- May 10, 2007
- Reaction score
so is the media going to be all over this story?
"because 'A' happened, it justifies 'B'"
Mit's and Edwards' situations aren't linked.
No. That is not a logical fallacy.
Here is a list of some of them for your pleasure. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
And by the way, why don't you think they are linked? They are both stories about politicians spending large sums of money making themselves more attractive. What do you think the defining difference is ?
That is a logical fallacy - and that's the page I sent to folk who fluster and buster on this site (and others).
"Dude lectures about 'Poverty' while living an obviously wealthy/extremely comfortable lifestyle - spending HUNDREDS of dollars on just a hair cut"
"Guy spends $300 on make-up."
My WIFE spends more than that, every year, on make up. It's really no big deal.
Make-up is a necessary part of any politician in an age in which every flaw is magnified on screen. As someone who had my make-up done for me for my 2001 wedding, $150 is not an extreme amount of money to pay for a personal make-up consultation by a professional make-up artist.
While I have no problem with the media showing us this information, I think that the difference lies in the fact that while $150 dollars isn't a lot for a makeup consultation (I would be very interested to see what the Kerry/Edwards campaign or any other campaign for that matter spends on makeup consultations)...$400 dollars is a lot for a men's haircut...especially when a politician is flying in a stylist (ahem...global warming) while lecturing about the evil of the wealthy exploiting the poor.
Consdering all the logical fallacies have names, please tell us which one it is.
By the way...if you know so much about logical fallacies, you should see what is wrong with the first one about "dude lectures about 'poverty'". Its called an Ad Hominem attack.
You believe that list shows EVERY logical fallacy eh? And that statement is a dishonest. I never quantified my amount of knowledge of fallacies. I simply stated I know of Fallacies, and that site. YOU changed the implied meaning to say 'I know SOO MUCH about fallacies'. See there?
The guy above - to whom I replied implied "...If Edwards' hair cut is news, Mit's Make-up must be news, too!"
Has elements of division, and common practice.
Because I called him a 'dude'? Really? That's the SINGLE WORST claim of Ad Hominem I've 'ever' read online. Try again.
You need to re-read the article.It was $300 for makeup...not 150.
Also, the stylist for Edwards was from LA. LA tends to be very expensive. As sad as it is, image and look plays a huge role in how the public responds to presidential candidates. I am sure each candidate spends thousands or tens of thousands of dollars on their look. Considering the guy is a stylist for Hollywood types, the price does not seem that surprising. Hell in NYC a decent guys haircut costs around $100...unfortunately.
*shrug* I personally don't find anything wrong with either action. They are merely jumping through the hoops that the public makes them jump through. Either don't judge them on their looks, or don't blame them when they spend tens of thousands of dollars on their looks.
As for your last point, that is just silly. If you really believe that, it will effectively eliminate anyone who wants to reduce poverty. Because to win an election, you have to campaign that way. Its sad, but its the reality.
Nope, I don't. However every logical fallacy has a name. If its not up there , I'm sure you can find it somewhere.
If you know the site, you should know what an Ad Hominem attack is, as it is one of the most common and annoying attacks used. It is especially common in political attacks.
No, actually thats NOT what he implied. Read what he said again.
No. Not because you called him dude. Because you implied that his statements about poverty were false/misleading/shouldn't be listened too because of a fact about him.
You need to re-read the article.
Romney paid $150 for a makeup session. He had requested two, but canceled one of them. He paid for it anyway. Hence, $300. Edwards paid $400 for each of his haircuts...a total of $800.
Absolutely...of course, one might counter with the fact that Edwards candidacy is based in no small part, on his continued insistence that he is just a simple man who takes his wife to Wendy's on their anniversary. This is hard image to maintain when he is flying his personal L.A. stylist around the country to give him the best possible hair cut. Additionally...while Romney hasn't made any public statements regarding the excess of the wealthy or the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots...he isn't as open to criticism for his $150 make-up as Edwards leaves himself for his $400 haircut.
(Not to mention the fact that the many, many Americans likely believe that Edwards hair cut is not a particularly complicated one...he would not have trouble finding a local stylist to give him a cut...rather than flying someone halfway around the nation while he lectures them on taxes and which lightbulbs to use)
At the same time however, if Romney comes out tomorrow and asks Americans to cut back on their frivolous spending...or tries very hard to peg himself as a "everyman" and then flies his favorite makeup artist to North Dakota for a touch up...I might roll my eyes a bit...just like I do when Edwards and his "I'm just the son of a poor mill worker" card.
Of course its silly to say that because someone gets a $400 haircut they can't care about the poor. But they may want to be careful when they are speaking to people who CAN'T afford a $400 haircut about what they should do...and they might want to think about how they portray themselves...because continually playing up the "oh, i'm just an average joe" while spending money on things most Americans can't imagine just doesn't ring true.
It's clear you do not understand what Ad Hominem is, as your usage was horrible.
....right...as justification of the 'news'....because 'the media covered the HAIR CUT....
No I didn't. I said He spoke about 'poverty' - while he makes no apologies for his affluent lifestyle. It's not Ad Homenem, it's pointing out the OBVIOUS Irony. It's like asking Barry Bonds to speak on "how to hit Home Runs without Steriods."