PunBB

The moral value of someone's ideology isn't the question; it's whether they can argue their case in a valid way.

Well, I do appreciate that vote of confidence, Neil, backhanded as it may be.

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:The above is a non sequitur. You appear to be attempting to suggest that arguing that Bush is wrong for the country is invalidated by the failure of a demographic to vote for his rival. Those of us who are smarter than a broken pencil recognize that the voting or non-voting habits of the population have no bearing on whether a candidate is actually right for the country.

Well, Skippy, I beg to differ. I would argue that the issue of whether the President is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ for a country is rooted in opinion, and the nationwide vote in an election reflects the ‘popular opinion’. If a demographic has the capacity to influence the popular opinion on its political leader, yet refuses to exercise its right to participate in the political process, then that opinion will not be represented. Ergo, the opposing opinion constitutes the majority, and the ‘popular opinion’ of those who cared enough to involve themselves in the selection of the ‘right leader’ wins the day.


In other words, if any individual neglects to exercise his civic right to voice his opinion, then obviously, his opinion shall not be recognized on the same level of legitimacy as he who does. Since every citizen of legal age has this right, we can define ‘country’ simply as a collective body of voters (it is a democracy after all). By neglecting to vote, you elect to be excluded from the ‘popular opinion’ pertaining to decisions on what is ‘right’ for the ‘country’.

Now you're making an ad populam argument.

Try again.

VioletlightHeron Wrote:When will that asinine draft rumor finally die?? Both Bush and Kerry explicitly said they will not reinstate the draft and it was Charles Rangel's cockamamie idea to begin with. The US military has said they don't need the draft to meet their manpower needs, they are on target for recruiting and retaining what they need. geeez.

I would love for someone...anyone to explain to me how this military action can continue endlessly, as it will because short of dropping a "nook-yu-ler" bomb there will be no end, can continue without initiating a draft? Where are tens of thousands of volunteers coming from?

Oh, I get it, they're meeting their "manpower needs" by enslaving the National Guard and indefinitely extending the terms of service of the enlisted personell.

Seriously, how can this "war" continue without forcing servitude in one way or another?

Somebody...anybody...Bueller?

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Now you're making an ad populam argument.

Try again.

Dude - you misspelled populum.

There is no fallacy in the claim that the selection of one leader from two viable choices is the closest we, as a country, can come to establishing whichever the majority thinks is the 'right' one. No one is saying that if we genetically engineered the ideal presidential candidate, it would hop out of the petri dish walking bowlegged and saying "nucular". Were not talking ideal. Were talking about the popular selection of one over another, who then becomes the closest thing available to the right choice - that is not fallacious.

Get over yourself.

I'm confused by both sides now. Maybe I shouldn't have stayed up all night.

Esthete, you're saying the individuals who neglected to vote don't have any right to complain, and that's true. But as I said, it doesn't make my arguments against Bush or my positions on the issues any less valid. The same goes for Skippy, whose random Latin phrases are keeping the conversation interesting but are too concise to be useful. I don't know why you're trying to act like those opposing Bush have any less of a right to speak out against him, or any less of a voice to do so. And if you're not saying we have less of a right to speak out (those of us who did vote or aren't allowed because we're not US citizens), then what's the point being made?

Esthete,

Your attempt to argue that Bush must be the best decision because he was elected is obviously an appeal to popularity. To attempt to rescue that appeal with the premise that the question is a matter of opinion is to beg the question.

Furthermore, we all know it's a disingenuous attempt. Had Kerry been elected, I doubt you'd be saying that your previous support of Bush was inappropriate, since by appeal to popularity Kerry was obviously good for the country.

By the way, ad populam is a common spelling. Whether it's correct, well, I don't have time to worry about that.

I'd suggest you keep trying, but if I were you I'd quit while I was behind. It's okay to admit you've uttered a non sequitur. You only look like a doofus when you try to support it.

No, but what Esthete is saying they undercut their complaints that Bush shouldnt be in office by not exercising their right to partake in the right to vote. Community leaders (and i use the term very loosely) like Jerry Falwell and Jesse Jackson lose their effectiveness and credibility if they are only capable of standing before a TV camera, expounding on their agenda, without having the capability to prove they have the community behind them by turning out the vote. Jerry Falwell is certainly a nutcase in my opinion, but he has the credibility of turning out evangelical Christians in large numbers to vote for the candidate of his choice.

Interestingly, members of the age group in question also failed to vote for the other candidate.

Neither side can claim to have this group behind them. Suggesting that this invalidates a campaign or point of view that still won nearly half the popular vote, because it demonstrates that the community isn't behind their ideas, .....

Why even finish that one?

Try again. Or not. I'd go for not, personally.

Skippy, you are missing my point. I'm not saying the failure of the Dems to win invalidates their viewpoint, it doesnt give them the right to expect their agenda will be enacted by the majority in power. Bill Clinton didn't have to carry out the Repubs agenda when he was elected in 1992, neither should George Bush have to carry out the Dems agenda in the next 4 years. Prudence dictates he'll at least listen and respond to some of their ideas but I don't think either party when it is in the minority should expect their agenda to have much of a chance getting passed.

Earth is over here, man. Nobody is arguing that Bush should be carrying out somebody else's agenda.

You're trying to morph what Esthete wrote into another argument: that failure to vote invalidates a person's complaints. That's a separate argument, related only by being false. Popular, but bogus.

See, that's the source of the argument we were having. I tried to defend myself against your accusations of 'uttering a non-sequitur', which I now realize is not necessary, because my statement was not an attempt to 'invalidate' the agruments against Bush's agenda. I was simply calling attention to the irony of insisting a regime and its constituency is 'wrong' for a country, when the constituency of the challenger won't even participate in the very process which defines the essence of this nation.

If Candidate A is wrong for America, how can Candidate B be a better choice, when the ideology of Candidate B's constituency (the very demographic he aims to serve) won't even uphold the process which defines America and its government? By saying that, I am not suggesting that criticisms of Candidate A by Candidate B's constituency are invalid; I am suggesting that by failing to vote in this democratic election, portions of Candidate B's constituency are virtually un-American. See the irony now?

"Candidate A is wrong for America!", says the critic who fails to vote in the democratic election, the most elemental civic process that defines America........
cratch:

"Non-sequitur"? Whatever you say, Socrates.... Whatever the case, all adds up to something dumbfoudingly inane, IMO.....

I'd say that your claim that the challenger's constituency would not participate is disproven by the election results themselves.

Or perhaps you think roughly half the voters don't count?

Inane, indeed.

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:I'd say that your claim that the challenger's constituency would not participate is disproven by the election results themselves

.

No it isn't - that's my entire point! There appears to have been a lower-than expected turnout Tuesday amongst the 18-25 demographic. I think it's pretty well established that this demographic generally leans to the left; so can't we assume that had they shown up to the polls, things could easily have turned out differently? Especially in some of the more hotly-contested swing states?

So the 48% of the population that voted for Kerry weren't actually his constituency.

Okay.