It depends entirely on the truth of the proposition that the other side *is * doing it, and to an equatable degree. That is an article of faith on your part, in this case and in every other one in which I’ve pointed out what you’re doing. That proposition is *not * substantiated by fact. Therefore you are using a logical fallacy, which you may call what you like.
If it “makes you wince” to have your lack of factual foundation pointed out every time you do it, there’s a simple and direct solution to your problem. Not an easy one for you, of course, but the only thorough and honest one.
But, if you’re going to keep up this approach, I’ll change the name for you. Something like “Bricker’s making up shit again” might be applicable. Or “Bricker’s once again crying and pouting ‘Yeah, well, you guys do it to - or would if you could’ again”. Got any more accurate names to suggest for this favorite approach of yours?
Actually, it’s not a logical fallacy at all. A logical fallacy invites the listener to draw unwarrented inferences from accurate data. If what you say is true, it’s simply a factual fallacy - according to you, I invite the listener to draw unwarrented conclusions based on inaccurate data.
What DID you do in high school?
Now, specifically, what claim of mine is false? That the other side is doing it too?
Sharpton’s “vicious spirit” line was OK, but Miller’s spitballs line is slander? I don’t agree with that.
Or perhaps you’re saying, as MaxTheVool seems to be, that the overall effect of Sharpton’s speech is such that we can excuse an off-hand reference to some unnamed entity that’s responsible for the vicious spirit?
Be specific. MaxTheVool has no trouble laying out specifics, with examples. Why does this facility utterly escape you?
Because making comparisons to a particularly vicious attack on William McKinley delivered in 1899 seems a bit pointless?
Seriously, if you’re going to concede that Miller’s speech does have the numerous glaring flaws that I accuse it of (and I’ll take your silence on that topic to be a concession ), but you defend it by claiming that everyone does it, well, then, we have to compare it to SOMETHING. Certainly, we should restrict our comparisons to prominent convention speeches, as much of your last post discussed the specific context of a convention, with comparisons to cheerleading, etc. And given that the democratic convention was several months earlier than the republican convention, the democrats had the chance to establish a tone. Which they did. And which was, in their convention at least, generally positive. Thus, I can’t think of anything more reasonable to compare Miller’s speech to than speeches at the Democratic convention. And you apparently agree, given that it was you who first brought up Sharpton’s (imo FAR better and more positive) speech.
So, do you agree with my analysis of the differences between Sharpton’s and Miller’s speeches?
OK. Let me review all of the 2004 DNC speeches. I watched the convention, and Sharpton’s was the only one that stuck in my mind as being a jab at the Republicans. But I was going strictly from memory; I’ll review and get back to you.
Let me not leave silence to mean assent. I agree that Miller’s speech was essentially as you characterized it above, with the caveats that I offered above in response.
But that analysis suggests that the ones that go first are permitted to “set the tone,” and the other side is somehow obligated to respond in kind. I’d say a fairer standard would be to look back a bit - perhaps not to McKinley, but perhaps the last two or three conventions.
On the whole, I agree that Sharpton speech ended on a more positive note than Miller’s did, and was more free of sniping. But I don’t agree that it was completely upbeat, and I think your musings about the target of his “vicious spirit” line are a bit disingenuous. You’re really confused, in that context, about who he might have meant to target with that line, huh?
Fair enough, then. By all means, quote us a democratic convention speech from 2000 or 1996 that is anywhere near the equal of Miller’s. Remember, to really be as bad as Miller’s speech, your example should include ALL of the following characteristics:
(1) It doesn’t just attack a single individual, it attacks an entire party
(2) It accuses them of something that is despicably Unamerican, like hating freedom. Accusing them of being not wholly sensitive to the plight of the urban working poor is not good enough
(3) It totally fails to support its claim, and its claim can in fact only be supported through very shaky logic
(4) It then includes jingoistic, but unrelated, examples of American Greatness (or perhaps American Tragedy)
(5) It’s totally hypocritical, in that the previous democratic president, or perhaps the father of the current democratic president, did exactly the same thing several years earlier
Well, not in the sense of “gee, I wonder if he was talking about the Republicans or not”. But it’s stuck in their in a weird place. Let’s put it this way: If Al Sharpton and his speechwriters wanted to accuse Republicans of viciousness, they could have done so in a far more direct and clear fashion. And if they wanted to “go negative”, they could have done so in some fashion other than in a supporting clause in the middle of a paragraph.
Anyhow, here’s a question for you: Has your opinion about Miller’s speech changed over the course of this thread? Because if you’d come in way back at the beginning of this thread (why, it seems like last year!) and said “sure, Miller’s speech had some problems. But that’s the way convention speeches are, full of rah rah pumping up and shameless insults”, and PARTICULARLY if you’d given an example of an equally contemptible speech from a recent democratic convention, you would have saved the poor hamsters a LOT of effort.
Oh, goody! Does that mean we can consider Jeane Kirkpatrick’s “Those San Francisco Democrats … always blame America first!” keynoter that had the Pubbies chanting along with the refrain?
Nope, no imputations of lack of patriotism there, are there? But the Pubbies chanted along, and stood and cheered at the end. They found it inspirational and effective.
Interesting use of the name of the city where the 1984 Democratic Convention was held. What associations could she possibly have wanted to be drawn by mentioning such an irrelevant fact? What *does * San Francisco stand for in Pubbieworld? Hmm… thinkthinkthink…
However, that was before Gingrich wrote his famous treatise “Language: A Means of Control”, listing words a GOP candidate should salt into campaign messages when speaking of Democrats:
Your party voted for a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting the desecration of the American Flag. While it didn’t pass by the 2/3ds required to go to the states for ratification, if Texas vs Johnson didn’t happen you’d be throwing people in prison for speech you disagree with.
Ah, I see. The claim was that my side is passing laws to stifle criticism. I ask for examples. You provide information about a bill that did not pass.
How interesting.
Utterly non-responsive, though. I didn’t claim my side didn’t have people that tried to pass such laws - I just claimed that even though my side had the majority, no such laws were passed. Do you agree with me, or not?
Hell, no, I didn’t shoot anybody! Its true, I emptied a 50 round clip at full auto at a range of 10 feet, but I missed! Hence, it is entirely unjust and unfair to accuse me of shooting someone! Oh, the injustice!
Yes.
If you were being tried for shooting someone, and in your defense you produced evidence that you missed, you would be acquitted. And rightly so. Surely you don’t think you should be found guilty for the crime of shooting someone when you missed, do you? That would be injustice, serious injustice.
(1) It doesn’t just attack a single individual, it attacks an entire party
(2) It accuses them of something that is despicably Unamerican, like hating freedom. Accusing them of being not wholly sensitive to the plight of the urban working poor is not good enough
Implying that Bush supported the confederacy and its accompanying views, namely slavery.
(3) It totally fails to support its claim, and its claim can in fact only be supported through very shaky logic
Well, read the speech.
(4) It then includes jingoistic, but unrelated, examples of American Greatness (or perhaps American Tragedy)
(5) It’s totally hypocritical, in that the previous democratic president, or perhaps the father of the current democratic president, did exactly the same thing several years earlier
I’m not sure about this one. But, Jesse Jackson is a hypocritical race-baiter who plays the race card and uses bullying tactics to serve his own interest and the interets of his coalition.
Maybe not 5 for 5. But the point has been made. Both sides have people who are brought to the convention to make political speeches that demonize the opposing party. It’s politics. Zell Miller’s speech was by no means unique.
), but you defend it by claiming that everyone does it, well, then, we have to compare it to SOMETHING. Certainly, we should restrict our comparisons to prominent convention speeches, as much of your last post discussed the specific context of a convention, with comparisons to cheerleading, etc. And given that the democratic convention was several months earlier than the republican convention, the democrats had the chance to establish a tone. Which they did. And which was, in their convention at least, generally positive. Thus, I can’t think of anything more reasonable to compare Miller’s speech to than speeches at the Democratic convention. And you apparently agree, given that it was you who first brought up Sharpton’s (imo FAR better and more positive) speech.