Since McCain was, for all intents and purposes, in front of a green screen, how long do you think we'll have to wait before someone puts up a youtube video with special effects going on in the background behind McCain?
It's already been done. In fact, Colbert had a contest on his show to see if anyone could make McCain's speeches interesting by using the green screen.
Whatever. I would think that someone as quick to point out logical fallacies would know something about appeal to authority.
Here is some relevant language on the argument from authority:
It is reasonable to give more credence to the claims of those with the proper background, education, and credentials, or to be suspicious of the claims of someone making authoritative statements in an area for which they cannot demonstrate expertise.
Argument from authority does not come into play when there is consensus amongst experts. The only person to cite an article showing consensus amongst experts has been me.
Whatever. I would think that someone as quick to point out logical fallacies would know something about appeal to authority.
Here is some relevant language on the argument from authority:
It is reasonable to give more credence to the claims of those with the proper background, education, and credentials, or to be suspicious of the claims of someone making authoritative statements in an area for which they cannot demonstrate expertise.
It's certainly reasonable. However, this is what you said:
But when the media and former Democratic strategists are in near universal agreement that Palin gave a great speech, and the consensus here is more or less universal that she didn't, something here is broken.
That's not asking us to simply give more credence to the claims of "experts". It's asking us to wholly adopt their opinions simply because of their authority. That is the classic appeal to authority.
I didn't see Palin's speech, so I can't say whether it was good or not. She might have amazing public speaking skills, she might not. I'm willing to accept that it was well delivered if so many people say so. That's not an extraordinary claim.
However, you need to separate the delivery of the speech from the content. From what I have read about the content of the speech, there is a lot to have a problem with. I saw Obama's speech, and it was mostly presentation with a little bit of real content. However, the content it did have was not so bad. The content of the speeches given at the RNC contained a lot of content with a lot of problems in it. Everything I have read about the content of those speeches, mostly from a mix of links on Google News, so don't claim I'm reading biased sites, suggests that these people were saying some pretty disturbing things.
We will have to disagree. I submit that people like Stephanopoulos and Joe Trippi are much more astute political observers than we are. It is their learned opinion as well as the consensus. that I find persuasive. Under the argument from authority doctrine, this is a perfectly logically defendable conclusion. It's no different than with global warming. It's perfectly logically appropriate to consider the consensus of scientific experts.
Here's a simple argument from authority logical fallacy: Doctor Dobson says that evolution is real. It must be true, since he's a doctor.
That's a big difference between relying on the consensus of well-qualified people. Surely you are not disagreeing that people like Joe Trippi, George Stephanopoulos and the editorial boards of the New York Times, Washington Post, etc are not well-qualified political observers?
Is this the same Stephanopoulos who co-hosted the final Democratic Primary Debate that was universally panned for being worthless? Something like an hour without a single question of substance? Questions like "Hillary, do like diamonds or pearls?"
We will have to disagree. I submit that people like Stephanopoulos and Joe Trippi are much more astute political observers than we are. It is theirlearnedopinion as well as theconsensus. that I find persuasive.
Read what you said one more time:
But when the media and former Democratic strategists are in near universal agreement that Palin gave a great speech, and the consensus here is more or less universal that she didn't, something here is broken.
You didn't ask us to find anything persuasive. You said that, unless we swallow their opinion whole and give up our own opinion simply because these people are "experts", the forum is broken.
I'm sorry, but the success of a political speech is subjective at best. I'm not going to abdicate my opinion just because an expert has a different one. As far as Palin goes, she didn't write her speech, she merely delivered it. She was a beauty pageant queen and a TV news reporter. Of course she can read words off a teleprompter. That doesn't impress me and she doesn't get any points for it. The number of lies in the speech, especially the lies about the bridge to nowhere, made it a big loser in my opinion.
What do you make of all your experts saying that McCain's speech was very, very bad?
I didn't see Palin's speech, so I can't say whether it was good or not. She might have amazing public speaking skills, she might not. I'm willing to accept that it was well delivered if so many people say so. That's not an extraordinary claim.
However, you need to separate the delivery of the speech from the content. From what I have read about the content of the speech, there is a lot to have a problem with. I saw Obama's speech, and it was mostly presentation with a little bit of real content. However, the content it did have was not so bad. The content of the speeches given at the RNC contained a lot of content with a lot of problems in it. Everything I have read about the content of those speeches, mostly from a mix of links on Google News, so don't claim I'm reading biased sites, suggests that these people were saying some pretty disturbing things.
Okay, for the sake of argument, I'm going to Godwin it up here. Hitler, that's who knew how to get the audience pumped up during a speech! And the crowd went WILD! Really, since all the speeches are prepared before hand, the presentation, like a person's charisma, is only the varnish over the top of the whole thing. The substance is what that person is actually saying, cutting past all the smooth political posturing and getting to the actually opinions of the person in question. Obama is a good speaker, and he looks like he can inspire and motivate people with charisma and well chosen language. However, that's not why I would vote for him. He seems to be the candidate of the two electable political parties most likely to impart some of the public services and policies I hope for.
Palin could be the most honey-tongued, rousing charmer with speeches that awe the spectators into silence or cheers. That would not change the fact that at the heart of it she is spewing fundie poison. I hate her. She is an enemy to all women.
Okay, for the sake of argument, I'm going to Godwin it up here. Hitler, that's who knew how to get the audience pumped up during a speech! And the crowd went WILD!
I was going to use that exact same godwin, but I resisted.
Okay, for the sake of argument, I'm going to Godwin it up here. Hitler, that's who knew how to get the audience pumped up during a speech! And the crowd went WILD!
I agree. Like I said earlier, I think Joe's confused as to my criteria. I'm not asking anyone to admit that the content of her speech was acceptable. Rather, I'm just pointing out that the delivery appears to have been very good.
I hate her. She is an enemy to all women.
That's excessive. She's an enemy to you, but surely there are some women out there who agree with her.
I, for one, and very excited that we will either have a woman VP or an African-American president.
@gomidog: What do you think of the fact that Palin participates in and supports aerial hunting?
@kilarney: I'm not confused about anything. This is what you wrote:
But when the media and former Democratic strategists are in near universal agreement that Palin gave a great speech, and the consensus here is more or less universal that she didn't, something here is broken.
If that's not asking us to substitute their opinion for ours and find that she "gave a great speech", I don't know what is.
What do you think of the fact that Palin participates in and supports aerial hunting?
If it's the only way to effectively control endangered moose and caribou populations, then I'm for it. Besides, people die when hunting this way. It's probably the only form of hunting where the animal stands any chance of being the victor.
@gomidog: What do you think of the fact that Palin participates in and supports aerial hunting?
I don't understand what the controversy is, personally. Hunting is what animals do, what people did, and something people still do. We are smart enough to know what amount of hunting, in what areas, against what animals, is good. We're smart enough to know what amount of hunting, in what areas, against what animals, is too much. What does it really matter what method of hunting is used? If we need to kill 50 deer in an area because they are overpopulated what is the difference between sending in 50 bow hunters who kill 1 each and one airplane that guns down 50?
There are only two differences that I can think of. First of all, the aerial hunting probably costs a lot more because of the expense of fuel for the plane. Second, it's wussy. Hunters who kill a bear with a knife hand to claw get a lot more respect than someone who snipes an animal on wide open terrain from the sky. Other than that, I don't understand the fuss.
I don't understand what the controversy is, personally.
It's been illegal for more than thirty years. That tends to stir up a bit of controversy.
Hunting is what animals do, what people did, and something people still do. We are smart enough to know what amount of hunting, in what areas, against what animals, is good. We're smart enough to know what amount of hunting, in what areas, against what animals, is too much.
What does it really matter what method of hunting is used? If we need to kill 50 deer in an area because they are overpopulated what is the difference between sending in 50 bow hunters who kill 1 each and one airplane that guns down 50?
Bow hunters would just be hunters. As you say, no big deal. At least their kills are clean most of the time. Aerial hunters often run down an animal or a group of animals until they're exhausted. When they shoot from the plane, they often don't make a clean kill. They have to track down the animal after they land. In the meantime the animal is suffering.
It's a brutal, brutal practice and it is totally unnecessary. On top of that, it is illegal. Alaskans like Pailn justify their violation of the law by saying that they are "managing" the animals.
Sounds like the problem of people deciding for themselves how to manage the animals. That's not up to them. It's up to park rangers and the people who regulate hunting licenses. If she was doing illegal things, how can she possibly run for vice president?
If she was doing illegal things, how can she possibly run for vice president?
There's a "loophole" for "control". That loophole is finessed by the Board of Game to allow aerial hunting in clear violation of the intent of the law. Palin supports this and wants to extend the practice.
Hmm.. There are people who see a necessity to control an animal population. There are other people who enjoy hunting (humanely).
Why is it that, instead of allowing the latter to handle the problem of the former, gladly and possibly at the cost of a license, we instead pay for an uninterested third party to handle the issue? Oh, right. Money...
Hmm.. There are people who see a necessity to control an animal population. There are other people who enjoy hunting (humanely).
There are lots of people who seem persuaded by odd little things like choosing to keep a baby as indications of a person's character. Palin's character is such that she enjoys chasing animals in planes until they are exhausted, shooting them from the planes, then landing and tracking the suffering animal down to a spot where she can finally kill it. Some character.
There are lots of people who seem persuaded by odd little things like choosing to keep a baby as indications of a person's character. Palin's character is such that she enjoys chasing animals in planes until they are exhausted, shooting them from the planes, then landing and tracking the suffering animal down to a spot where she can finally kill it. Some character.
This is what I don't understand. Remember Dick Cheney shooting the quails or whatever? Basically they were kept in a cage, they let them out, then they shoot them. That makes one republican vice president, and one republican vice presidential candidate, that engage in what amounts to pussy hunting. No real danger. No actually getting your hands dirty. No getting up close and personal with a knife or bow. No hiding camouflaged in a tree for hours on end. Just using superior human technology to give the animals no chance whatsoever. Even fly fishing is less wussy than that.
Now there is a demographic of people in this country who are serious business hunters. You know those guys who just walk into the woods with nothing but a shotgun and a knife, then end up running from an enraged moose. You know those people who will sneak right up next to a deer before going for it. Those Elmer Fudd types who actually sneak up to the duck pond, use a duck call, and get it done the old fashioned way. Why is it that these serious business hunters support this party that seems to be full of wuss hunters? These are people who will tell you that you are a wuss if you refuse to go int a grizzly bear's cave, yet they support people who are too cowardly to hunt without an airplane? What happened to Teddy Roosevelt who would dig a canal then go down the Amazon river?
That makes one republican vice president, and one republican vice presidential candidate, that engage in what amounts to pussy hunting. No real danger.
Well...no danger from the animals. Can't say the same about Cheney...
There's a "loophole" for "control". That loophole is finessed by the Board of Game to allow aerial hunting in clear violation of the intent of the law. Palin supports this andwants to extend the practice.
So it's legal. Yawn... And did you know that we use boats and dragnets in the ocean? Yawn...
Like I said, the article you cite says that people die hunting this way. At least the animal has a fighting chance. There is also the possibility that, due to Alaska's remoteness, this is the only effective way to protect endangered moose and caribou. If this is the case, then I don't have any problems with this form of hunting. Until and unless I see proof to the contrary, I'll give her a pass on this issue.
Besides... ever seen a slaughterhouse, egg farm or feedlot? Unless you're a vegetarian, it's darned near hypocritical to condemn even this form of hunting. Animals in feedlots live a pathetic existence, yet we turn a blind eye.
We've also selectively bred animals in ways that are absolutely contrary to a happy and long life. You know those Thanksgiving birds that presidents pardon? Did you know this?:
Whether the turkeys come from a shelter or the White House, they don’t live very long. Most adopted turkeys are commercially bred broad-breasted whites, genetically disposed to grow to a marketable size in about four months. Even on a diet of only a couple of cups of turkey feed a day, they become obese. They usually develop leg problems, congestive heart failure and arthritis.
“One just couldn’t get up, so I had to have her euthanized,†Ms. Lane said. “Another one just dropped dead one evening.â€Â
People kill animals. They always have and they always will. For centuries, animals have been wounded and not killed cleanly. It isn't ideal, but I doubt that the cave man who wounded a wooly mammoth, just to have it run away and die alone, thought this would be an important factor in a presidential election.
The bottom line is that I've got more important things to worry about than her support for a form of animal population control.
This is a much more compelling issue. Stick with the winners so they don't get lost in the fog. Obama, however, sits in a senate that pisses away money like it was going out of style. So they've both got some skeletons in that closet. He sought $1 million dollars in pork for a hospital where his wife worked. The year before, she had received a $200,000 raise. And we all know how long Biden has been feeding at the pork trough.
You know... I've just realized what's so funny about the Palin issue. NOBODY is talking about McCain. He's getting a free pass while people become distracted over Palin. He may not have intended this, but it keeps him out of the line of fire while Obama remains in the hot seat.
You know... I've just realized what's so funny about the Palin issue. NOBODY is talking about McCain. He's getting a free pass while people become distracted over Palin. He may not have intended this, but it keeps him out of the line of fire while Obama remains in the hot seat.
Interesting. Roughly 40 million people watched Palin's speech - just slightly fewer than the number of people who watched Obama's DNC speech. 24 million watched Biden. I'm not sure what it means as far as votes are concerned, but she definitely got some exposure.
Comments
In fact, Colbert had a contest on his show to see if anyone could make McCain's speeches interesting by using the green screen.
It is reasonable to give more credence to the claims of those with the proper background, education, and credentials, or to be suspicious of the claims of someone making authoritative statements in an area for which they cannot demonstrate expertise.
Argument from authority does not come into play when there is consensus amongst experts. The only person to cite an article showing consensus amongst experts has been me.
However, you need to separate the delivery of the speech from the content. From what I have read about the content of the speech, there is a lot to have a problem with. I saw Obama's speech, and it was mostly presentation with a little bit of real content. However, the content it did have was not so bad. The content of the speeches given at the RNC contained a lot of content with a lot of problems in it. Everything I have read about the content of those speeches, mostly from a mix of links on Google News, so don't claim I'm reading biased sites, suggests that these people were saying some pretty disturbing things.
Here's a simple argument from authority logical fallacy:
Doctor Dobson says that evolution is real. It must be true, since he's a doctor.
That's a big difference between relying on the consensus of well-qualified people. Surely you are not disagreeing that people like Joe Trippi, George Stephanopoulos and the editorial boards of the New York Times, Washington Post, etc are not well-qualified political observers?
I'm not persuaded.
I'm sorry, but the success of a political speech is subjective at best. I'm not going to abdicate my opinion just because an expert has a different one. As far as Palin goes, she didn't write her speech, she merely delivered it. She was a beauty pageant queen and a TV news reporter. Of course she can read words off a teleprompter. That doesn't impress me and she doesn't get any points for it. The number of lies in the speech, especially the lies about the bridge to nowhere, made it a big loser in my opinion.
What do you make of all your experts saying that McCain's speech was very, very bad?
Really, since all the speeches are prepared before hand, the presentation, like a person's charisma, is only the varnish over the top of the whole thing. The substance is what that person is actually saying, cutting past all the smooth political posturing and getting to the actually opinions of the person in question. Obama is a good speaker, and he looks like he can inspire and motivate people with charisma and well chosen language. However, that's not why I would vote for him. He seems to be the candidate of the two electable political parties most likely to impart some of the public services and policies I hope for.
Palin could be the most honey-tongued, rousing charmer with speeches that awe the spectators into silence or cheers. That would not change the fact that at the heart of it she is spewing fundie poison.
I hate her. She is an enemy to all women.
I, for one, and very excited that we will either have a woman VP or an African-American president.
@kilarney: I'm not confused about anything. This is what you wrote: If that's not asking us to substitute their opinion for ours and find that she "gave a great speech", I don't know what is.
There are only two differences that I can think of. First of all, the aerial hunting probably costs a lot more because of the expense of fuel for the plane. Second, it's wussy. Hunters who kill a bear with a knife hand to claw get a lot more respect than someone who snipes an animal on wide open terrain from the sky. Other than that, I don't understand the fuss.
It's a brutal, brutal practice and it is totally unnecessary. On top of that, it is illegal. Alaskans like Pailn justify their violation of the law by saying that they are "managing" the animals.
Why is it that, instead of allowing the latter to handle the problem of the former, gladly and possibly at the cost of a license, we instead pay for an uninterested third party to handle the issue? Oh, right. Money...
Oh, have I mentioned how she left Wasilla $20 million in debt? If I have, it bears repeating.
Now there is a demographic of people in this country who are serious business hunters. You know those guys who just walk into the woods with nothing but a shotgun and a knife, then end up running from an enraged moose. You know those people who will sneak right up next to a deer before going for it. Those Elmer Fudd types who actually sneak up to the duck pond, use a duck call, and get it done the old fashioned way. Why is it that these serious business hunters support this party that seems to be full of wuss hunters? These are people who will tell you that you are a wuss if you refuse to go int a grizzly bear's cave, yet they support people who are too cowardly to hunt without an airplane? What happened to Teddy Roosevelt who would dig a canal then go down the Amazon river?
Like I said, the article you cite says that people die hunting this way. At least the animal has a fighting chance. There is also the possibility that, due to Alaska's remoteness, this is the only effective way to protect endangered moose and caribou. If this is the case, then I don't have any problems with this form of hunting. Until and unless I see proof to the contrary, I'll give her a pass on this issue.
Besides... ever seen a slaughterhouse, egg farm or feedlot? Unless you're a vegetarian, it's darned near hypocritical to condemn even this form of hunting. Animals in feedlots live a pathetic existence, yet we turn a blind eye.
We've also selectively bred animals in ways that are absolutely contrary to a happy and long life. You know those Thanksgiving birds that presidents pardon? Did you know this?:
Whether the turkeys come from a shelter or the White House, they don’t live very long. Most adopted turkeys are commercially bred broad-breasted whites, genetically disposed to grow to a marketable size in about four months. Even on a diet of only a couple of cups of turkey feed a day, they become obese. They usually develop leg problems, congestive heart failure and arthritis.
“One just couldn’t get up, so I had to have her euthanized,†Ms. Lane said. “Another one just dropped dead one evening.â€Â
People kill animals. They always have and they always will. For centuries, animals have been wounded and not killed cleanly. It isn't ideal, but I doubt that the cave man who wounded a wooly mammoth, just to have it run away and die alone, thought this would be an important factor in a presidential election.
The bottom line is that I've got more important things to worry about than her support for a form of animal population control. This is a much more compelling issue. Stick with the winners so they don't get lost in the fog. Obama, however, sits in a senate that pisses away money like it was going out of style. So they've both got some skeletons in that closet. He sought $1 million dollars in pork for a hospital where his wife worked. The year before, she had received a $200,000 raise. And we all know how long Biden has been feeding at the pork trough.
No candidate has clean hands in this area.