On one of his nightly twitter rants, Trump calls in the football and Davey Crockets Kalorama.
Most of the GOP blame the democrats, so debates ensue before the 25th vote; meanwhile on night two, Trump continues twittering and playing football while Fox pundit Brian Haig takes control.
I think you should re-read that cite.
It refers to people who are dual citizens of both a banned and a non-banned foreign country. . . that is (for example) a person who holds dual nationality in both Syria (banned) and Egypt (not banned).
A US citizen abroad always had the right to return to the United States under the terms of the executive orders.
Unless “confusion reigns” and/or they haven’t got issued an American passport yet.
An inference has to arise from something, some fact. In this case, he’s talking about American citizens in a Trump-banned country and supposedly inferring that because they were in danger, then someone somewhere must have died.
But American citizens were never affected by the ban.
Would it still have been an inference if Trump never issued a ban? If Trump had never been elected, could he make the same statement he did and still receive the dignity of calling it an inference that defeats the accusation he was arguing from ignorance?
No confusion existed on this point. Every American citizen can obtain from the consulate a temporary one-use entry document to return to the US even without a passport. There has never been confusion on that point.
You think the poster is wrong that these people were affected by Trump’s order (because you assume that the language was legally precise with respect to current citizenship and not colloquial meaning SIV->naturalization). Fine. You think that the fact that some people were in danger doesn’t mean other people were in danger, or that this danger came to fruition. Fine.
What is not fine is claiming that these aren’t even inferences. That, instead, this poster is just saying the lack of evidence is itself proof. That’s quite obviously wrong, clearly not what the poster is arguing at all, and I’m baffled at why you don’t just admit your error and rest on your real argument (that you think his inferences are unreasonable).
If I thought they were inferences, yes, I’d certainly think they were unreasonable.
But how much of a factual stretch must exist, in your view, before they cannot even be called inferences?
Now, you’d rehabilitate him by suggesting his language “wasn’t precise” with respect to current citizenship. (I don’t what SIV->naturalization means). But the American citizenship was a key component to the story. It wasn’t a typo.
So tell you what: I’ve looked carefully at two posts and have not seen evidence that would invite the inference that people died. But you tell me what he meant to say, and then I’ll tell you if I agree those words invite an inference.
'cause I think I’m easygoing on the point. If he said, “Some dude told me people died,” then I’d agree with you. It’s weak, but it’s clearly an inference. This. . . isn’t based on anything. But you tell me what he meant to say.
Any claim that fact A suggests fact B is an inference. Many inferences are unreasonable.
But, actually, it doesn’t matter. Because all that’s necessary to prove you wrong is to show that the poster did not claim that the absence of evidence was proof of something. Since he didn’t, you’re quite simply wrong.
I explained what SIV is a couple of posts up. I’ll paste it here for you:
By the way, the way we “give citizenship” to people who help us in Iraq and Syria is that they get a Special Immigrant Visa to come here and complete naturalization. The Muslim Ban did affect many such people.
I don’t really care. Whether something is an inference isn’t a question of opinion. Whether it’s a fair inference, a reasonable one? Sure. Debate away, though you might want to learn the basic facts of how we give citizenship to people who help us abroad first. My point was limited to annoyance at your attempt to avoid that debate by incorrectly labeling the claim as logically fallacious.
Is any of that supposed to make sense?
OK.
You’re right.
The problem with your being right is that it reduces the cases of argument ad ignoratim sharply, because even Bertram Russell can claim an inference for his teapot.
But that itself is not a refutation of your point, merely a complaint about its aesthetics.
So, yep, I was wrong. You were right.
Thank you, Richard Parker. You much more thoroughly made the point I was trying poorly to make when I said:
but I got sucked into defending that obvious leap. Oops.
Thank you. I thought it was me.
I’ve hijacked the thread enough, so I’ll spoiler my response.
IMO, It turns on whether you’re using the lack of disproof as support for your claim.
If Russell said that there’s a teapot that orbits the sun because he’s seen the sun dim a little from time to time (i.e., offers an unreasonable inference), and that your lack of disproof proves his inference to be true, then I think it still counts as argument from ignorance. He is, fallaciously, using the lack of disproof to strengthen his claim. In this case, it is fallacious because the claim is unfalsifiable (arguably), though it would also be fallacious if there just hadn’t been any investigation into the claim.
So the question here is whether it’s fair to read Barack Obama’s post to be saying that the lack of disproof makes his claim stronger, or that he’s only interested in affirmative disproof and cannot be swayed by reasoned challenge to the strength of his logical inference. I don’t read him to be saying that. My reading was and is that he’s saying that he likes his inference just fine, that he’s heard nothing to contradict it nor would he know how to find such contradiction, and so in the absence of competing proof or better inferences, he’s going with it. I don’t think that’s an example of the fallacy. He’s observing the lack of disproof but not claiming the disproof strengthens his argument.
If you read his post differently (less fairly, IMO), and you understand him to be saying that the absence of disproof makes his argument stronger, then it would be an example of the fallacy–especially because he concedes that there’s no special reason to expect disproof given the difficulty of investigating the question.
Anyway, as always I appreciate your willingness to concede error. And let me add that this issue (the travel ban) is emotionally sensitive for me, so my annoyance here was likely out of proportion to my perceived misuse of a logical fallacy
I agree with this assessment.
(bolding and underline added)
Barack Obama definitely made a leap when he claimed that since his friend was allegedly in danger it was somehow proof that people died. However, you seem to believe that while Bricker can disagree, you object to how he may disagree. Just for purpose of clarification, is that correct?
Of course it is bigly not supposed to make any sense – little of Trump’s presidency makes sense.
Annotated:
My bold.
Twicely wrong!!
You left out some bits.