The Politics of Cynicism and Pretzel Logic: Part I Sarah Palin

Well it's no surprise that eight years after the tragedy of the nineleven we still see politicians like this:







The saddest bit is that we have many cynical fallacies to review today, but I am only going to dwell on two of them.



PART ONE SARAH PALIN


1. Death Panels. Just like Lois Griffin's stunning statement, "9... (beat) 11," there isn't some great piece of logic to examine beyond say an eight year old listening to a popular music song and misreading the lyrics (as I often have done my whole life [I thought Peter Gabriel released a song called "I Have the Tush," until my sister and her friend almost laughed me out [it was "I Have the Touch," BTW] of the car when I was twelve or so).


The actual entity is called "End of Life Counseling." A Council is a group of people... a panel. Another word for end of life is "Death." Death Panel!


It's cynical, zingy, and very school yard. Not to mention is entirely misleading, because the chasm between Counseling, and so to speak "Counciling," is very different. And now we get to the fallacy: You can have a Council that Counsels, but less often would you have a Counselor who Councils. Unless of course by Counselor we are using the term associated with a lawyer with whom we rely upon.


This is 'because A can be B, then B is A." And I feel this is charitable, because in reality this is just a cynical Appeal to Fear.



2. Obama mentioned in his speech that the costs of (a) the last eight years of war, and (b) the last eight years of tax cuts equal less than his proposed health care plan of $900BB over ten years.


Cost of the wars in the last eight years (see side calculator, too) is about right, and definiately on track that over ten years shall exceed the $900BB figure!


Cost of the tax cuts is easily correct at something like 200 ~ 250% of that value.


Which brings us to the fallacy. Mrs. Palin suggests that President Obama has disrespected the troops, because he made this assertion (of fact-- or at least accurate and open budget estimation [we are assuming the health care plan =$900BB over ten years]).


Health Care fix will cost less than the Wars. Health care is baaaad. Therefore Obama says Troops are bad!


She is missing some circuitry, but somehow has that magical cavewoman's reptilian mentality in tact (albeit getting her speaking points ostensibly from some Rovian Sith up and comer one would suspect [my cynicism]).


*sigh* here we go: (a) Obama says his plan is good, (b) Obama is not liked (by the arguer), (c) Obama does not like the war, (d) Republicans (theoretically) support the fallacious war in Iraq [still?], (e) the tone of the speech did contain an allusion to the fact that the war was fallacious, (f) War requires troops, and therefore (g) Obama said troops are "Baaaad!"


This is going to get pretty tricky (all from the POV of the arguement in Favor of Obama said Troops is Baaaad): NOT a is TRUE; b is TRUE; c is TRUE; d is TRUE; e is TRUE; f is TRUE; thus g. So do you see what happened yet?


By starting the element with one negative our result contains a negative assertion. For example: -a * b * c * d * e * f = g and g is a negative number!


Now to the actual contents of the argument: a is opinon, b is opinon, c is opinion, d is a position, e is an opinon, f is a statement of fact, and g is a fallacy!


Remove the opinions, and you get: position, statement, and fallacy. Or, "The Iraq War and the other Bush Wars are important, necessary and good; War requires troops; and Obama does not support the troops!"


Finally we come to the illicit process (inclusive of the negative assumption {tu quoque reversed- which is to say "you too," except the opposite version "not me"}): YOU think NOT The Iraq War and the other Bush Wars are important, necessary and good; War requires troops; therefore YOU think troops NOT good!


Disgusted yet? We didn't finish. (The Ad hominem implied, that is to say the NOT me BUT you think, is indicated by the asterisk *) Now that we have simplified the statement and the logics, lets find the fallacy within the fallacy (the first being a tu quoque reversed premissed upon opinions and assertions): (p) War requires (q) Troops, *YOU think (p) = NOT good (r), therefore *YOU think (q) = NOT good (r)!


This is called an illicit major. There is a failure to distribute. P = Q; P = NOT R; Therefore Q = NOT R.


Although I think it is somewhat accurate to characterize Obama Administration as being instinctively against War, in fact they have shown to be pragmatic and we are looking at increasing troop levels in Afganistan. So aside from this ILLICIT MAJOR inside the AD HOMINEM (that is to say against the person not the argument) which I am calling the REVERSED TU QUOQUE, we actually have the addition of a misrepresentation to the practical facts of what the opposite side has effectively done and implemented to add the STRAW MAN (misrepresentation of the position being argued against).


Those Rovian Siths love a good fallacy within a fallacy within a fallacy! First they miscomprehendate (to anticipate what Dubya might have called it) the speaker and then they fallacy the fallacy!



I am going to try to now enjoy the rest of my day, but I just had to point out how bloody rediculous it is that the media even covers such poor argumentation in the first place... unfortunately I think there is much more to come, so I put this as PART ONE!