Once again, logical fallacy rules the Republican Day

[Cats Against Frist]

One of my major reasons for posting is to attempt to help people understand how the Republicans argue to their constituents. After listening to most of the speeches, as usual, using their "appeals to emotion," with such gusto as to make Rick Santorum blush, there was only one real argument that they presented in antithesis of the Democratic argument, which was stated, again and again that the purpose was not to "overturn" the election, but use a very high-profile forum to bring attention to voting irregularities and the need to straighten out the system.

The Democrats have a sound reason for using this forum, most notably because both the public and the media are apathetic about voting reform, and there are DOCUMENTED irregularities from this election -- and we all know about 2000.

The only Republican argument that wasn't rooted in spite, appeal to emotion or grandiose "poor America" sentimental bullshit was that this was the "WRONG TIME" or an "inappropriate forum" to bring up the message.

Let's look at this logically. Why was it the "wrong time?" Was it because calling attention to the potential illegitimacy of the election would dampen or spoil the pomp that they expect when steamrolling their king and their "mandate" over the 50+ million American citizens who chose to vote AGAINST their program? When is it ever the "wrong time" to have a discussion about democracy, particularly in light of documented irregularities -- particularly in a situation where it may reach MORE people than under normal circumstances?

Their main argument relies on their FAVORITE logical fallacy -- the "style-over-substance" fallacy. They use it time and time again. The idea is, instead of attacking the argument or the speaker (which they did some ad hominem, as well, this time), they choose to attack the TIMING, DELIVERY or TONE or other vehicle of the message.

You've heard it -- Al Gore and Howard Dean get emotional, and they are "wild eyed and out of control."

You must not speak ill of Reagan, because he's "just died."

You must not speak of politics at the funeral of a man who dedicated his life to progressive causes and standing against the status quo or it is "opportunistic and a disgrace."

You must not invoke the name of the Vice President's Gay daughter, because it's "inappropriate."

You should not criticize the president in a time of war because it "undermines our troops."

Because the Democrats and Osama shared some of the same criticisms of Bush that means all Democratic argument is "Anti-American."

The criticism of the elections is invalid because it comes from the "Michael Moore wing" of the party.

The question to Donald Rumsfeld about the inadequate armour for our troops was "invalid" because a "reporter coached the soldier who asked it."

*****************************************************

I implore people to do two things -- educate other Liberals, Progressives and Democrats on the logical fallacies, particularly the false delimma, the style-over-substance fallacy, the "tu quoque" fallacy and the argumentum ad hominem (relevant to Bush's mandate) fallacy, and "appeals to emotion" -- all of which were used today on the floor of the House and Senate, by the Republican party. When crafting messages, attempt to steer clear of this type of debate. I know that, informally, it is often fun and serves a kind of emotional catharsis -- I do it too -- but more people need to be aware of not letting these kinds of arguments rule the day. (Though today, they didn't -- the Democrats, though still fairly spineless presented a much more level-headed and logical case than the Republicans, who were CLEARLY working off of logical fallacy).

When you hear a Republican use these logical fallacies, please let them know that they are using a logical fallacy, and explain it to them.

I realize that this is a tad sophisticated for some Republicans, but the propaganda machine relies on these things -- this is one of the easiest ways to see exactly what is propaganda. They've been dragging down our discourse with these things, and this is how they're beating us over the head with their hate radio drones. This will also help YOU identify when you're being "bullshitted," so to speak.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.php

*note: according to rules of debate, however, pointing out a logical fallacy does not excuse one from making one's own argument -- it is a logical fallacy, in itself, to argue that your opponent has used a logical fallacy, and leave it at that. It's kind of like that humility thing -- you call someone out on their lack of humility, and you're not being humble. I love how that stuff works. :)

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. We need our own echo chamber who's ONLY job is to......

kick the mediawhore's in the crotch 24/7 and scream at them and demand that they be given equal time with FAIR QUESTIONS!!!