Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Democracy just means that, in some form or other, the "people" vote. It's a pretty general term.

Not exactly.

According to political scientist Larry Diamond, it consists of four key elements: (a) A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; (b) The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life; (c) Protection of the human rights of all citizens, and (d) A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.[3]

Which is more than just a democracy. You may be thinking of "liberal democracy" or suchlike.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Democracy just means that, in some form or other, the "people" vote. It's a pretty general term.

Not exactly.

According to political scientist Larry Diamond, it consists of four key elements: (a) A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; (b) The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life; (c) Protection of the human rights of all citizens, and (d) A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.[3]

And according to political scientist me, it doesn't. Yay appeal to authority!

OMG, it's the "because I said so" argument. I never heard that one before!!!

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Democracy just means that, in some form or other, the "people" vote. It's a pretty general term.

Not exactly.

According to political scientist Larry Diamond, it consists of four key elements: (a) A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; (b) The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life; (c) Protection of the human rights of all citizens, and (d) A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.[3]

And according to political scientist me, it doesn't. Yay appeal to authority!

OMG, it's the "because I said so" argument. I never heard that one before!!!

I don't see the problem. I'm a political scientist, Larry Diamond is a political scientist. We're at an impasse.

Alternatively, you could stop trying to appeal to authority.

I don't agree with the definition, but I'm afraid he is not making an appeal to authority, you are. An appeal to authority is when someone claims to be an expert, or claims someone is an expert who is not, not when someone quotes a recognised expert. That's good debating. I agree that is the definition of a liberal democracy, but it is not an appeal to authority.

 Steve steveson wrote:
I don't agree with the definition, but I'm afraid he is not making an appeal to authority, you are. An appeal to authority is when someone claims to be an expert, not when someone quotes a recognised expert. That's good debating. I agree that is the definition of a liberal democracy, but it is not an appeal to authority.

Incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Mdlbuildr wrote:
Our Democratic leaders have been feeding us lies for 8 years now. Anytime they are opposed, they say that their opposition are "racist", bigots" or "xenophobes".

How about I will agree that if it suits a politician, any one of them would consider smearing their opponent with those labels.
The Republican campaigns seem to be the more enthusiastic of the parties in this regard.
Wouldn't any of those labels fit more easily with Trump than anyone else?
It is because of the methodology of the Republican party that made his rise possible: he throws dirt better than they do.
All this is covered rather eloquently in the link I had.

They have been violently opposed to any ideals that are not theirs, which is evident by the many times Trump supports try to gather. The argument is that "Trump incites violence", but it is not his followers being violent. The way to oppose your opponent is not to throw rocks and eggs at them. Forcibly remove their clothing and burn it, nor tear down tents and yell obscenities at armed guards.

None of the behaviors you outline is acceptable for either group.
The more correct term is that "Trump incites controversy".
He likes to live in that zone, it gives him the press he wants.
Plus since he is known for modifying/rewording/ or claiming we misunderstood him, he will just spin it a different way... it seems acceptable for him but impossible for others.

In this very thread, people have said they wouldn't "mind" if Trump were shot. Killed perhaps. Really? This is the mind of a reasonable opposition?

I would consider lazy speak for saying "they wish he would go away".
Truly wishing someone's death is a rather personal thing... "they do not understand what they are saying.".

When certain of our Democratic upper leadership are faced with facts, they are twisted by those who follow them and the media who support them wholeheartedly and blindly. One of which is actually going to be their Presidential nominee while under investigation by the FBI for treason.

Investigation is common in the political world.
It does not indicate guilt, just that systems are working.
Quoting specific allegations would be helpful to understand the point you are trying to make.

You are Canadian.
Why are your countrymen so keen on our Political process?
I can tell you categorically that very few in the USA cares a rip about Canadian politics.
The only they care about is how low your dollar goes so they can get a cheap vacation.

I heard it quoted often "When the US gets a cold, Canada gets the flu."
We are your neighbor, our economies are intertwined.
Are population is substantially less than yours so what happens in the US has a big impact on us.
It would be dumb to ignore what happens there.
I can also say having gone on business trips in the USA that I can VERY MUCH agree that you "could not give a rip" about us.
Viewing your news, you do not give a rip about the rest of the world unless your politicians or troops happen to be there.
Honestly, I am astounded of how little is mentioned about anything outside of the US.

Please explain how Trump is a threat to the Democratic Process.If he is voted in as our next President via the Democratic Process, the process is working as intended.

I hate to say I can laugh or cry over that "correct" statement.
The American people will get a leader "they deserve" one way or another.
He is accustomed to being the one in power.
You can be sure he would do what he can to ensure that and not let little rules bother him.

Obama is a much bigger threat when he takes directives without consulting the people voted in to represent The People. Especially when these directives are not in his jurisdiction in the first place. THAT's a huge threat to the Democratic Process. Other Presidents from both parties have done this in the past. Were they a threat, too? I guess they weren't if you agreed with them, right?

There are some moments of being "commander and chief" of USA policy, military and clandestine operations.
You see it all and have to make decisions.
Every last one of those Presidents are making decisions without the people's say so.
It is the decisions that affect your people's rights and freedoms that are the important ones.
Think about Obama and then Trump and how they would like to handle YOUR rights and freedoms.
There is a big difference.

Interesting as always.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
I don't agree with the definition, but I'm afraid he is not making an appeal to authority, you are. An appeal to authority is when someone claims to be an expert, not when someone quotes a recognised expert. That's good debating. I agree that is the definition of a liberal democracy, but it is not an appeal to authority.

Incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

So how does one prove an argument if not an expert on that topic? You look to an authority on the topic.

I've actually never heard of this Logical Fallacy.

I really want to know. How to prove a point if not by pointing to an authority on that topic? Can we then not discuss anything unless we ourselves are experts on that topic?

You explain WHY whatever you're arguing about is the case. As it is now, you just referred to what a political scientist argued was Democracy without explaining the reasoning or point behind it and expecting it to stand just because a political scientist said it.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
I don't agree with the definition, but I'm afraid he is not making an appeal to authority, you are. An appeal to authority is when someone claims to be an expert, not when someone quotes a recognised expert. That's good debating. I agree that is the definition of a liberal democracy, but it is not an appeal to authority.

Incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

So how does one prove an argument if not an expert on that topic? You look to an authority on the topic.

I've actually never heard of this Logical Fallacy.

I really want to know. How to prove a point if not by pointing to an authority on that topic? Can we then not discuss anything unless we ourselves are experts on that topic?

It's not that, it's saying, "This person/group agrees with me so I must be right!" Instead of actually presenting evidence.

 Talizvar wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:
Our Democratic leaders have been feeding us lies for 8 years now. Anytime they are opposed, they say that their opposition are "racist", bigots" or "xenophobes".

How about I will agree that if it suits a politician, any one of them would consider smearing their opponent with those labels.
The Republican campaigns seem to be the more enthusiastic of the parties in this regard.
Wouldn't any of those labels fit more easily with Trump than anyone else?
It is because of the methodology of the Republican party that made his rise possible: he throws dirt better than they do.
All this is covered rather eloquently in the link I had.

They have been violently opposed to any ideals that are not theirs, which is evident by the many times Trump supports try to gather. The argument is that "Trump incites violence", but it is not his followers being violent. The way to oppose your opponent is not to throw rocks and eggs at them. Forcibly remove their clothing and burn it, nor tear down tents and yell obscenities at armed guards.

None of the behaviors you outline is acceptable for either group.
The more correct term is that "Trump incites controversy".
He likes to live in that zone, it gives him the press he wants.
Plus since he is known for modifying/rewording/ or claiming we misunderstood him, he will just spin it a different way... it seems acceptable for him but impossible for others.

In this very thread, people have said they wouldn't "mind" if Trump were shot. Killed perhaps. Really? This is the mind of a reasonable opposition?

I would consider lazy speak for saying "they wish he would go away".
Truly wishing someone's death is a rather personal thing... "they do not understand what they are saying.".

When certain of our Democratic upper leadership are faced with facts, they are twisted by those who follow them and the media who support them wholeheartedly and blindly. One of which is actually going to be their Presidential nominee while under investigation by the FBI for treason.

Investigation is common in the political world.
It does not indicate guilt, just that systems are working.
Quoting specific allegations would be helpful to understand the point you are trying to make.

You are Canadian.
Why are your countrymen so keen on our Political process?
I can tell you categorically that very few in the USA cares a rip about Canadian politics.
The only they care about is how low your dollar goes so they can get a cheap vacation.

I heard it quoted often "When the US gets a cold, Canada gets the flu."
We are your neighbor, our economies are intertwined.
Are population is substantially less than yours so what happens in the US has a big impact on us.
It would be dumb to ignore what happens there.
I can also say having gone on business trips in the USA that I can VERY MUCH agree that you "could not give a rip" about us.
Viewing your news, you do not give a rip about the rest of the world unless your politicians or troops happen to be there.
Honestly, I am astounded of how little is mentioned about anything outside of the US.

Please explain how Trump is a threat to the Democratic Process.If he is voted in as our next President via the Democratic Process, the process is working as intended.

I hate to say I can laugh or cry over that "correct" statement.
The American people will get a leader "they deserve" one way or another.
He is accustomed to being the one in power.
You can be sure he would do what he can to ensure that and not let little rules bother him.

Obama is a much bigger threat when he takes directives without consulting the people voted in to represent The People. Especially when these directives are not in his jurisdiction in the first place. THAT's a huge threat to the Democratic Process. Other Presidents from both parties have done this in the past. Were they a threat, too? I guess they weren't if you agreed with them, right?

There are some moments of being "commander and chief" of USA policy, military and clandestine operations.
You see it all and have to make decisions.
Every last one of those Presidents are making decisions without the people's say so.
It is the decisions that affect your people's rights and freedoms that are the important ones.
Think about Obama and then Trump and how they would like to handle YOUR rights and freedoms.
There is a big difference.

Interesting as always.

You bring up many interesting points for sure.

I disagree with some of them, but be that as it may, I can't really argue with what you said.

I can say that yes, the Commander in Chief is charged with making decision. There is a process however that can't be ignored. When it is, there is a problem. Obama is a big problem in this regard.

I can also say that Trump is much more in line with my person views when compared to Mrs. Clinton. Nothing about her is appealing to me. I can't say exactly what I think about her for fear of a perma ban, LOL.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
I don't agree with the definition, but I'm afraid he is not making an appeal to authority, you are. An appeal to authority is when someone claims to be an expert, not when someone quotes a recognised expert. That's good debating. I agree that is the definition of a liberal democracy, but it is not an appeal to authority.

Incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

So how does one prove an argument if not an expert on that topic? You look to an authority on the topic.

I've actually never heard of this Logical Fallacy.

I really want to know. How to prove a point if not by pointing to an authority on that topic? Can we then not discuss anything unless we ourselves are experts on that topic?

It's not that, it's saying, "This person/group agrees with me so I must be right!" Instead of actually presenting evidence.

Oh, I get it now. However, when a published expert is saying something, agreeing with that person doesn't necessarily mean your argument is a Logical Fallacy. If that is the case we can argue this Fallacy all the time!

List of more argument fallacies than you can shake a stick at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Well, back in January parliament in Britain was seriously considering banning Trump:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/british-parliament-set-to-debate-banning-donald-trump/2016/01/18/7351d87a-ba14-11e5-85cd-5ad59bc19432_story.html

Bit of a mixed things where there is a run on citizenship due to Trump:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/05/02/fears-of-trump-drive-immigrants-to-become-citizens_n_9819198.html
The more optimistic or cynical could say "It is about time they commit to this country" (sheesh!).
How about they desperately want to vote... I wonder for whom?
I wonder if this is going to be the most voted on election in American history?
Any bets on a Clinton majority?
I seem to remember some sour grapes in our own country for the Quebec referendum and the separatists blamed it on the "immigrant vote".

I think this is a much more positive step than trying to shoot him.
It will bring everyone together for a real nail biter of an election.

IF Trump becomes president, can I watch when he meets Poutin?
That would be epic.
It was so funny seeing the guy try to puff himself up against how tall Obama was.
Poutin would be happy for a moment and then probably start making fun of him straight off.

 Talizvar wrote:

IF Trump becomes president, can I watch when he meets Poutin?
That would be epic.
It was so funny seeing the guy try to puff himself up against how tall Obama was.
Poutin would be happy for a moment and then probably start making fun of him straight off.

If Drumpf gets in Putin is going to absolutely destroy him. "The Art of the Deal", borne on the back of Daddy's millions, vs Russian realpolitik, forged in the KGB and Oligarch blood.

No arguments here.
He may assign a security detail for Trump.
He would never want this guy to leave power... until he wants him to.

Epic stuff. Two Canadians discussing American politics. I love it!

List of more argument fallacies than you can shake a stick at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

An even better list is this:



So yes logical fallacies are quite common in a lot places and in arguments present in most political discussions and theories presented by politicians.

You could possibly deconstruct Drumpfs entire argument with finding the logical fallacies.

And then point out a lot of problems associated with them.

IE the building the wall or the all Muslims are evil hate speech he has said. (Which fall under generalizing fallacy or a texas sharpshooter, instead they represent a small factoid or percentage.)

Epic stuff. Two Canadians discussing American politics. I love it!

Means they are informed on national and world issues.

Our Democratic leaders have been feeding us lies for 8 years now. Anytime they are opposed, they say that their opposition are "racist", bigots" or "xenophobes".

Source for this? Other than your own exclamations and remarks made off of no basis of fact?