If you've been following my journals at all, you've noticed that I've lately been touching on the forgotten concept of making logical arguments, and avoiding/recognizing fallacious statements. However, after some discussion with a friend last night, I realized that the title of my journal is quite true. If you want to find fallacious arguments, look no further than politics.

Many of the logical fallacies I've mentioned are a commonplace practice in the political arena. For example, during an election, the countless attack ads all fall into the cateogry of Ad Hominem attacks, often ignoring the actual political stances of the candidates in favor of digging up any dirt or dirty past secrets, to stain the character of the candidate, ignoring what work they've done. The Straw Man argument is used on an almost daily basis by either the Democrats OR the Republicans in order to denounce the words and claims of the opposing side. Appeals to the Majority are an incredibly common practice, as are Quoting Mining (which is especially abhorrent), Argument from Personal Incredulity, False Dichtomies...the list goes on. I could spend hours.

What bothers me the most, is the absolutely enormous gap between the two sides. Basically, if you stand in one, you cannot stand in the other. And god forbid you try to stand in the middle. For example, I'm pro-choice, and all for gay marriage rights. But I supported the war in Iraq. So technically I have a foot in either camp. Of course, attempting to argue with one group means you obviously HAVE to be with the other.

Take  cigarskunk for example. Yes, I know, I've toted him around as a poster-boy for disinformation and lies for a while, but to be honest, I know of no other person who has the same political views or ideas as him, at least in the fandom, or in my own experience. Thus, lacking any other examples, I'll default to Skunk. Now, I've detailed to death all of his faults and mistakes, and then, I took the time to look over at  dncfurs and noticed a rather stark contrast in both the ideology and attitude.

Skunk preaches tolerance and open-mindedness, but if you even try to refute his statements or claims, then you must obviously be part of, and I quote him, "the usual idiots", which always refers to left-wing liberals. Even one of his own fans tried to disagree, and was accused of having changed camps. Meanwhile, over at DNC, their policy is much more open-minded, and they even state that you don't have to agree with everything they believe, as long as you believe in SOME of it.

I recently learned about how another group  gopfurs was banned, for no apparent cause or reason, making many members of the FA community confused and angry. Zalin wrote, "Evidently an admin saw a potential disaster brewing because Republicans decided to get together and meet each other." Well, I don't mean to make a Hasty Generalization, for the sake of this discussion, allow me to do so:

From personal experience, both in the fandom, and in real life, the typical Republican tends to be confrontative, hostile, and highly defensive of their perspective. Whereas the Democrats seem to be much more tolerant, willing to discuss differences in opinion, and in general seem more level-headed. Now, let's just assume that this is ALL the information an administrator has to go with. Now, they notice these two groups. Which group are they more likely to want to pre-emptively deal with before a potential flame war starts?

Now, before anyone jumps on me or tears me apart, let me state for the record that I do not condone the decision to ban the group, nor am I defending it. Offering an explaination for behavior, is not an excuse or a free pass for said behavior. And while I use a small sample group to make this determination, likely it's all the admins had to go with either.

The overall issues, stems from what seems to be an overwhelming sense of "With us or against us" menality. Having a foot in either camp will often get you reamed as being a hypocrite or someone who can't make up either mind. The political arena is always charged with his sense that there must be undying loyalty and devotion to one's side. Why can't we make our own judgments, based on our personal views, rather than blindly following a group mentality? Can I not hold both liberal and conservative, Democratic and Republican views, all at the same time?

This is probably a fruitless question, but it is one of the reasons why I try to distance myself from all political discussions. It becomes less and less about the facts, and more about attacks on personal belief and opinions, to the point that choosing one side or the other becomes tantamount to treason. Okay, perhaps that's an exaggeration, but I have SEEN political arguments become this heated. Again, I could care less whether you're pro-Bush, pro-Obama, pro-life, pro-guns, whatever. Just please, keep your statements logical, rational, and factual.

You are entitled to your opinion, and I won't argue that. You are however, NOT entitled to claim your opinion as more valid or factual than the opinion of anyone else. Do that, and I will shoot you down each and every time, even if I would agree with you.