| So many fallacies in Scott's argument. The trolley problem presents an either/or scenario. Pull the lever or don't. This is a false dilemma because there arew other options like negotiation, compromise, peace processes, international mediation, addressing grievances. Scott assumes the "murderer" is irredeemably committed to killing your child, that the threat is existential and immediate, and that defensive actions are the only possible response, then uses these assumptions to conclude you must take defensive action. The conclusion is baked into the circular setup of the thought experiment itself. A straw man is constructed by characterizing critics only as people who cheer for the murder of Jews, want Israel "decolonized" in a way that implies genocide, or are equivalent to Nazi collaborators. This misrepresents the majority of the criticism of Israeli policies, which usually focuses on specific military actions or settlement policies over questioning Israel's right to exist. False equivalence applying "Deep Zionism" moral framework across wildly differing scenarios like defending against existential threats, leaving school early, pursuing quantum computing research, and asking women out. ad hominem attacks, calling critics "snarling nobodies," "self-hating Jews," and "obsessive haters" Appeal to emotion, false attribution of collective guilt (all Palestinians = murderers, the crowd = the entire international community as if there werent differing opinions.) By closing comments and declaring there's nothing here to debate, Scott is trying to tie his readers to those same tracks, forced to accept his moral framework or be branded as part of the hateful mob. |