Rahvin writes:
Am I getting through here?
Well, I understand you are attempting to argue "percentage" or "popularity" when indirectly qualifying the word evil.
If I wrote, "nuclear power is exceptionally dangerous because it has caused more cancer by radiation exposure than all other power sources combined", would you say I was being very accurate?
Similarly, you are quantifying evil by using a very specific item/percentage/popularity to rate it which hardly tells the whole truth. It's not so much evil that you are quantifying, but rather a percentage of very specific set of people who commit evil you are quantifying to support your argument . . .
Rahvin writes:
An individual who performs an evil act when everyone else is also doing the same is not exceptionally evil, he's just average.
Not very accurate. When using a percentage of very specific set of people you can hedge, "the evil was not exceptional because MOST US politicians were voting for it." However, suppose you use a larger sampling of politicians including European politicians? What happens to your percentage/argument? Suppose you used all the world's politicians? What happens to your percentage/argument? America was/is unique in the industrial world because of its childlike terrified state when 9/11 struck. The people actually looked upon Bush Jr. to act as a father figure to protect them (regardless that Bush Jr. IS, in fact, an immoral-simpleton-child-war-criminal). Americans are quite off-the-charts when it comes to being frightened of terrorists threats (perhaps similarly frightened by nuclear power too?). However, even you recently used the more rational, broader, and relative example that US car accidents are for more deadly compared to virtually any "X". A broader view is usually the more accurate view, however your example uses ONLY "average" American politicians.
Rahvin writes:
paying attention only to the data that allows you to continue to support your pre-existing position while dismissing the data that would cause you to modify it.
Indeed, as your examples showed.
The set you specifically used in YOUR argument uses an unique aberration (irrationally frightened Americans). Your argument CAN be considered correct ONLY when viewed from this highly obtuse angle. Hardly the full truth.
Additionally, your argumentative device works equally poorly in the opposite direction:
If your argument was sound, then, IF enough people raped children, this particular act would have to be, by your criterion, less vile, more normal, or less "exceptionally evil" than just one person committing jay-walking.
Using this example, your parallel argument would have to be: Because jaywalking is only done by one person, it is "exceptionally evil".
How silly.
Lastly, using bandwagon effect, appeal to the masses, herd instinct, appeal to the majority, or argument by consensus (Rhain called it "fallacy of ad populum" or "popular fallacy") when trying to frame your argument is usually poor form.
When considering ALL evil acts, "raping children" should be rated among the worse. Raping a child, regardless of how you would attempt to quantify it by its "popularity", IS an EXCEPTIONALLY EVIL act, whether one democrat commits it, all republicans commit it, or 2/3 of all Presbyterians commit it.
Similarly, when considering ALL evil acts, ANY politician voting for a war based on known lies is exceptionally evil.
Am I getting through here?
™ Version 4.2
