Send Us Hatemail ! mailbag@conservativecave.com
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
babylonsisterGabrielle Giffords, April 17, 2013http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2695922
Giffords's 900-word jeremiad should be included in every textbook of logic and political rhetoric, so rife is it with examples of fallacious reasoning and demagogic appeals. Let's go through them: • The argumentum ad passiones, or appeal to emotion. She leads with this one: "Senators say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them." • The appeal to motives. Giffords claims that the senators who voted against the measures "looked over their shoulder at the powerful, shadowy gun lobby" and "made their decision based on political fear and on cold calculations about the money of special interests like the National Rifle Association." She also asserts that "their decision was based on a misplaced sense of self-interest" and on "cowardice." These characterizations are mutually inconsistent--can a senator's decision have been based on both unreasoning fear and a cold (but erroneous!) calculation of self-interest?--and they are also entirely unsubstantiated. So is her assertion that "the status quo" is "desperately protected by the gun lobby so that they can make more money by spreading fear and misinformation." • Guilt by association. See the references to the "gun lobby" in the preceding paragraph. • Poisoning the well. She reveals that some of the senators who voted against the amendments "have met with grieving parents" and that some "have also looked into my eyes . . . and expressed sympathy" for her and other Tucson victims. Her purpose in citing these facts is to impugn the senators' sincerity: "And still these senators decided to do nothing. Shame on them." In reality, they didn't "do nothing"; they rejected particular legislative proposals. It does not follow, and indeed it seems unlikely and is boorish to assert, that their expressions of sympathy were not heartfelt. • Begging the question. Giffords characterizes the proposed amendments as "common-sense legislation" that "could prevent future tragedies." She also describes them as "these most benign and practical of solutions." She pretends that the central matter in dispute--whether the benefits would outweigh the costs or indeed whether the proposals would have yielded the benefits their advocates promised at all--has already been settled in her side's favor. • The no-true-Scotsman move. "These senators have heard from their constituents--who polls show overwhelmingly favored expanding background checks," Giffords writes. She ignores the possibility that those polls are flawed and that the senators are hearing a different message from their constituents. Then she qualifies her claim of public unanimity: "I am asking every reasonable American to help me tell the truth . . ." See what she did there? (The switcheroo to every reasonable American reminds us of a probably apocryphal tale about Adlai Stevenson. A woman is supposed to have said to him, "Governor, you have the support of every thinking American," to which he replied: "But madam, I need a majority.") • The argumentum ad baculam, or argument from the club. This consists in attempting to persuade by making threats. Giffords urges "mothers to stop these lawmakers at the grocery store and tell them: You've lost my vote" and in other ways for those who agree with her to work for the lawmakers' defeat--a call to action, not an argument. There is, of course, nothing objectionable about citizens in a democratic republic engaging in such action, but that goes for those on the other side as well. And it's worth recalling that the "civility" hypocrites back in the day proclaimed themselves troubled and outraged by the phenomenon of citizens confronting their elected representatives at public meetings. • The argumentum ad miserecordiam, or appeal to pity. "Speaking is physically difficult for me," she writes. "But my feelings are clear: I'm furious." It should be obvious that this in no way speaks to the merits of the legislation or even the character of its supporters and opponents. • The false dilemma. This is Giffords's closing gambit: "To do nothing while others are in danger is not the American way." • The appeal to authority. That would be Giffords's own authority as a former lawmaker. "I was elected six times to represent southern Arizona, in the State Legislature and then in Congress," she writes. "I know what a complicated issue is; I know what it feels like to take a tough vote. This was neither." Perhaps her legislative experience gives her some insight into the senators' state of mind, but if so, she does not share it with readers, whom she expects to accept her conclusion unquestioningly. She makes one other appeal to authority, writing of the senators who voted "no" that "they will try to hide their decision behind grand talk, behind willfully false accounts of what the bill might have done--trust me, I know how politicians talk when they want to distract you." But the appeal to authority isn't always fallacious. In this case, Giffords has earned her readers' trust. The op-ed itself demonstrates her total command of how politicians talk when they want to distract you.
She seemed to like them well enough when it got her some votes. Look at that big, happy smile.
Screw the smile, look at the rifle! I need that!!By the way .... is that a young mexican fella on that board perhaps??KC
By the way .... is that a young mexican fella on that board perhaps??KC
Giffords has been through a terrible tragedy in which she had severe brain trauma. That is all.
I would afford Gabby the courtesy of at least listening to what she says.She's far more qualified than any hollyweird freakazoid celebrities.I'd then just disagree in a polite manner and leave it at that.Her husband is not qualified to make objective statements. He can KMA in that regard.
Isn't it funny how brain damage doesn't change a democrat one bit?
Yeah, but none of these people ever think "man if I had a gun I could've stopped this guy before he got me and some others". Especially when you consider Giffords knows guns and knows they are tools and it's the user that determines how they're used. That's what bothers me here. Same with the Newtown parents. There were plenty that didn't come on Air Force one who didn't think more gun laws were the answer (since they'd probably ignored, too). If we had a media that actually reported the news they would've given these people a voice, too. But that would require investigating & reporting instead of reading WH propaganda.Cindie
Too right. Stuff a sock in it Gabby. You're an irrelevant nobody whose only claim to "fame" is having been shot, looking for a few more minutes of media face time and standing on the bleeding bodies of children to push your liberal bullshit. Your contemptible ilk disgusts me. When the Left is done with her she'll go the way of Cindy Sheehan....
