- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 45,596
- Reaction score
- 22,536
- Location
- Everywhere and nowhere
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
rof If you aren't psychic, you can only make the claim that it may effect you, directly or indirectly. 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.
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.
Then why are you arguing with 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.
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.
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.
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.
Sure, but one doesn't need to pretend that the law is directly or indirectly affecting them in some way to make that argument.
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.
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.
If they do something totally out of character, then by all means, get their ass out of office.
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.
Bull****. Everyone makes a choice. Even making a bunch of whiny ass excuses for not making a change is a choice.
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.
True, but the specific approach being discussed -impotent pissing and moaning- is pretty much just as ineffective no matter where you go.
