People can be passionate about voting, and still be unable to get out on election day. The importance of advance voting was underscored for me recently by an old friend who blogged on April 22nd:
Derek’s death and posthumous post to his blog on May 3rd attracted quite a lot of attention in the international media. I don’t think that any of the news stories mentioned how he spent the night before he succumbed to his cancer, which was* intently watching the results come in for the federal election which took place that day.*
Anyway, it’s important to recognize that we have the duty, and it’s also important that we do have “plenty of chances.”
A brilliant rebuttal to my identification of the logical fallacy. My gosh, it’s like you have a PhD in debate!
Notice that despite the fact a new day has dawned, the other rebuttals to my argument – none as incisively complete as yours, of course – have been of a similar vein in terms of their actually addressing the point. I suspect it’s part of the liberal mindset.
No one doubts your skills. You have skills to squander in great abundance, and lavish them upon causes unworthy of your support, and persons unworthy of your respect. As a simple country boy, I envy the grace with which you evade the horns of an argument, performing a perfect veronica which would make Manoleto weep with jealous spite. Your zircon-encrusted parsing tweezers could pick apart a dog turd and reassemble it as bacon salt.
So tell us: is it strictly reflexive? We lefty scoundrels attack Gov Scott, and you ride to his defense without hesitation, because he is such a splendid fellow, so ill used by us? I note you say nothing to actually defend him, you only offer dark accusations and insinuations about us who despise him. And rightly so, as five minutes of investigation on your part would show you.
Well, all right, then, I have a minute. Give me a brief outline of his excellent qualities, his honesty, his civic virtue. If you are not defending him simply because we attack him, then why? Point out for us his admirable qualities. Is it his spotless record as a businessman of impeccable integrity?
Worthy causes abound, and go begging for a rhetorical paladin such as yourself, while you piss away your gifts for worthless swine.
You myopically focus on “defense” and “attack,” as though, if he’s a bad guy, any attack on him should be countenanced.
My latest point here had nothing to do with Scott. My point was that the approval ratings post was presumably offered to show the dissatisfaction of the Florida voters with the change in voting laws, but the only evidence of that was the fact that two two events followed one another in time. That’s a fallacy of reasoning. Let’s say that Scott is a terrible guy, guilty of all sorts of bad behavior. Does this mean I should let stand, without comment, that kind of logical fallacy?
How about if we just accuse him of arson? He’s a bad guy; what difference does it make?
I’ve quoted Tom Sawyer to you before – the passage where Tom is punished by Aunt Sally for breaking the sugar bowl when Sid was the culprit. After Tom complains, Sally just unrepentantly humphs, saying that Tom probably deserved it for some other trouble he’d gotten into and not been caught for, anyway.
Seems to me that you’re being a bit of an Aunt Sally here.
I suspect I might have been accused of threadshitting had I mentioned it in the one about Mr. Mather. Would you rather I had started a new thread to discuss Herr Scott’s approval ratings?
No. Bricker’s posts in this general area are usually reasonable (if often pedantic) counterpoints. This one was not.
Of course. Because it wouldn’t have been relevant.
Here, it has the appearance of being relevant. That’s true of most logical fallacies – they appear relevant to the argument, but actually are not. That’s why we make a special effort to classify them – ordinary discourse is often not up to the task. In this case, you posted the information about the decline in approval ratings in a thread dedicated to castigating Scott et al over his efforts to reduce voting hours. The obvious implication is that there’s some connection between the two.
Perhaps a bit more attention to the words he wrote with those pencils would serve you well.
The reader is not invited to side with Aunt Polly in that passage; we feel sympathy for Tom.
Here, however, when the target is someone you despise, you happily ignore the lesson and encourage me – and everyone else – to ignore the niceties of accuracy and pile on Scott, even if he’s not actually guilty of the specific complaint, just because that’s not a lick amiss – he’s been into some other audacious mischief when we weren’t around, like enough. Right?
The OP thinks Rick Scott is a douche. Much of the rest of the state apparently shares this opinion. Maybe it’s for the same reasons, and maybe it isn’t; I didn’t draw any connections.
In my day, we had to show up precisely at noon, stab a cardboard sheet with an ice-pick in exactly the right spot, and correctly answer a quiz in order to cast our ballot.
What is it the 26th amendment that lowers the age to 18? That gives the right to vote to 18 year olds. We had to have an amendment for women to have the right to vote. But it was done. That would suggest there is a right to vote. Perhaps not in the body of the constitution, but clearly in the amendments.
Do you point out logical fallacies whenever a conservative (poster pundit politician) utters one? Is your ratio of fallacy-pointing-outing roughly 1:1 at least? If not then you are just a biased partisan right-winger trying to score points for “your” side. Exactly the same way as Anne Coulter, who isn’t really interested in discussing “lies” in that book of hers, no matter who utters them, but is in fact only interested in propagandizing in favor of the conservative viewpoint, cherry-picking only the “lies” of the left, and ignoring those of the right.
In any event it’s a red herring, as this is just one of many examples of laws and “executive orders” that Scott has proposed and/or signed and that the population of Florida is starting to view with a very doubtful eye. But don’t let the broader picture stop you from picking yet another nit (man your body must be totally covered with them by now-you need to stop being so obsessive).
