Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Friday, September 17, 2004

Platitudes do not persuade


This pation identfies a recurring problem with logical arguments in the Republican Party. The Republicans need to explain themselves, but they choose to simply spew forth more non-sense. Here's a hint, save us time and simply "Vote Kerry" and get this cess-pool-excuse for leadership out of DC.

This pation will contrast the drivel from the population, and hope to highlight the same systemic flaws in thinking that plague the country. These flaws are important to keep in mind as they highlight not only why a nation can be lulled into marching to illegal wars, but also forms the basis to understand why, despite mounting evidence of war crimes, that an impeachment hearing is being stonewalled.

The non-sense continues

Let us recall the mental drivel from the President that he gave at his coronoation. Notice that he was simply crowned, "fighter pilot" and has not actually become a King, although he desires to have a sweet court jester prance upon his stomach.

Keeping the President's drivel in mind, along with the real fascism between the lines, let us also note the drivel of the American Public. Specfically, let's consider some drivel we have recently come across; and it will be quire clear that the absurdity is merely more of what is coming out of the fighter pilots mouht.

Indeed, I like comments that change the subject. This is delightful because it is more of the "we have no defense, so let's change the subject by spewing forth platitudes." We are not persuaded.

This pation deconstructs the "argument" in the "comment".

Table 1.0: An example of a weak argument

Notice the following two phrases suffer from the following three flaws:

- Are based on false premises
- Incorrectly assert a false statement as a basis to "not do something"
- Suggest a conclusion that does not follow from either the original information, the two phrases

Phrase 1: To bad John Kerry doesn't do all: No evidence provided to substantiate this claim, just as there was no evidence for WMD. Thus the argument fails.

Phrase 2: this because the he would be worth voting for. Because the original premise is faulty [Phrase 1], the conclusion is groundless. This phrase incorrectly implies that "worth" is related to "doing something that is unrelated to value."

Conclusion: This is called a "weak argument." The premises are flawed, and the argument does nothing to address the original point. Try again.

Table 2.0: Meaningless comments to distract attention

The White House also has energized the population to slow down those who might otherwise discuss issues with voters. Indeed, the White House is afraid of "having too many voters" as "the undecided voters" are leaning toward Kerry.

This is an example of an "irrelevant comment" that has nothing to do with the original post; or the above arguments. Also, the statement offers unsolicited advice, dissuades action, and otherwise discourages voting for "anyone other than Bush" [who is a fascist].

Notice the unsolicited advice

Phrase: Don't just vote Dem for the sake of the Dems. Who asked you; and why should your advice/recommendation be approved? I have yet to see a credible display of logic; certainly were are not dealing with an analcyst from one of the major borkers?

But we digress, and should simply as, "Are you voting?" Waiting, waiting... No answer. Try again.

Table 3.0: The sleight of hand with illusory premises

One method to diver attention from "methods of sharing your views on why we are voting for Kerry" is to make a platitude.

This does not relate to "why people should discuss their reasons for voting for Kerry.

This relies on six (6) unproven assumptions:

- That a group is, in fact, divided
- That the alternate choice is not divided, despite the order for no resignations
- That a divided group is bad, and other views are unacceptable
- That the only path is "what a non-divided group" is doing
- That the path to solutions is found only in group-think, tight cohesion
- That a group that is divided cannot be repaired


Phrase: "They are now a house divided that will not stand." What is the basis for this statement? None, thus we reject.

Discussion: Let us generalize the application of such a truism: The United States is also divided, will it too fall? No answer, demanding the "that platitude I gave before only applies in certain situations...", thus we ignore the argument as it fails the "applicable across all spectrum-criteria."

But let's not stop there. During 9-11, the US showed that it was not only divided, but ineffectual -- are you saying that only a group in which "all agree" is a healthy one? No answer.

Surely, this is the reason we have a problem in Iraq: The "leadership" failed to consider outside views, and had previously made a decision it was going to enter combat operations regardless.

Argument deconstruction

Notice the above statement implies that the Democrats are divided [unlike America], but will suffer a catastrophe [unlike America]. Yet there is no reasonable explanation why the US would "survive" divided, but a particular party would not survive.

Also the argument incorrectly implies that "what is divided" cannot be repaired. Try again.

Table 4.0 The diversion, distraction with irrelevancies

This is an example of a comment unrelated to the original point. This is generally how the Republicans approach things. Rather than actually discuss an issue, they simply spout phrases that mean nothing.

Indeed, "meaningless phrases" is how they refer to the US constitution. Beware, they also feel the same way about your right to silence and a jury trial. Also, note specifically this does not relate to "why people should discuss their reasons for voting for Kerry."


Phrase: "We are a Republic not a democracy."

Discussion We also have a constitution. This also has no relevance this has to whether people can discuss "their reasons for voting for Kerry." Thus, we reject the statement for lack of relevance. Try again.