Facebook Friend 1’s Post:
Dear Electors:
We have literally never, in 224 years, needed you before.
We need you now.
For the first time in American history, our national election was hacked by a foreign power.
Worse, a foreign power that the presumptive-president-elect has openly courted and engaged.
It is astonishing to me that this is even a question but: WE MUST DEFEND OUR DEMOCRACY FROM FOREIGN POWERS.
In the age of the Internet, it will become increasingly easy for China or Russia or Brazil to hack our systems, and tilt our elections one way or another.
The only way we can protect ourselves against this risk is to deny the beneficiary any benefit.
We must have ZERO TOLERANCE for attacks on our democracy.
And at a very minimum, I urge you to withhold your vote until you are convinced that the CIA is mistaken.
Lessig
His friend’s comment:
Thousands of vulnerable civilians in Aleppo and other cities, face an almost genocidal campaign waged against them by Assad’s forces, backed by Russia. Given President elect Trump’s policy’s aligning so much with those of President Putin, will the slaughter of innocent people be curtailed or escalate should he be inaugurated? And knowing that could even POSSIBLY happen, how could the electoral college not exercise humanity, caution and prudence by denying Trump the Presidency? Notwithstanding the dozens of other reasons why he is unfit for the office.
My comment:
Agreed, T. Imagine if the U.S. were run by a President who had won the Nobel Peace Prize. Then none of this suffering in Aleppo would have occurred.
If this were made a legal and historical precedent, and then some future election were won by an adorable, lovely, progressive Democrat, could those ugly, smelly, horrid alt-conservatives challenge the election citing the 2016 electoral vote as a precedent? Can a glorious victory be turned against you? Could the means justify the goals?
Sometimes I wonder what you are doing on Facebag in the first place.
From one deplorable to the next, welcome to the Trump train! We are all irredeemable!
Why am I on Facebook? Where else would I get material for this blog? (also it is fun for sharing pictures of the family that would bore readers here to tears)
Toucan Sam: I have never expressed support for Trump on Facebook! In fact, quite the opposite. I take all fears regarding Trump seriously. If a Facebooker says that there are Trump-inspired hate crimes all over her city, for example, I helpfully point out that she could jump on an international flight and escape the violence. (If the violence-fearing person has a credible claim to being Jewish, I point out that there is even an agency that will help with set-up in Israel: http://www.jewishagency.org/aliyah ). For those who express concern over the Trumpenfuhrer’s potential policies toward migrants and refugees I have offered to pay the airfare from Kabul or Amman of any refugees whom they wish to shelter in their homes. For those who are upset about Trump’s proposed income tax rate cuts I have offered to help them calculate what they would have owed under Hillary’s proposals and then show them how to make a voluntary donation to the U.S. Treasury.
This whole electors thing is just a manifestation of the stages of grief. Even if the electors threw the election to the House, Trump would still become the President. Or would these same people then write futile letters to Republican Congressmen?
Hillary people, get over it. You lost. Trump will inaugurated on Jan. 20 and there’s nothing you can do about it. No recount, no electoral college, nothing will change the results. Elections have consequences, to quote a famous sage.
“Can a glorious victory be turned against you? Could the means justify the goals?”
Obama just spent 8 years enlarging the power of the President to act unilaterally, so I guess we’ll find out soon.
Am very surprised to read that the left is down on Russia. Putin is certainly a kinder gentler version of Lenin and Stalin — and the left certainly liked those guys. And that dunderhead Reagan who called Russia the evil empire. . . .
>If a Facebooker says that
>there are Trump-inspired
>hate crimes all over her city,
>for example, I helpfully point
>out that she could jump on an
>international flight and escape the violence
Why is running away the correct response to an increase in hate crimes?
>For those who express concern over the
>Trumpenfuhrer’s potential policies toward
>migrants and refugees I have offered to pay
>the airfare from Kabul or Amman of any refugees
> whom they wish to shelter in their homes.
>For those who are upset about Trump’s
>proposed income tax rate cuts I have offered
>to help them calculate what they would have
>owed under Hillary’s proposals and then show
>them how to make a voluntary donation to the
>U.S. Treasury.
These are cute ad-hominem arguments. My willingness to shelter a refugee in my home or make a voluntary contribution to the U.S. Treasury has no bearing on an argument I make regarding U.S. immigration or tax policy.
I don’t think you really understand me Phil. I am what is known as an internet troll. I like saying ridiculous things and get pleasure when you delete my many posts, which usually mock your comment moderation policy or when I randomly say “build the wall”. The fact that you would engage with me on a rational level is simply inconceivable and sort of takes the fun out of being an internet troll. Oh and one more thing. Build the wall!
Neal: Why is running away the correct response to violent crime in your neighborhood, specifically violent crime directed at people of your ethnic or religious group? I guess that depends on the assumption that it is better to be alive and uninjured than it is to be dead and/or injured.
If you’re an advocate for both immigration and affordable housing, don’t you have to be an advocate for housing immigrants in your existing home? Otherwise the immigrants will create additional demand for housing, thus driving up costs and rendering housing “unaffordable”.
It’s not ad hominem. Please go read up on this as penance. Society will forgive you once you can correctly define ‘begging the question’.
>I guess that depends on the assumption that it is
>better to be alive and uninjured than
>it is to be dead and/or injured.
This argument substitutes a more easily falsified straw man (“I will be dead or injured”) for the actual statement (“there are Trump-inspired hate crimes all over my city”). The premise that it is better to be alive/uninjured than dead/injured does not explain why running away is the correct response rather than some alternative action which could also keep one alive/uninjured (e.g. defending one’s self, seeking protection by others, pre-emptive attack, or engaging in conflict resolution).
>If you’re an advocate for both immigration and affordable housing,
>don’t you have to be an advocate for housing immigrants in your
>existing home? Otherwise the immigrants will create
>additional demand for housing, thus driving
>up costs and rendering housing “unaffordable”.
This is a new argument; the original argument did not posit advocacy of both immigration and affordable housing. This new argument begs the questions that placing immigrants in my existing home is the only way to avoid rendering housing “unaffordable”, and that other benefits of immigration do not outweigh the down side of driving up housing costs (maybe cheap immigrant labor will make other goods cheaper offsetting the higher housing costs or maybe the higher housing costs are an acceptable price given the moral imperative of helping refugees)
>Agreed, T. Imagine if the U.S. were run by a President
>who had won the Nobel Peace Prize.
>Then none of this suffering in Aleppo
>would have occurred.
It is true that Obama (apparently like Trump) was unwilling to risk war with a nuclear power to defend the people of Aleppo. However, there is more to both Obama’s and Trump’s policy toward Russia than Aleppo. This one point of similarity does not by itself disprove the poster’s (implied) argument that Trump’s policy toward Russia aligns more closely with Putin’s preferred policies than Obama’s. It does nicely refute the poster’s (implied) argument that a Trump presidency will be worse for the people of Aleppo.
@Tom:
I explained why Phil’s arguments were ad-hominem. If you think they weren’t then demonstrate why my explanation is wrong.
Yea, that is why you get defriended. At least you recognize your weaknesses. Many people don’t. And recognizing a weakness is the first step in overcoming it. So good for you. It looks like you’ll have plenty of opportunities to work on it over the next four years. And as a huge fan of your aviation-themed writing, I’ll be here rooting for you.
Neal – Philg’s Facebook acquaintance equivalently ran away by defriending.
@San
I haven’t been defending philg’s Facebook acquaintances and will not start now. However, I will point out that unpacking and responding to philg’s comments in this thread has taken me a lot of time and effort. It may not be realistic to expect a Facebook acquaintance to do it.
I am motivated by the assumption that philg cares about his “Facebook friends”, that it bothers him when he seems them posting stupid statements, and that he interacts with them out of a desire to help them develop better ideas. My purpose is to help him do that and in doing so use philg’s insights to strengthen my own ideas.
There are a number of reasons why I would suggest avoiding pithy comments like those philg has showcased in this thread:
They are often weak arguments (as I think I’ve demonstrated above). As a long time reader of this blog, I know philg is capable of formulating strong arguments so I suggest he deploy those instead.
Encapsulating several steps of an argument into a single phrase can be clever and entertaining but hard for someone who has not heard all of the steps before to understand and thus easier for them to dismiss.
They can be “too sharp”. When a person takes a position which is hypocritical or contradictory, it can be more effective to start the argument at a point of agreement and then work toward the contradiction. Ad hominem arguments, besides being logical fallacies, make the target defensive and less likely to listen to an argument.
The most important reason for developing and deploying good arguments is that it requires developing good ideas and working through any contradictions in one’s own thinking. Massachusetts liberals certainly don’t have a monopoly on stupidity, hypocrisy, or self-contradiction.