Chuck Grimes (Quoting someone): > I think he did address the article in overall terms: > > ``The author commits the logical fallacy of suggesting that since the US > assisted some of the groups that later called for Morsi’s overthrow, > Washington funded Morsi’s overthrow. > The logical fallacy involved is post hoc ergo propter hoc. What comes after > something isn’t necessary caused by that something. That the US gave a > little money to these groups is not proved to be connected in any way to > their favorable view of Morsi’s overthrow, where they have one. ''
I have no opinion on what is going on in Egypt, and I've not read most of this thread. I want merely to point out some logical sleight of hand in this passage. True, that the U.S. contributed to this or that group does not show that the U.S. funded the group, or that the group is a U.S. agent. It does demonstrate, however, that, in the judgment of U.S. policy makers what the group is doing is consistent with and perhaps supportive of U.S. interests. U.S. policy makers do make mistakes of course. Nevertheless, U.S. support of any group anywhere is, as they say, "food for thought." Carrol _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
