(And, yes, I've been guilty of variants in the past.)

First is the "If you support the war, why don't you join the military?" / chickenhawk / Draft College Republicans nonsense.

Let me ask you something: do you believe in fighting crime? Then why aren't you a cop, you pussy?!? Do you think it's good to save lives and property from destruction? Then why don't you join the fire department, you hypocrite?!? Et cetera.

Second is the notion that "if [bad group/person] supports [another group/person], then they must be bad too!"

I've made this intellectual mistake before, by ascribing the looniest protestors' politics to the more mainstream anti-war folks. And, in a LiveJournal entry I read today (sorry; it's private, so I can't link) said, "As far as I'm concerned, the strongest argument against Harriet Miers [Bush's most recent Supreme Court nominee] is her endorsement by the ACLJ."

Counterexamples: Pat Robertson endorses soybeans, saying they're "almost the perfect food". So does that mean anyone who eats tofu is a right-wing Christian nut? Fidel Castro has referred to "that extraordinary figure, Jesus Christ". So does that mean all Christians who aren't Marxist-Leninist need to find a new Messiah?

I eagerly await people telling me how my analogies suck. (Yes, I know that edamame and a judicial appointment aren't the same goddamn thing.)

No more comments! Either someone has violated Godwin's Law, I'm tired of the discussion or, most likely, the ten-week window has closed. You can, however, contact me through email.