The Fallacies Of Defense Of Death Panels By The National Review's Village Nut

Every village has one, I guess every periodical has one also. Even after the editors of the National Review retreated from the craziness that is the Sarah Palin "Death Panel Extravaganza of Lies" Andy McCarthy, village nut, asserts his support for the craziness. The crux of his never say die support is the claim that she has not been proved wrong. He writes:

"finding themselves unable to defend the plan against her indictment, Democrats have backed down and withdrawn their 'end-of-life counseling' boards."

We need to understand that the village nut will occasionally, OK usually, get things twisted, wrong and backward, such as facts and logic. It is much easier to throw ludicrous statements and lies around than it is to disprove a negative. Since the bill does not mention "death panels" even once it is nearly impossible to prove where HR 3200 says "death panels" won't occur. This is an example of argumentum ad ignorantiam or an appeal to ignorance. Defined:

the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true.

If you want to read more about fallacies click here . For those of you that prefer your explanations of logical fallacies in video form here you go:




McCarthy throws a new charge on the "death panel" claim. He writes:

"the Obamacare proposal has a remedy for 'a society as litigious as ours': it systematically cuts off access to the courts so that the decisions of the executive branch are final. The bill is designed to insure against litigation pressure to spend more rather than treat less."

I did not see this in the bill, but I admit I have not read HR 3200 fully. But I am certain McCarthy nor Palin have either. Perhaps it is easier to throw out lies than to gather facts but it surely makes you look stupid. If any body knows anything about this claim please let me know.

I wonder how the editors of the National Review feel about McCarthy's "dissent." I would not expect them to be angered at the act of "dissent" but at the shocking stupidity of the arguments.

Here is a link to a previous post about McCarthy lies and Justice Sotomayor. Sphere: Related Content