|
Somewhere along the way, Republicans got the reputation
for being close-minded and prejudiced. We don’t know
how that perception came about, but it’s there now
and stronger than ever. Try to tell a liberal that a Republican
is open-minded and he will laugh at you. This is troubling
for some of us, not only because of the irony, but also
because it is simply a false statement that Republicans
are close-minded. Republicans are much more open to political
change than the typical liberal Democrat, and socially,
Republicans are the ones who stand on the outskirts of the
norm.
It
is true that we Republicans don’t always accept other
policies or opinions, but one doesn’t need to accept
everything to be open-minded, one only needs to consider
other viewpoints. To cling to every passing whim would be
foolish especially because most ideas out there are idiotic.
If an emotional liberal says something stupid, we will reject
it. That doesn’t make us close-minded, it just makes
us reasonable.
The
letter below was floating around the time of the election
and drew considerable support from Democrats and Communists
alike. As true open-minded Republicans, we read the piece
and considered its validity. We then proceeded to rip it
to shreds. Not only did it include several spelling and
grammatical errors, it radiated logical flaws. No reasonable
person would accept such rubbish and so we did not. To some,
this would mean that we are close-minded. So be it—if
one has to jump for joy when reading manure to be open-minded,
we’ll pass. Here is the letter and our analysis (in
blue).
Dear Republicans,
I keep seeing bumper stickers that say, "United We
Stand." However, saying it doesn't make it true. I
think we are about as divided as I have ever seen us. Just
pick any current issue and ask a Democrat then a Republican
what they think and you'll get surprisingly different answers.
But I'm trying to look at the larger picture here. I want
to know what is the main difference between us, people who
are Democrats (or progressives) and you, people who are
Republicans (or conservatives)?
| Error
in logic: PLURIUM INTERROGATIONUM (many questions)
This means that the author is looking for a simple
answer to a complex question. I understand the
desire for conciseness, but this is a very complex
question and deserves a complex answer. |
|
I want
to know the real biggy, the one that is at the very root
of how we feel about all the issues. And I've thought and
thought about it and do you know what I come up with? It's
a gut feeling more than a descriptive word. And the only
word that can accurately be attached to that feeling is
"mean."
Republicans are just plain mean. I hate to insult those
Republicans who may not be mean, but I can only judge from
the Republicans I know and those who are your spokesmen
and women on the TV and in the media. Mean.
Well,
here is our simple answer to a complex question.
This uses another error in logic:
PART TO WHOLE. Although the author modifies his
“mean” statement to be safe, he maintains
that based on the Republicans he knows, all Republicans
must be mean. |
|
Mean
because you hate everybody who doesn't look like you, make
money like you, or believe in your religious outlook. Look
at every issue and behind it, your view is based on your
hatred of someone or something. You hate gays and so you
would marginalia them from society or worse pass amendments
to our constitution to assure they will never have right
similar to yours.
Oh
boy. There are myriad errors in login in this
paragraph. I will focus on the most striking:
NON SEQUITOR—This paragraph is set up as
some sort of proof for the thesis, but fails to
do so and doesn't even really relate (just because
people disagree, doesn't make them hate each other
and doesn’t necessarily make them mean).
ARGUMENTUM AD LAZARUM—This is a fallacy
of assuming that because someone is poor he or
she is sounder or more virtuous than one who is
wealthy.
APPEAL TO PITY—Feeling sorry for someone
(e.g. the gays in the statement) does not make
an argument correct.
APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE—This statement attempts
to place the reader in the group being criticized,
and thus committing a false proof.
RED HERRING—Here, the author introduces
of one or more propositions, often controversial
or extreme, which lie well outside of the domain
of the existing argument, effectively confusing
the matter at hand or diverting attention away
from it. |
|
You
hate people of other races, particularly the ones with darker
skins. Oh I know you say you don't but actions speak louder
than words and it's no secret that the Republicans do nothing
to advance people of other races in this country or around
the world. Actually an amazing number of you come right
out and admit that you hate these people and cite the reason
you hate Democrats as because we try to help them or give
them rights. You're mean because you hate poor people and
always have some excuse as to why you shouldn't have to
care about them or help them. I especially love the way
you quote the bible passage that says the poor will be among
us always as if that one lets you off the hook for being
selfish and uncaring toward the unfortunate among us.
Here,
the claim is that Republicans are racist. There are
plenty of logical errors in the paragraph worth pointing
out, but let’s just look at public policy to
reveal the absurdity in this section. Of course, there
may be some Republicans who are racist, but it is
not the norm and indeed the history of the Republican
Party illustrates its anti-racist stance:
SLAVERY—The Republican Party was founded on
an anti-slavery platform, based in equal rights for
all; the first Republican president abolished slavery;
Republicans opposed the Democrat-supported Jim Crow
Laws of the South; the civil rights movement of the
1960s was initiated by Republicans in congress; and
the party has never endorsed racism or any other discrimination
based on skin color.
WELFARE—Republicans since Roosevelt have opposed
public policies which are, intentionally or not, keeping
American blacks in poverty and squalor. Republicans
I know encourage people to make a better life for
themselves, as opposed to milking the system for as
much as they can and depending on it for survival
to ensure a vote for a Democrat in the future. Republicans
live and breathe the old adage: If you give a man
a fish, he eats for a day. If you teach him how to
fish, he eats for a lifetime.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION—This policy is a direct effort
to discriminate based on skin color and Republicans
continually oppose it. |
You're
mean because you hate people who don't believe in the same
religion as you and because you constantly bully your religion
onto everyone else and push for it be the favorite of the
government by insisting kids pray in school and that we must
be One nation under YOUR God (who must be very mean; maybe
you've mistaken the devil for God). (By the way, my God is
probably the same as yours, but you have no business assuming
that notion for me or any other American.)
Religious
intolerance is a problem, but by no means is it simply
a Republican problem. And, to be sure, tolerance should
only go so far. Let us reflect on the most notable
products of absolute Bayarea tolerance: John Walker
Lindh. |
You're
mean because an alarming number of you have as your hero
a man like Rush Limbaugh, one who makes a living just being
mean. It's a sad commentary on society that someone like
him could rise to such fame and get filthy rich by being
the voice of the meanies among us. You're mean because you
hate environmentalists and you can't see how animals and
wildlife have any of the same rights as you. You're mean
because you would rather kill off an entire species, or
allow poisons to remain in the air and water to make not
just animals but humans sick, than work to find a better
solution to our needs for resources.
LAZARUM
again.
STRAW MAN (big time here)—It is a fallacy to
misrepresent someone else's position for the purposes
of more easily attacking it, then to knock down that
misrepresented position, concluding that the original
position has been demolished. No one wants to kill
Bambi.
AD HOMINEM—An argument that attempts to disprove
the truth of what is asserted by attacking the speaker
rather than the speaker's argument. I know there's
not much time to attack Rush's ideas, but simply attacking
him as a person is illogical. |
You're
mean because lately you particularly hate anyone who doesn't
agree with you and has the nerve to say so. That hatred, I
have to tell you, is downright scary, I'm sorry but when I
have to be that afraid to talk about how I feel about current
world events, then I am starting to wonder what kind of nation
you want the United States to be. Wait a minute, I know,..Mean.
TWO
WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT—If the author disagrees
with those who hate people who disagree with him,
why is he writing this piece? It sounds like he's
doing exactly what he's condemning, which would create
a logical paradox and could possibly IMPLODE THE UNIVERSE.
Be careful here! |
So now
we are spreading our meanness around the world and you are
all out there cheering it on. [SARCASM]
I saw
a bumper sticker the other day that said "Kick Their
Ass,Take Their Gas." [PERSONIFICATION]
I don't have to wonder too hard whether the driver was a Republican
or Democrat. [JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS]
He didn't bother to research and try to find the truth about
our involvement with Iraq or he would realize that the Iraqis
had nothing to do with 9-11. [EXAGGERATION]
But
he was too mean to care. [NON-SEQUITOR]
(He
also wasn't very smart; He is not going to "take"
their gas. He's going to pay a very smart price for it to
Halliburton and the like at the gas pump.)
[RED HERRING]
So, yes, I've come to the conclusion that your Republican
party is the party of mean people. I've been talking with
my friends about this and they admit that they have the same
thoughts about you. In case you haven't noticed, most of the
rest of the world harbors similar thoughts about you as well
but you're too mean to wonder if the rest of the entire world
might have a point to consider and actually try to figure
out why the world feels this way. It's better to just be more
mean so they'll be afraid to say what they Think.
ARGUMENTUM
AD NUMERAM—A fallacy that asserts that the more
people who support or believe a proposition, then
the more likely that that proposition is correct;
it equates mass support with correctness. Most of
the world wanted to let Hitler do his thing in the
1930s, but that wasn't the right thing to do. |
I use to have faith that Americans were really good people
down inside but with dismay I see that recently the mean-ness
is spreading. It's become downright cool to be mean.
ARGUMENTUM
AD NAUSEUM—The incorrect belief that an assertion
is more likely to be true the more often it is heard.
An “argumentum ad nauseum” is one that
employs constant repetition in asserting a truth. |
The
Democrats actually have a stigma of not being mean enough!
The real irony is that the Republican Party continuously
insinuates that they have some sort of monopoly on Jesus,
the least mean person who ever lived. But somehow I just
can't see Jesus with a "Kick Their Ass, Take Their
Gas" bumper sticker.
—A
Liberal
|
|
