may well end up paying more to avoid covering contraception than they would simply providing access." Observe the carefully crafted ignoratio elenchi in its natural habitat. The ignoratio elenchi--or irrelevant conclusion--is true in its self-contained sphere of existence, but completely misses the point. In conversational settings the appropriate response is, "Yes, but what does that have to do with the price of rice in China?" Hobby Lobby is arguing ethics not finances. The two are quite unrelated (though we frequently find that poverty of ethics and poverty of purse run in the same political circles). Also, the phrasing "simply providing access" implies that it is a simple matter both financially and ethically to just provide access.
Ludicrous Lunacy #3: Finally, we reach the claim that "the company is actually forcing its owner's [sic]‡ religious beliefs on all employees" and thus infringes upon the employees' freedom of religion much the same as Hobby Lobby claims the Government has infringed upon theirs. No. No, that's not how it works at all. The US Government has infringed upon the religious sensibilities of Hobby Lobby's owners by obligating them to provide coverage to their employees that they view unethical. Hobby Lobby's owners are legally bound. On the other hand, should Hobby Lobby continue to not provide access to contraceptive care for their employees, the employees can still go out and buy it on their own. Since 1972, employees of Hobby Lobby who wanted "the pill" went to the local pharmacy and bought it themselves. No one ever claimed religious discrimination because their employer didn't provide it for them, precisely because it is in now way discriminating against them.
The whole argument draws heavily upon fallacy, rendering it almost entirely untenable. So, following the methods applied by Think Progressive, Avenge-the-Strawman has elected to start the following petition (which we hope will someday become a Supreme Court case):
We, the undersigned, do hereby file suit against our employers for the following unlawful and unconscionable infringement upon our religious freedoms:
Claim: That they, our employers, have willfully withheld from us, their employees, access to monthly subscriptions to Netflix.
Claim: That their failure to do so constitutes a flagrant infringement upon our religious freedoms as upheld in and duly protected by the Constitution.
Claim: That our request is justified by the fact that it is cheaper for them to provide the service for us than it would be for them to file a countersuit.
Claim: That a continuation of the status quo only furthers the religious discrimination to which we have been subjected.
Signed,
Avenge-the-Strawman
† The faulty logic resembles a strawman but differs significantly in form. Traditionally, a strawman is constructed on an oversimplification, exaggeration, or caricature of an opponent's argument. In this case, however, the strawman is an accurate portrayal (indeed, it is a direct quote) of the other side's position. This fallacy, then, is the strawman's half-brother: correctly disproving a weak point of the opposition, but claiming a death-blow rather than a flesh-wound.
‡ Hobby Lobby is owned by David, Barbara, Steve and Mart Green and Darsee Lett. Hence owners' is correct and not owner's as used by Think Progress.
No comments:
Post a Comment