a logical fallacies thread

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

I didn't mean to lead anyone to that conclusion, just that many people here consider themsleves "conservatives" based on their theories and thoughts about the economy, yet they are often lumped to together into this mythical "ass-kissing Bush-God fanboi warmonger" persona that pissy little ankle-biters like the owner of that post seem to enjoy ranting about. The words Conservative, Republican, and even Moderate have been corrupted by a few here into meaning something completely different. (Admittedly, "Liberal" is used almost as much as an epithet, but usually with a bit less zealousness and foaming-at-the-mouth.)

I think there's a larger point that's being missed here - the traditional terms "conservative" and "liberal" have themselves been blurred to the point that they have, for me at least, lost much of their meaning.

When I think of conservative political values, I think of a philosophy that distrusts government and tries to minimize its role by reduced taxation and spending, and by deregulation to reduce its influence over individuals and corporations. The modern iteration of conservatism, however, is quite different, and favors an increased amount of government interference over individuals and over what have traditionally been state functions. As I noted above, although taxes have been reduced under President Bush, he has drastically increased spending, and has never vetoed a spending bill. As such, he is on pace to nearly double the national debt as of the date he took office, no mean feat.

As for this forum, it seems to me there's great partisan shrillness on both sides. My personal impression (which is almost certainly biased) is that the relatively smaller number of conservatives make up for their disparity in number through an increased reliance on invective. This is most transparent in a handful of members, particularly the current set of over-the-top young conservatives (for whatever reason this board has, for the entire time I've been around, attracted a lot of firebreathing young Republicans who post outrageous partisan silliness for a couple of months, then flame out and leave).

Unfortunately, several of the more reasonable and respectful conservative members have either been banned or are posting very seldom of their own volition.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

I didn't mean to lead anyone to that conclusion, just that many people here consider themsleves "conservatives" based on their theories and thoughts about the economy, yet they are often lumped to together into this mythical "ass-kissing Bush-God fanboi warmonger" persona that pissy little ankle-biters like the owner of that post seem to enjoy ranting about. The words Conservative, Republican, and even Moderate have been corrupted by a few here into meaning something completely different. (Admittedly, "Liberal" is used almost as much as an epithet, but usually with a bit less zealousness and foaming-at-the-mouth.)

I think there's a larger point that's being missed here - the traditional terms "conservative" and "liberal" have themselves been blurred to the point that they have, for me at least, lost much of their meaning.

When I think of conservative political values, I think of a philosophy that distrusts government and tries to minimize its role by reduced taxation and spending, and by deregulation to reduce its influence over individuals and corporations. The modern iteration of conservatism, however, is quite different, and favors an increased amount of government interference over individuals and over what have traditionally been state functions. As I noted above, although taxes have been reduced under President Bush, he has drastically increased spending, and has never vetoed a spending bill. As such, he is on pace to nearly double the national debt as of the date he took office, no mean feat.

As for this forum, it seems to me there's great partisan shrillness on both sides. My personal impression (which is almost certainly biased) is that the relatively smaller number of conservatives make up for their disparity in number through an increased reliance on invective. This is most transparent in a handful of members, particularly the current set of over-the-top young conservatives (for whatever reason this board has, for the entire time I've been around, attracted a lot of firebreathing young Republicans who post outrageous partisan silliness for a couple of months, then flame out and leave).

Unfortunately, several of the more reasonable and respectful conservative members have either been banned or are posting very seldom of their own volition.

I agree with everything you just wrote, but I am still curious how you seem to gloss over the very real collective of venomous "liberal" posters as well. Did you read the thread I linked to? Perhaps it is our somewhat-biased impressions that lead us to different conclusions, but I see most of these "young Republicans" as merely overly-aggressively in their partisan rhetoric, while the real hate-spewing and personal attacks that drag this forum down seems to come from the vocal "left."

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Vic
btw, on topic, the actual arguments themselves are not important logically to counter BBBB's statement insofar as the fact that they exist. BBBB's statement, "More people would use marijuana if it were legal," directly implies that he is making a statement of fact, when in actually he is not.

However, the point I was making when I brought up this method of argumentation is that, regardless of whether BBBB's statement about marijuana use is factual, it exhibits tunnel vision.

More generally, BBBB's method of argumentation focuses solely on a possible negative, but fails to address the broader, relevant question as to whether, taking EVERYTHING into account, a proposed change is beneficial or detrimental.

We as a society understand that there are significant negative associated with the legality of alcohol usage, yet we understand that banning alcohol would lead to greater negatives.

Similarly, we understand that allowing people to drive automobiles at speeds greater than, say, 5 MPH increases injuries and deaths caused by auto accidents. But we also understand that allowing higher speeds has so many benefits that it would be absurd to restrict speeds so drastically.

Unfortunately, when it comes to emotional issues (such as legalization of marijuana), many people seem unable to use simple utilitarian principles to make no-brainer decisions.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
I agree with everything you just wrote, but I am still curious how you seem to gloss over the very real collective of venomous "liberal" posters as well. Did you read the thread I linked to? Perhaps it is our somewhat-biased impressions that lead us to different conclusions, but I see most of these "young Republicans" as merely overly-aggressively in their partisan rhetoric, while the real hate-spewing and personal attacks that drag this forum down seems to come from the vocal "left."

I'm not blind to that, but I'll submit the "hate-spewing" posts to which you're referring, at least in that thread, were examples of the posters in question responding to snide baiting remarks by conservatives. That, of course, is no excuse, but I think it's relevant to put things in context.

Honestly this is exactly why I left in November. I felt as though I was getting too upset at the constant taunting and insults, which were particularly conspicuous in the aftermath of the election - this place was overrun with conservatives preening around with their chests puffed out, mocking the benighted "Left," and offering self-serving advice on how the Democratic Party could evolve into something more appealing (to conservatives, from what I could see).

I think nearly all of us have risen to the bait at times. I'd like to see less baiting and trolling, and fewer insults and personal attacks as well. Actually, several of us, including liberals and conservatives (particularly CAD and I), proposed a system last summer for policing this kind of behavior last summer, but were shot down by the mods.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: DonVito

I'm not blind to that, but I'll submit the "hate-spewing" posts to which you're referring, at least in that thread, were examples of the posters in question responding to snide baiting remarks by conservatives. That, of course, is no excuse, but I think it's relevant to put things in context.

True. I think perhaps it could be said that the Republicans here know how to "play the game" moreso than their political counterparts. You know, the whole bit of making innuendos, implications, and accustions without 'actually' spelling them out. Then the thought processes behind the responses seem to be "Wait, did he just not-so-subtly imply that I was anti-American? Well, I'll just call him a Bush-loving, fvcking asshole nazi-troll and we'll be even!" Both forms are detrimental to the forum, but only one is (supposedly) against policies.

Honestly this is exactly why I left in November. I felt as though I was getting too upset at the constant taunting and insults, which were particularly conspicuous in the aftermath of the election - this place was overrun with conservatives preening around with their chests puffed out, mocking the benighted "Left," and offering self-serving advice on how the Democratic Party could evolve into something more appealing (to conservatives, from what I could see).

Yes, there was a substancial amount of gloating post-election last year, but the amount of pre-election "Haha! Bush has no chance" preening was just as disgusting, was it not? Tit-for-tat, I'd say.

I think nearly all of us have risen to the bait at times. I'd like to see less baiting and trolling, and fewer insults and personal attacks as well. Actually, several of us, including liberals and conservatives (particularly CAD and I), proposed a system last summer for policing this kind of behavior last summer, but were shot down by the mods.

Goodness knows I've never taken flame-bait and run off with it. :Q I'd like to see some active moderation return to P&N as well, but I suppose being the redheaded step-child of the site doesn't bode well for the idea of allocated effort to this place.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

True. I think perhaps it could be said that the Republicans here know how to "play the game" moreso than their political counterparts. You know, the whole bit of making innuendos, implications, and accustions without 'actually' spelling them out. Then the thought processes behind the responses seem to be "Wait, did he just not-so-subtly imply that I was anti-American? Well, I'll just call him a Bush-loving, fvcking asshole nazi-troll and we'll be even!" Both forms are detrimental to the forum, but only one is (supposedly) against policies.

On the bigger political stage, Karl Rove and his late protege, Lee Atwater, certainly honed the vicious-dirty-tricks element of the political arsenal to perfection, and they, along with angry blowhards like Rush, Hannity and Coulter, have taught their, er, fans to do the same. The Democrats are at an inherent disadvantage, because they generally lack the stomach to engage in tactics like Rove's "push-polling" South Carolina voters about John McCain's "illegitimate black child."

The same dynamic seems to play out here when Rip or his new mentee, Zendari, posts some outrageous op/ed puff piece from Newsmax or heritage.org, then touts it as evidence that "the Left" hates democracy and eats aborted fetuses (the latter was, IIRC, the actual topic of one of Rip's threads). In the face of such outrageous nonsense, it becomes tempting to react with anger.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: DonVito

The same dynamic seems to play out here when Rip or his new mentee, Zendari, posts some outrageous op/ed puff piece from Newsmax or heritage.org, then touts it as evidence that "the Left" hates democracy and eats aborted fetuses (the latter was, IIRC, the actual topic of one of Rip's threads). In the face of such outrageous nonsense, it becomes tempting to react with anger.

The old sayings "Never argue with a fool, for he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience" and "Never argue with a fool, for onlookers might not be able to tell the difference" are as apt as ever. Most here, myself included, would do well to heed those bits of advice more often.


edit: Upon re-reading that, I wanted to make it clear that I was talking about this forum and those arguments in general, not our current discussion.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Yes, because all economic conservatives and Republican voters obviously "love to kill innocent people."

I'm not sure I understand what economic conservatism has to do with supporting President Bush - he's one of the most profligate Presidents in American history.

Two words: Tax cuts.

 

[Vic]

Another common logical fallacy that I see here (and even more so in the media) is hasty generalization.

This is the one where I occasionally tell people (especially McOwen, who makes this fallacy so often that I am convinced that it is part of his "worldview") that "specific != general"

edit: for example - Text
- Panhandlers are poor people.
- All poor people are panhandlers.
- Atlanta passed a law against panhandling in certain areas.
- Some other cities have done the same.
- These cities are banning the poor.
- Atlanta is joining those cities.
- This is the rich separating themselves for the poor.

You just got to love McOwen's faulty logic. It's about as bad as it gets. I find it hard to accept that he even believes his own tripe, but is just a propagandist.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Two words: Tax cuts.

There's nothing fiscally conservative about spending more than any President in history, and not vetoing a single spending bill. He's demonstrably far LESS fiscally conservative than, say, President Clinton.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: ntdz

Two words: Tax cuts.

There's nothing fiscally conservative about spending more than any President in history, and not vetoing a single spending bill. He's demonstrably far LESS fiscally conservative than, say, President Clinton.

No doubt he spends too much, I'm not disputing that. But I was, and am, 100% for the tax cuts.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: ntdz

Two words: Tax cuts.

There's nothing fiscally conservative about spending more than any President in history, and not vetoing a single spending bill. He's demonstrably far LESS fiscally conservative than, say, President Clinton.

False conclusion?

The statement "never vetoed a spending bill" may be true, but your using it to say he's not responsible fiscally. But this statement is also true: "he never vetoed a budget cut"

Not to mention a republican congress is pretty much only going to send a republican president something that he is going to sign. So the statement pretty much loses all its weight anyways. Now if a republican president never vetoed a spending bill by a democratic congress, THAT would be something worth using in an argument. Otherwise, its a nice catch phrase.

Maybe you werent around when Bush's budget was introduced and the liberals on this board complained about every single part of it. Which is interesting, nothin but complaints about fiscal irresponsibility, but then nothing but complaints about fiscal responsibility.

And then there was BRAC, supposed to save the govt billions, yet all the libs could do was complain about that as well. Honestly I'm scratching my head, and I sont think the liberals here rally CARE about fiscal anything, they just like to complain.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Train

Maybe you werent around when Bush's budget was introduced and the liberals on this board complained about every single part of it. Which is interesting, nothin but complaints about fiscal irresponsibility, but then nothing but complaints about fiscal responsibility.

And then there was BRAC, supposed to save the govt billions, yet all the libs could do was complain about that as well. Honestly I'm scratching my head, and I sont think the liberals here rally CARE about fiscal anything, they just like to complain.

I can't account for other "liberals" here - you won't find a word of complaint on my part about budget cuts - but President Bush has undeniably broken new ground in terms of the national debt, by approving every possible spending measure, regardless of how much pork is contained therein, and persisting with irresponsible tax cuts even while we're enmeshed in a strictly optional war.

President Bush's boosterism of the recent highway bill is an illustrative example of his attitude toward pork: he not only signed it but did so proudly, complete with press conferences, boasting about the number of jobs it would create, notwithstanding the fact that it contained, among other things, $231 million for an Alaska bridge known as "Don Young's Way" (named after that state's lone Represenative), and $2.3 million for flowers to decorate a California highway named after Ronald Reagan (who would certainly have blanched at such wasteful spending in his own name).

As far as I'm concerned, President Bush has taken corporate cronyism to a new level, often to the detriment of individuals (the bankruptcy "reforms" being a perfect example), and his irresponsible profligacy effectively taxes future generations for his boosterism of corporate interests. If this makes me some kind of flaming liberal, I'm guilty as charged.