After she made that comment she shared her opinion on legal immigration (that she was all for it), and her argument for that was "the more the merrier".
If you wished to go after her argument, then you should have focused on how a thought-terminating cliche is not a real argument (Hell, simply quoting the cliche and saying "really? can you prove that?").
Instead of going after the fallacy that she was guilty of, you tried to present the idea that increased population would certainly lead to overpopulation, which is an appeal to fear.
P.S. I bring my A game every time, but I can't help it if some of my opponents aren't at the same competitive level as me and are unable to keep up with me.
P.P.S. In order to be "wrong again" I have actually have been wrong before.
Last edited by Tucker Case; 08-21-11 at 05:01 PM.
States can simply do what Oklahoma and Arizona have done,eventually states like California will be forced to join because its one thing when those 12-20 million illegals are spread out across the country and its another thing when they are all in your state because they fled states that are hostile to them. Not all states have to deal with the 9th circuit court of appeals.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
Technically, though, the 9th only has jurisdiction over the district courts on the West Coast, Alaska, and Pacific. I'm not sure if the rulings of the 9th apply to other states outside their jurisdiction, but even if they do, those states can take it to SCOTUS, which has appellate jurisdiction over the entire country.
- Colonel Paul YinglingNobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.
Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.
All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
If the Bay area grows from a population of 7.5 million to 45 million via lots and lots of legal immigrants, you know, the more the merrier as you said, and water rationing has to be expanded and commute times are lengthened and taxes have to be raised to pay for more infrastructure and suburbs have to be built hundreds of miles away from the city center and population density has to be increased in the urban areas, these are all unqualified good things to you?
I didn't wish to diagnose what was wrong with her argument, I wished to duplicate the structure of her argument. The clue to this is that I did duplicate the structure of her argument. Can I be more obvious about what I wished to do?
When you are filling a glass from a pitcher of water and you tell all around you that you don't believe that there are limits on how much water the glass can hold, you know, saying something like "the more the merrier" then it is not an appeal to fear to point out that when the glass overflows the water will spill onto the floor.you tried to present the idea that increased population would certainly lead to overpopulation, which is an appeal to fear.
Increasing population has natural consequences on resource scarcity and resource allocation.
Look, just admit that you shot from the hip with your criticisms, that they weren't well formulated and that you'd like to stop digging the hole you're in any deeper.
Now, overpopulation is a real problem- it creates strains on the planet that are tough to sustain. But that equation works out the same regardless of which country the people are in. As long as they're on earth, they're going to have that impact.
Now, of course, that doesn't mean that we should just open up the borders or whatever. Like everything else in life, it is about finding the right balance where the disadvantages and advantages balance out optimally.
* two hints for the price of one: you made an assumption regarding the meaning of "more" that was unfounded (hence your appeal to fear argument). In the context of that statement, the argument could easily be that more was specifically referencing legal immigrants. As in the more legal immigrants the merrier. It is certainly possible to have that situation without a population explosion that your appeal to fear focuses on.