relevant to discuss =/= pretending that it affects you.
It doesn't have to even have the potential to affect you in order to be relevant to discuss. That's a far cry form pretending that there is some limitation placed upon you that doesn't exist.
False. Look at what I originally quoted that started this discussion. It's in the OP.No one has said that it has affected them (not counting those that live there).
My argument is based on what was said. I quoted that which was said. It's certianly not my fault if you have ignored that.That is the difference between your arguement and mine.
Then why are you arguing with me?I have already admitted that this particular law does not directly affect me.
I have merely pointed out that it doesn't affect you indirectly. Your legislators affect you directly. You have to affect them directly if you don't want such a law in your local area.I have also said that it could affect me indirectly and I showed how.
Of course not. It's the fact that you are using the unknown nature as evidence to suggest the approach you are taking is correct that makes it fallacious. Especially when you use that unknown to ignore the evidence which suggests that it is not the correct approach.Just because it is not known as fact does not make it a fallacy.
Yep. That's why it's fallacious. You are using the unknown to ignore the known data in order to achieve the opposite conclusion from the logically valid one (failure,inability to cause politicians to lose their jobs, etc, etc.). You can't calculate the probability of success when no instances of success are known to exist. Well, you can, but that probability is 0.The thought process is based on probability which is based on several other factors...such as the knowledge that a politician knows that if they do something they know will be unpopular by a majority of people then they will be voted out. Which of course no politician wants unless they want to retire. So naturally they would not openly support such a policy...even if they personally think that such a policy is a good policy.
Since the only possible probability of success that can be achieved when the approach being assessed has 0 known instances of success and multiple known instances of failure is 0 probability of success, you are definitely not basing your belief on probability.And based on probability?
Sure, but one doesn't need to pretend that the law is directly or indirectly affecting them in some way to make that argument.Or we can continue to try and change peoples minds and change the law....and the politician.
It doesn't take a genius to make an educated guess at which way the politician would lean. It really doesn't. Teh problem isn't th eimpossibility of knowing where a politician would go, it's that peopel are often too ****ing lazy to research their local politicians and focus primarily on national nonsense.As I already said, it is impossible to know everything that a politician will or will not do. You could soak up and know every single bit of information that is available and you still wouldn't know everything that a politician will or will not do. The only way to know everything that a politician will do is be that politician...which doesn't exactly help those that are not that politician does it?
If you are like me, and you choose to live in a place where your government is filled with idiots chosen by idiots, you'll never be a victim because you, like me, are responsible for your own situation.Which is all that I do.
If they do something totally out of character, then by all means, get their ass out of office.Knowing their stances on other issues does not help when they go after something that has nothing to do with those other issues.
True. If they vote completely out of character, vot etheir ass out next go round and replace them with someone who will repeal the bad law.Bold: That is the key word. "Most". Most does not equal "all".
Bull****. Everyone makes a choice. Even making a bunch of whiny ass excuses for not making a change is a choice.Also you may have a choice on where you live. Not everyone does. Particularly the poor and the infirm. Moving takes money. Not everyone has the money to move.
Nonsense. It's silly if it wastes time that could be spent on more effective methods. It only has to be 1% less effective than the other method for it to hurt. The fact that it's probably a damned sight more than just 1% less effective than most other methods of creating change means it's almost certainly harmful to the cause.It's only silly if the chance of it being effective is 0%.
True, but the specific approach being discussed -impotent pissing and moaning- is pretty much just as ineffective no matter where you go.Also what is and what isn't effective can depend greatly on location.