Giz said:
But (!) sometimes, in an imperfect world, you will have to choose the lesser of two (or more) evils... your best course of action (or inaction) while open to criticism may be better than the alternatives. For criticism to be constructive there has to be an implicit/explicit suggestion of how you could improve.
I don't buy that. Often this line of reasoning is used to pigeon-hole criticism and shut it off. Put another way, any criticism is not valid unless it comes with a solution. What? Either something is wrong or it isn't. Observing that something is broken doesn't mean I have to know how to fix it. I can clearly see if a wall clock has broken and I might have no idea how to fix it. My solution is: get an expert to fix it. I often see this rationale in conjuction with the False Dichotomy. Example: Death Penalty. I have a lot of problems with the way that it is administered. But the two schools of thought seem to be that you have to be either for or against the death penalty. You can't criticize either school of thought without being subjected to their false dichotomy AND being told that you haven't offered a solution, so go away.
A. You are either
for the death penalty or
against it. No room for maneuver here.
B. If you are against the death penalty, you are
for letting murderers go.
C. If you are for the death penalty, you are
for state sponsored murder.
Ummm, no. I can see that some people are just waaaaay too dangerous to have them continue to live on the remote chance that they somehow get loose again. I can also see that the death penalty is very unevenly applied to poor people and that a number of people have been sent to death row and had new technology exonerate them
decades later. (If the process was any faster they'd already be dead!) And if I don't think we should use the death penalty as much, that doesn't mean I want to let murderers
go. You can still convict them and lock them up for life, absent the stiffer punishment.
I can see that there is a clear problem and still not have very many useful suggestions. That doesn't make the fact of the problem any less valid!
I don't have to offer a fix to know there is a problem. I might not have the first clue or suggestion to fixing a problem with my car, but I can still recognize that there is a problem and take it to experts who can examine it. But what if the mechanic said, "Well, don't just bring me your problems unless you're going to offer contructive ideas about how to fix it... " Ummmmm, look at the engine and do a diagnosis? You're the expert here.
If our government and media were more responsible, as a whole, they would be finding better solutions
for us. They're supposed to be the experts, right? They get the bicg bucks and have all the power to create commissions, order investigations and reports, etc. So, it shouldn't fall to Joe Average to both point at a problem and find ways to fix it.
There is nothing wrong with wanting a source or something for somebodies arguement but I get tired of getting asked for a source for everything I say. I might call this the fallacy of I don't feel like going to my bookshelf right now. I have read over 2000 books and have watched countless tv shows and movies. Just the fact I don't remember exactly where I heard or read something or don't feel like spending an hour finding out, doesn't mean what I said is false. That is why that is a poor arguement because I can always find somebody or 2 or 3 who say the opposite. It's a wash usually as far as a point goes.
