jryan

But an appeal to consensus is the suggestion that an assertion is true due merely to the fact that lots of people agree with it. It's a very close cousin of an appeal to popularity. That is NOT what a boycott is. I think it's just the words you chose which are leading to the confusion.

Well, I was responding to the claim that the boycott was meant to apply pressure without appeal to logic or consensus. Since "appeal to Logic" isn't a fallacy I assumed the "appeal to consensus" wasn't meant to be taken as a logical fallacy.

The same thing happens to those people that happens to me when I am pulled over and don't have my drivers license or proof of insurance. They'll be required to provide that identification. Well, not exactly... I have to pay a fine, they won't.

If they don't want that inconvenience then they can simply carry their ID with them.

No, because for a boycott to have any effect you need to have a large number of like minded people boycotting together. Such a group would have a consensus of opinion.

I suppose you can have a boycott by one person, but in this case California is asking it's citizens to boycott Arizona as a group.

Sorry, did Spratt make this claim sometime before the Republican email? I was under the impression it was in response to it. That it cited the text in that email as the basis for his argument.

Would you at least concede that "seems completely absurd to me" does not equal definitive proof?

 

It's also a pretty useless point in a debate or discussion, when others obviously feel it is not absurd. If that's your stance, I can't blame you for saying "Yeah, I've already made up my mind on this one" but considering that others haven't, you may want to either supply evidence for your view, or let others discuss it without interjecting your personal opinions of what is or is not definitively and objectively absurd.

Wrong. Spratt has made a gratuitous assertion. Logically such assertions can be gratuitously dismissed.

Spratt is simply making claims about a fictitious subtext to the RNC message. He made it up. There is nothing in that email that equates Spratt's poor record with his Parkinson's, period.

That is the definitive proof. The idea that Spratt's Parkinson's is affecting his mental abilities or his performance not only didn't exist before the RNC message, it didn't exist after it either... until Spratt invented the controversy from whole cloth.

The burden of proof here is on Spratt to show where the RNC meant their message in the way Spratt has played it and bascule believes to be accurate. But they can't because there is nothing connecting Spratt's condition to the RNC email message but wild speculation.

All Spratt has at this point is an email that doesn't say what he says it does.

Here is the page at the AZ state website explaining to legal residents and US citizens what is required of them:

http://www.arizonaguide.com/arizona-travel-info/identification-requirements

Note that the ID requirement doesn't even apply to a stop until the person has been arrested for some other criminal violation. In such a case, a legal resident or citizen that is caught on a B&E with no ID could be asked to provide proof of legal residence... which they would have if they are legal residence or citizens. But Obama's story of dad buying ice cream for his kids wouldn't be "harassed about their citizenship" unless they were first actually arrested for, say, robbing the Ben&Jerry's.

Spratt made the connection first because what he claimed was a completely absurd conflation that was never said until he said it. There is no more difinitive proof than that.

Just in reference to the OP:

 

I entirely agree that boycotts like this are somewhat stupid, especially if you wage "economic warfare" and are surprised to get the same in return. A boycott is a fair and understandable action, but it is also a strong-arm tactic, designed to apply pressure without any appeal to logic or consensus.

 

I don't necessarily agree with that statement. Most boycotts are specifically appealing to the consensus as they are asking large groups of people act together. I would assume that nobody boycotts something when they agree with it.

 

I think anyone that engages in such a tactic has the right to do so, but can't complain or be surprised when the same pressures are applied in response. If L.A. decides it is stupid to get in a fight over electricity they want to buy that AZ wants to sell... it really reflects on the nature of what they did in the first place to warrant the response.

Yeah, LA and California are shooting themselves in the foot here.

The AZ law is not unlike the current CA law. But as I said, AZ should simply offer to bus all of their illegals over to Los Angeles since they are such an economic boon. I would bet most illegals would jump at the chance for a free bus trip to a friendly city.

Heck, if I were AZ I wouldn't even check the legal status of those wanting to take the trip.

Merged post follows:

Oh, by the way, I think boycotts are specifically an appeal to consensus.

It seems to be a matter of you begging the question, bascule. We would have to assume that your and Spratt's interpretation of the RNC statement were accurate before we would have a reason to react as you have.

Since the RNC did not say any of the absurd things you and Pratt are claiming they implied I am not going to waste my emotions on such things.

Merged post follows:

Now you're turning into Glenn Beck.

Oooooooouch.

The issue is that the RNC should feel really bad about convincing voters that Parkinson's=Alzheimer's=Amnesia. That's the whole reason people are upset by this.

 

What is contested is whether that was the RNC's intention. Is there some subtly that I'm missing?

You're missing it. The Parkinson's=Alzheimer's=Amnesia connection was made by Spratt. The RNC said Spratt had amnesia and Spratt claimed that they were therefor making fun of his Parkinson's because they were really talking about Alzheimer's.

But he apparently DOES have amnesia because he forgot that "OMG MCCAIN MAY HAVE ALZHEIMER'S AND DIE IN OFFICE BECAUSE HE'S OLD AND HAS HAD CANCER BEFORE!" was an actual central platform of the 2008 Democrat leadership the and the Obama ticket .

Merged post follows:

Also... a quick glimpse of the DNC and the news media in action circa 2008:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/10/08/ftl.mccain.health/index.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-18-mccain-health_N.htm

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN21506232

http://www.democracycorps.com/focus/2008/10/third-presidential-debate/

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1779596-2,00.html

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/mccaskill-to-st.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Politics/story?id=4913763&page=1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/22/AR2008072203201.html

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/10/questions-surro/

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/05/09/mccains-age-and-past-health-problems-could-be-an-issue-in-the-presidential-race.html

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=648861

... and that was a 3 minute Google check.

Well Pangloss, the leg is full of nerves, and the brain is mostly nerves, so losing a leg is like losing a part of your brain which can lead to memory loss which is like Alzheimer's which is no different than Parkinson's ... you monster.

The only problem with that argument jryan, is that it seems to carry the premise that if things are bad enough, canceling the constitution is justified. It doesn't really matter how bad things are in Arizona, it matters how we deal with them. This law is good because it deals with those problems in Arizona fairly and constitutionally.

 

I think if you try to use the drama of the horror of Arizona's issues, you will unwittingly give the impression that things are so bad that we just don't have time for civil rights and constitutional protection.

 

The constitution is most needed during times of struggle.

 

Thanks for the stat though.

Your argument is perfectly fine but is moot in practical application.

In reality, Phoenix is suffering due to the Federal Government's refusal to uphold it's own constitutional duties to the people of Arizona, and the whole country for that matter.

But you and I agree on this issue, so I assume you got my point.

Back to the issue at hand:

Once Arizona get's it's act in gear maybe San Diego can take over as #2 kidnapping city in the world. I mean, if the LA mayor is right, and illegals are a net gain for his city and his state then he should be overjoyed to accept all of AZ's illegals with open arms, right?

It's funny that Californian politicians have publicly sent an invite to AZ illegals to go settle in California... since they're so lucrative and all...

Edit: Actually, ParanoiA is doing a fine job so I'll retract my statement here.

On the list of cities with the highest kidnapping rates Mexico City is #1.

Care to guess what city is #2?

Bogotá, Columbia? No.

Calcutta, India? Nope.

It's Phoenix, Arizona.

I love this. Democrats have now convinced their base that Parkinson's=Alzheimer's=Amnesia and the RNC is supposed to feel really bad about that.

That such a ploy seems to work with the Democrat base and the news media is more of an indictment of the Democrat base's and the news media than it is an indictment of the RNC.

I

Here's a Time article:

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1986002,00.html

 

Ytz-pP8p1Bg

Man, I bet a lot of people would kill to get in there!

Maybe we should set a bar for how to judge the Tea Party success in November. Since there are a good number of congresspeople involved in the Tea Party, and a good number who are not, we should figure out who is who and see if Tea Party participants are more likely to have kept their seats than non-Tea Partiers.

It would seem that if we are seeing anti-incumbent fever that it should be a pretty random seat loss in November that only happens to impact Democrats more since they are the majority.

Edit: Actually, I'll amend that... we should simply measure their success based on Tea Party endorsements. I don't think the congressperson needs to be directly affiliated (like attending rallies, and invoking the movement in speeches).

Someone smashed out the windows of my local BP gas station the other night. It sure would be awesome if people weren't so stupid.

Just to be the Devil's advocate: There have been changes in this country since Lincoln.

Yeah, except what's being described in this thread applies to citizens themselves. Would you perhaps like to take another swing at this?

No need to take a second swing at it since the two statements are tangentially related, but do not concern the same topics.

I'm simply making the observation that the group looking to strip American citizens of their citizenship on presumption of terrorist ties is also the group that wants to grant the benefit of citizenship to enemy combatants currently incarcerated in GITMO and stage trials for them in New York City courtrooms.

The law already makes clear delineations between the rights of citizens, the punishment for traitors, and the rights of enemy combatants. This new law simply smudges that line with no clear purpose other than some level of illogical feel-goodery.

If they really wanted to push some smart legislation in the wake of the Time Square bombing attempt it would be to make sure that there is a clear communication between intelligence gatherers and the various functionaries of the state department. As such, those who grant citizenship to foreign applicants should be aware that the intelligence community is watching some applicants.

And heck, in some cases it may be preferable to the intelligence community that citizenship be granted to avoid blowing an investigation.

This bill operates on the truth that citizenship is a privilege. Citizenship comes with it a set of rights that we all enjoy whether we are citizen by birth or naturalization that are written in indelible ink, however. Challenging the rights of the citizen rather than limiting the access to the privilege is utterly wrong headed. By approaching the problem backward they are simply challenging the inalienability of our rights as citizens rather then the far less perverse challenge of someones right to become a citizen in the first place.

As much as it would have felt good to deny citizenship to Timothy McVeigh and Bill Ayers, the potential for abuse is simply far too great, and the implications such laws would have on the permanence of rights themselves would be erase the whole notion of indelible rights.

That's pretty much what's going on. There's a bunch of people who are all "we can't trust the law to deal with terrorists!" These are the same people making a fuss that we can't try terrorists in civilian courts.

 

Essentially, there's an extremely paranoid subset of Americans who want to bypass the whole America/Constitution thing and waterboard suspected terrorists without a trial, because terrorists can't be trusted.

No, there is a very practical set of Americans that believe that the Constitution applies to citizens, and does not apply to foreign combatants.

This rather logical and intelligent group of people also believe that if there are to be any limitations on citizenship it should be at the point when a foreign national on a terrorist watch list for years applies for American Citizenship. If we are stupid enough to grant him that citizenship then we have to live with the consequences.

It makes absolutely zero sense to pass a law that gives the right to the Federal Government to withdraw citizenship rights on presumption of guilt to help in the handful of international terrorist attacks on the US by US citizens.

What this bill is doing is in essence taking questionable wartime powers (see Lincoln suspension of habeas corpus, and FDR incarceration of Japanese-Americans) and granting them to the Government in perpetuity.

I wouldn't even want MY side of the aisle to be granted such powers.

That sounds like a poor use of comparisons.

It certainly is beneficial to have the Mississippi supplying counter pressure to the tide that is trying to push the spill ashore, though.

Indeed.

Ideology appears to be getting in the way of practical solutions now as the EPA is rejecting the offer by the Dutch to provide oil skimmers that are designed to perform clean ups like this on the grounds that they leave behind some oil residue.

Article

Doesn't it make sense to get most of the oil into barges now while the leak is still occurring? Isn't it better to worry about the residue effects on the environment rather than ALL OF THE OIL's effect on the environment?

Absolutely true. There is a bigger story at play in the markets this week than the errant "B", but you wouldn't know it watching the news. We have what amounts to the 2008 housing bubble set to possibly burst at any time, but this time it is entire countries that could be going bankrupt.

Add to that the distinct possibility of a Chinese market collapse in the next 12 months and we are looking at very bad things.

We may look really good economically in comparison, but not if we run out of solvent lenders to feed our deficit.

Merged post follows:

By the way, as a matter of perspective: The DOW officially lost all of it's gains this year during this week of trading.