Frank Ettin
Administrator
Sophistry: \ˈsä-fə-strē\ ; noun; 1 : subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation (Merriam-Websters online)
A few examples:
[1] See post 102. On what basis is the psychology of addiction comparable to the dynamics of party politics? What empirical data supports that analogy? Without a sound empirical basis it is merely clever but without meaning.
[2] See post 102 again. What is the basis for the contention that not voting for McCain will cause a real change in the direction of the Republican Party? Without some empirical basis for such contention, it may be emotionally satisfying but is otherwise wishful thinking.
[3] See post 107. "If you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got" is a is a nice sounding truism and the mating call of corporate strategic planning consultants everywhere, but what does it really mean? Taking a different course may change the result, but not every change is good. You may in fact by changing conduct in a certain way promote a less desirable result. And what if your pattern has been to decline to choose when faced with the lesser of two evils?
Putting sophistry aside, it is a fact that if McCain doesn't win, either Obama or Hillary will be the next President. If Obama or Hillary as President is satisfactory to you because you support their policies, that's one thing. If you are willing to see Obama or Hillary in the White House because you somehow believe that it would stimulate an upwelling of conservative values and a reinvention of the Republican Party, that is quite another. I see no reason to believe the latter.
A few examples:
[1] See post 102. On what basis is the psychology of addiction comparable to the dynamics of party politics? What empirical data supports that analogy? Without a sound empirical basis it is merely clever but without meaning.
[2] See post 102 again. What is the basis for the contention that not voting for McCain will cause a real change in the direction of the Republican Party? Without some empirical basis for such contention, it may be emotionally satisfying but is otherwise wishful thinking.
[3] See post 107. "If you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got" is a is a nice sounding truism and the mating call of corporate strategic planning consultants everywhere, but what does it really mean? Taking a different course may change the result, but not every change is good. You may in fact by changing conduct in a certain way promote a less desirable result. And what if your pattern has been to decline to choose when faced with the lesser of two evils?
Putting sophistry aside, it is a fact that if McCain doesn't win, either Obama or Hillary will be the next President. If Obama or Hillary as President is satisfactory to you because you support their policies, that's one thing. If you are willing to see Obama or Hillary in the White House because you somehow believe that it would stimulate an upwelling of conservative values and a reinvention of the Republican Party, that is quite another. I see no reason to believe the latter.