In my last post, I highlighted a recent piece at Kings of War titled
Are you Experienced? which discusses the "argument from identity" fallacy that, essentially, goes like this...
Issue X is being discussed
Person A makes an assertion on the issue
Person B contradicts person A
Person A asks, rhetorically, a question that approximates "have you ever been to [locale concerning X]?" or "have you ever [engaged in some activity related to X]?"
At this point, Person B is supposed to be shamed into silence. But, sometimes the tables are turned! What if Person B can authoritatively respond in the affirmative? Well, if it is caught on video, this it is posted to YouTube and the inquisitor is called out for being "pwned" (sic). Great example below.
Oh, snap! There is some degree of satisfaction in seeing someone who asks such a stupid question get it thrown back in his face. On the other hand, it is frustrating that people actually think that her "rebuttal" now carries any weight. She was a POW and she's commenting on whether a psychiatrist had PTSD from talking to patients and/or whether this had anything to do with him murdering a bunch of people. Can someone connect the dots to explain to me why she (or the other two, for that matter) were commenting on this issue at all?
Note: I'm glad that I can say I was once the person who was able to "turn the tables" in such a situation but, rather than recording it and posting it to YouTube, I simply asked, essentially, "now that we've settled that irrelevant question of fact, what does this have to do with the argument?"