This would
be followed with a ridiculous hypothetical, and then pumping fists in
the air and declaring, "I win!"
This then
devolved into simply working the word "hypothetically" into
the conversation, such as, "No, I agree with you... hypothetically.
I win!"
Try it sometime.
It's fun.
I had to
laugh last night when I saw this exchange on Hannity & Colmes.
They were discussing the case of Joe Horn, a Texan who shot two burglars
to death as they were robbing a neighbor's home. Hannity was interviewing
Quanell X, whose organization, the New Black Panther Party, has held protests
to demand justice.
SEAN
HANNITY, CO-HOST, "HANNITY & COLMES": Hey, Quanell, let's
get some facts on the table here. Fact No. 1, this wouldn't have happened,
had people been not burglarizing innocent people's homes, correct?
QUANELL
X, NEW BLACK PANTHER PARTY: I agree.
HANNITY:
All right. Fact No. 2, Mr. Horn didn't know as they're going near somebody
else's house -- he didn't know if other innocent people would be in
danger, did he?
In other
words, the idea that, well, the police came later. He didn't know at
what time the police would be there. But there's a chance that innocent
people are going to get hurt when people are about to burglarize their
home. Isn't that true?
X: He
also said that he knew they were unarmed.
HANNITY:
You can say he'd know they're unarmed, but if you have clothes on --
unless there's running stark naked through the backyard, you don't know
that, do you?
X: The
question was raised by the 911 dispatcher: "Are they armed, sir?"
He said,
"No, they're unarmed. But they have a crowbar that they used to
break open the window."
HANNITY:
What's a crowbar? Can you use a crowbar to kill somebody?
X: The
crowbar was laying on the ground by the back door. It was not in their
hands when Joe Horn encountered them.
HANNITY:
But that's not -- but that's not the point. If he -- let's say that
he didn't act. Is it a possibility that they could run into another
neighbor, run into another house, take somebody hostage, and that innocent
people die?
And then
he has to live with the fact that he did nothing when he knew that they
were there, and they were there to commit mischief?
X: That
is possible, but it's also possible...
HANNITY:
It is possible.
X: ...
that both of those men would be alive had Mr. Horn allowed the police
and the authorities to do their job.
HANNITY:
Well, maybe by the time -- the point is, Quanell, maybe by the time
the police get there, it's too late. Maybe by the time the police get
there, he's going to be wishing that he had done something.
Maybe
you have a responsible neighbor dealing against a criminal element,
and maybe he was overzealous, but maybe he was also scared that innocent
people might get hurt.
X: He
was more than overzealous.
HANNITY:
Why are you so quick to prejudge this without even hearing all the facts?
X: I'm
judging according to what I've heard on the 911 tape.
HANNITY:
But you don't know everything yet.
X: He
was told not to go outside. But I know from our internal investigation
and from...
HANNITY:
Your internal investigation? You're the FBI now?
(CROSSTALK)
X: ...
investigation. No, but I'm not the police that would go out and kill
somebody because I see a crime taking place.
HANNITY:
No, I'm only saying here the answer to problems like this is for people
not to commit crimes.
The second
answer here is if you do, you are putting your life in jeopardy.
The third
thing is, is I want an armed citizenry that could protect themselves
and their neighbors and their property. And right now the benefit of
the doubt until we know for sure goes to the citizen that was the victim.
Is that fair?
X: Sean,
this was cold -- this was cold-blooded murder. Two counts of cold-blooded
murder.
HANNITY:
All right, so you're the judge, jury and executioner here. You decided?
X: No,
I'm giving an opinionated position. He took the gun and made his position
known.
HANNITY:
We've got to run.
After this
argument, I fully expected Sean Hannity to pump his fists in the air and
declare, "I win!" Of course, I immediately ran downstairs and
told The Gryphon all about it.
Think about
it: this form of argumentation is foolproof, because while you may not
actually prove anything, this tactic renders your opponent speechless.
Let's just
say, hypothetically, that you're engaged in a political discussion with
somebody who's making a lot of valid points based on facts and reasoning.
So you create a hypothetical situation that takes everything to the Nth
degree, provoking an emotional response in the listeners but which nobody
can argue against. After all, you can't prove a negative.
You wouldn't
have to do any research or come up with any reasoned arguments. All you'd
have to do is whip out a hypothetical, preferably involving massive loss
of life, mutilation of puppies or the violation of Santa Claus, and while
your gap-mouthed opponent stammered like a landed fish, you could pump
your fists in the air and declare, "I win!"
Of course,
there are some situations where this sort of argumentation would not work.
For example, during a tax audit.
IRS AUDITOR:
This is a very serious matter. You owe the federal government $513,000.
CITIZEN:
I think you're mistaken.
AUDITOR:
I've done the calculations. This is how much money you've earned over
the past 20 years (POINTS TO A PAPER ON THE DESK), and this is how much
you've paid. (HOLDS UP A PIECE OF TOILET PAPER WITH "FILE THIS"
WRITTEN ON IT IN SHARPIE.)
CITIZEN:
I think you'll find otherwise.
AUDITOR:
I just told you that you owe $513,000. If you fail to make payment,
you will be arrested.
CITIZEN:
Let's say, hypothetically, that I was the pastor of my own church and
had tax-exempt status for all those years.
AUDITOR:
That might be a valid argument if it were the case, but...
CITIZEN:
And I'd been working with Mother Teresa to ensure the health and prosperity
of third world people in impoverished countries.
AUDITOR:
Great, but...
CITIZEN:
And due to my good works, we'd eradicated smallpox in the country of
Eritea and saved a million souls.
AUDITOR:
Well, commendable, but...
CITIZEN:
And say that my entire income had gone into the success of this charitable
enterprise. What would you say then?
AUDITOR:
I would say that's a fairly intriguing mental game, but...
CITIZEN:
You would deny all those starving children the money they need to survive?
AUDITOR:
Sir, you drove here in a stretch Hummer.
CITIZEN:
Well, let's say I use it to take impoverished American children to baseball
games. Poor, cancer-ridden children. Hooked up to respirators. Coughing
blood.
AUDITOR:
Sir, you're pulling my leg.
CITIZEN:
Pulling your leg? Do you think it's funny to watch people dying of malaria
right in front of you? Can you imagine watching a poor, bloated baby
dying of malnutrition, covered with flies, thinking, "If only I'd
gotten here sooner"?
AUDITOR:
I suppose that would be gut-wrenching.
CITIZEN:
Do you think that I put this money into expensive suits because I like
them? What if I needed them to impress third-world leaders to institute
global changes that would improve the economy and eradicate hunger?
What if I needed a home theater system to show potential contributors
why their support was needed?
(STANDING
UP AND THUMPING HIS CHEST) I am a true patriot, sir! And if you cannot
see the sort of self-sacrifice that goes into helping make this world
a better place, then you have no business working for the red, white
and blue!
AUDITOR:
(QUIETLY TAPS FINGERS TOGETHER) Are you quite done?
CITIZEN:
(JABBING A FINGER IN THE AUDITOR'S FACE) The question is, are you done?
AUDITOR:
No, I'm not. I simply need you to verify your tax-exempt status, sir,
and you can be on your way.
CITIZEN:
But hypothetically...
AUDITOR:
Hypothetically, you would have filed tax-exempt status for the past
20 years and provide proof, thereby discharging you of this massive
debt.
CITIZEN:
But the children!
AUDITOR:
Hypothetically, sir, you are going to jail. Arrest him!
(POLICE
OFFICERS ARRIVE AND HANDCUFF THE CITIZEN'S HANDS BEHIND HIS BACK, REMOVING
HIM AS HE PROTESTS)
AUDITOR:
(PUMPS HIS FISTS IN THE AIR) I win!
|