Adam Hill tied to phony mailer

As the election cycle heats up, commentary becomes more extreme and offensive. Wiseguy’s post (05/16/2012 at 7:58 am) is a short, clear example of the use of logical fallacies, including blame-shifting, ad hominem attacks, red herrings, begging the question, and strawman arguments. I am responding to Wiseguy’s post with a dissection of the unethical approach he has taken to criticizing Ed Waage and his supporters.

Candidates usually have enough problems in their background, and/or have enough unfavorable opinions and positions, that it is easy to raise valid, logical issues, and not necessary to stoop to less credible tactics.

I hope, by pointing out the things in Wiseguy’s post that destroy its credibility, those who are not familiar with critical thinking and debate will be able to recognize these tactics when they next encounter them.

—————————-

Adam Hill, by participating in the deceptive “Attention Republicans: Election Day Voting Guide,” once again demonstrates his ability to keep the discussion of this election focused on the question of character. It is unfortunate that some posters are aiding Hill in his efforts.

Wiseguy offers three statements/questions which are nothing but red-herring and strawman logical fallacies. He sets up these false arguments and then, in his final paragraph, attempts to use them to blame Ed Waage for focusing the discussion on unimportant issues.

(#1) “Why shouldn’t Republicans be convinced to vote for Adam Hill? ”

(#3) “There is noting untruthful in this advertisement and I haven’t heard of ANYONE who was “fooled” by it or harmed by it. No one.”

In each statement/question, to my knowledge, Wiseguy is the only person who has raised these issues here. However, it is Wiseguy’s implication that Waage and anyone who takes exception to Adam Hill’s deceptive mailer have voiced this opinion. Wiseguy is being deceptive when he uses logical fallacies in his attempt to turn the blame from[ Adam Hill for the deceptive mailer] to [those opposing deceptive tactics who also oppose Adam Hill’s use of a deceptive mailer].

In the first question (#1), Wiseguy asks a question to which the answer, clearly, is “no.” That is why no one else has raised that issue. There is nothing deceptive about attempting to convince a voter to vote for another political party’s candidate. More importantly, no one, except for Wiseguy has said it is. Attempting to convince voters to cross-vote is done all the time. Obama is spending many $$$millions in the 2012 campaign to lure more independent Republicans to vote for a Democrat: Obama. McCain chose Palin as his VP candidate partly because he wanted to appeal to the women Independent and Democratic voters.

The deception is Adam Hill’s participation in a mailer in which it appears to the casual reader that Adam Hill is being endorsed (along with other politicians, who are Republicans) by the GOP.

AND it goes to the repeated instances in which Adam Hill’s behavior has raised questions about his character.

In the SECOND (#2) and THIRD (#3) questions , Wiseguy takes a slightly different approach which ends up undercutting the first point (#1) he attempted to make. Basically, these questions attempt to make the illogical “no-harm-no-foul” red-herring argument. In other words, even if Adam Hill did participate in a deceptive campaign mailer, no one was fooled or harmed so it doesn’t count or matter.

If someone steals your car but doesn’t harm it, it doesn’t matter? Others are wrong for criticizing the person who stole your car?

Of course, it still matters, and of course the act deserves criticism, just as Adam Hill’s participation in a deceptive campaign mailer still matters, no matter how many people were fooled, because–again–it goes to the question of his character.

The issue is not whether anyone was deceived by Adam Hill’s participation in a deceptive campaign mailer. The issue is Adam Hill participated in a deceptive campaign mailer.

Wiseguy’s concluding paragraph is so deceitful it is offensive.

After Wiseguy makes multiple attempts to shift blame from Adam Hill’s participation in a deceptive campaign mailer to those who criticize Adam Hill’s participation in a deceptive campaign mailer, Wiseguy has the nerve to try to blame Ed Waage for sidetracking the election discussion from the “ISSUES.”

As if that isn’t bad enough, Wiseguy makes a giant leap further by accusing Price and Arend as extremist. Wiseguy then accuses all three of being involved of political “dirty work.”

Finally, Wiseguy implies that there is a possibility Waage is attending to unethically quid-pro-quo Price and Arend into political favors should Waage be elected.