Keeping in touch with the reality of an issue is great, although using cloying sentiment to do so is less than great. I suppose it’s unfair of me to nitpick the children’s logic, but it’s hard to believe that Daddy would wear a helmet just because the law told him to when he’d already decided that his own welfare wasn’t a good enough reason.
“Better informed”, maybe, but only if we want to be. Mom always remarks on how many people have no idea what cancer treatment is like, in a time and age where everybody knows several dozen people who’ve had cancer. “Smarter”? My ass was smarter at 7 than some grown-ups heads at 70.
i think it’s appaling the number of logical fallacies used in political dialogue. this one is clearly an appeal to emotion.
the false dilemma fallacy is another popular one. “you’re either with us or against us.”
and then there’s the fucking slippery slope. “if we allow gay marriage, what’s next?!?!?!”
i hate politics…
Unfortunately this assumes that all adults understand that they are responsible for their actions and that they think about the consequences before the doing the action - however, they don’t. Those with high EQ probably do.
Criticism of these kids’ letters really reminds me of Ann Coulter’s infamous “those whining 9-11 widows should just get over themselves” rant. Tugging at one’s heartstrings, in my book, is a far less vile offense than pretending that people’s poor choices in life have no effect on anyone but themselves.
people here don’t seem to be pretending that… they seem to be “pretending” that people’s poor choices in life (along with their effects on others) are their own responsibility, not the government’s.
this, my friends, is a fine example of a straw man.
And if anyone needs an example of an insufferable twit, just think of someone who expects Pitworthy cheap shots to be free of fallacious arguments. Was the stick that far up your ass when the other kids were telling yo’ momma jokes?
Ooooh, let me apologize for the ad hominem. Both of em. :rolleyes:
alright, perhaps i was overly snotty. i apologize.
You, sir, are a god. The god of cads, tis true, but a god nonetheless.
Dude! I wanna live in that world! I’m gonna need some sharp-ass spurs and a big riding crop… and one of those pointy German helmets too, of course. Yee HA! 
I’m pretty sure that there isn’t a single 7 year old that is smarter than me and if there are any, I still don’t want them making public policy.
They won’t let you have that. Instead of spurs you will have your choice of between flipflops or ballet shoes, in any shade of pink you want. Riding Crop = really big sunflower. Pointy German Helmut = you think your dick it too small.
Except that in the US it will most likely be their insurance company keeping them on life support. So you would bear no cost except perhaps via higher insurance premiums.
So maybe this is the crux of why Americans are adamant that fools can choose not to wear helmets or safety belts?
Are we forgetting that these letters were written by their children? Too late, the genes have already been replicated.
Using that logic, we should just cut our losses and buy both of them a cellphone and a case of beer for when they first get their licenses, and hope that they are on birth control until then.
Well, I get the impression that the two are linked. Americans seem to want minimal government involvment in their lives. This means they’d prefer not to be forced to do things such as wear a helmet. It also means they want minimal tax-funded healthcare. So rather than being directly related, it seems that they both stem from a strong desire for independance (or at least a particular type of independance.)
Having never set foot in their country though, I could be way off base ;).
What I’d like to know is this: why do you never see letters to the editor that are signed, “Mrs. Annie Adams (Age 47)”.
Tagging the kids’ age onto their letters seems like the newspaper’s way of saying, “Hey, readers, we’re just printing this crap to make the kid happy. Ain’t she cute? But don’t take it seriously, y’all.” Especially when it’s a well-thought-out, clearly-written letter from a 17-year-old high school student. It also reeks of a parent or teacher pushing the kid to write the letter. What kid, on her own initiative, tags her age onto her correspondence? (“Here, honey, when you sign your name, write your age so that the editor will feel bad if he doesn’t print it.”)
Grrr. . . .appealing to emotion is not, in and of itself, fallacious. There are times when it’s very appropriate: I love you beyond all reason and want to spend my life with you. Marry me! Look at the great works of American rhetoric: Linkcoln’s second Inaugura Address, Paine’s “Crisis”, MLK’s “I Have a Dream Speech”. All of these are effective uses of emotional appeals.
This is a special pet peeve of mine, as I teach High School Rhetoric. We teach them to analyize emotional arguements and to write logical arguements and then wonder why they don’t make any connections between the two.
Though emotional arguments can be extremely effective, one should be taught to analyze them. The (possibly) greatest “appeal to emotion” speaker of all time was likely Hitler. (Godwinized! I win the thread!) The student should know how to perceive if there is any meaning contained within the speech; when to discard the emotion and when to succumb to it.
Why? What color ribbons did you have in mind?
However, to a pretty good extent it’ll be my fucking money that is paying for the medical care of the idiot who choose to ride without a helmet, so I choose that they have to wear one.