Wouldn’t It Be Nice
If Radley would take a few minutes from defending the honor of Reason’s staff and teach his editor some basic math?
You’re right. It would probably take more than a few minutes.
I still find it really amusing that basically the only person I enjoy reading at Reason (there is Jesse Walker, too) has decided it is his job to defend his slimy cohorts from the invading liberal hordes.
And has anyone gotten around to explaining how a town handing out a bid during a competitive bidding process to serve 25,000 residents of a community in a county of 4 million people is a “state sanctioned monopoly?” See that blazing red spot on the map? We ain’t talking about the middle of nowhere in the desert. Or do these guys make up their own definitions to go with their new math?
*** Update ***
Look who is awfully fond of the Balloon Juice Fallacy:
enjoy the silence… “I don’t have a view of what are natural rights independent of the Constitution,” Kagan said. In two days of testimony replete with the evasive maneuvers that she once complained had rendered Supreme Court confirmation hearings a “vapid and hollow charade,” her silence on natural rights was one of the most disturbing things she didn’t say.http://reason.org/news/show/natural-reluctance
Did these liberals—some of whom frequently flashed their free trade credentials during the Bush administration—just forget what they used to believe? Or are they suppressing their principles until Obama announces that the economic crisis has finally been solved and we can resume regularly scheduled fiscal sobriety? Either way, their ongoing silence has to count as one of the great underreported political stories of the Obama presidency.http://reason.org/news/show/death-of-neoliberalism
Although Chávez forcefully denied the existence of any such majority, insisting that it was his Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela (PSUV) that had obtained the majority of the national vote, his complete silence following the announcement of the results was a telling statement in itself:http://reason.org/news/show/a-.....majorities
An Odd Silence on Gay Marriage
That Caplan so deftly and convincingly argues that voter’s anti-market biases are, well, bad for democracy, and seeing as Alternet has yet to debunk Caplan’s book, I suspect that Alex won’t mind if I interpret his employers deafening silence as a damning concession.
http://reason.com/archives/200…..y-marriagehttp://reason.com/blog/2007/11…..ry-silence
i could go on.
Too funny.
It’s part of the orientation.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Q: How many libertarians does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. If it needs changing, the free market would do it!
December 20th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
What’s odd is that IIRC this blog doesn’t really tend to engage in the “notice the silence from x” bullshit all that much, so not sure why they named it after you.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Love how he equates you with Roger Ailes.
And, thus, why I have no more use for Radley Balko than I do for the Fonzie of Freedom.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
@EJ:
Exactly. Since when has “Roger Ailes” been a front page poster at Balloon Juice?
December 20th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
This is hilarious, check out what Global Warming Believers were talking about in the year 2000:
http://www.independent.co.uk/e…..24017.html
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain’s biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. “It was a bit of a first,” a spokesperson said.
Fen skating, once a popular sport on the fields of East Anglia, now takes place on indoor artificial rinks. Malcolm Robinson, of the Fenland Indoor Speed Skating Club in Peterborough, says they have not skated outside since 1997. “As a boy, I can remember being on ice most winters. Now it’s few and far between,” he said.
Michael Jeacock, a Cambridgeshire local historian, added that a generation was growing up “without experiencing one of the greatest joys and privileges of living in this part of the world – open-air skating”.
Reality, just ten years later:
Motorists continued to struggle. The M25 was closed in both directions for about six hours while drivers on the M40 in Oxfordshire suffered severe delays.
Commuters were warned to expect treacherous conditions with thick ice and freezing fog today. Train passengers also face delays and cancellations, particularly in the North. Eurostar services between London and Paris have also been affected.
Snow and ice grounded the vast majority of flights in and out of Britain, with Heathrow the worst-affected airport.
Hilarious.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
@EJ: Also, John did point out in that post that Reason, in the end, was not silent on that issue (Shelby’s blanket holds).
@geg6: I wonder if that guys name really is Roger Ailes or if it’s a nick. If so how unfortunate.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
@D0n Camillo:
All statists are interchangable by virtue of their oppressive blogopoly.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Sooo, in addition to basic math and vocabulary failure, Radley’s pissed at Roger Ailes (no not that Roger Ailes) so he takes a shot at Balloon Juice? WTF? These guys are massively incompetent. Up is down, black is white and Reason is….... It’d be funny if it weren’t so damn pathetic.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
If libertarians were capable of numeracy and willing care more about getting things right than spreading propaganda useful to the cause then they wouldn’t be libertarians in the first place. Trying to teach basic math skills to a libertarian is like trying to teach a lion to be a vegan.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
@change: Climate != weather.
dms
December 20th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Funny how the old “If you don’t like it you’re free to move” doesn’t apply in this situation.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
This is a very confusing blog fight.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
@change:
Because weather = climate, right?
Wrong. But keep telling yourself you’re right. Your delusions are quite entertaining.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
enjoy the silence…
http://reason.org/news/show/natural-reluctance
http://reason.org/news/show/death-of-neoliberalism
http://reason.org/news/show/a-.....majorities
An Odd Silence on Gay Marriage
http://reason.com/archives/200.....y-marriage
http://reason.com/blog/2007/11.....ry-silence
i could go on.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
OT, but sort of not, for those of you who can’t quite wean yourselves off Sully, he’s taken his leave and put the monkeys in charge again, so it’ll be twice the wankery, three times the contrarianism, and just a shade more cognitive dissonance than usual. Happy X-mas!
ETA: At least there’s no Su-Su-Suderman, perhaps because McMegan’s got him chained in the basement doing a Christmas pantomime of the Fountainhead.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
@dmsilev:
RTFA. Ten years ago they were saying “in a few years, we won’t have snowy winters anymore!” and pointing to the warm winter in 2000 as “proof” of global warming.
Now? Lol, not so much.
Shows you how much people want to believe their own Cult.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
halp.halp.
i m moderationed!
December 20th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Here’s three things I’ve tended to notice about my fellow libertarians in recent years:
1. many of them are closer to anarchists or oligarchs than they are believers in liberty
2. most of them have no concept of what Hamilton called “ordered liberty” or that even Jefferson acknowledged (in the Declaration of Independence, no less) that government is necessary for liberty
3. they have the same problem that many in the conservative movement have, that is, to them, it is always 1980 and the problem is always overregulation and the answer is always, always deregulation
I get it, though. I was like that through college (late 90s) and the better part of the last decade. But as I read more about the Founders, and reread the Federalist Papers, and studied constitutional law (for the third time in law school), my view started to shift. I’m still a libertarian, but I think my understanding of liberty and what is necessary to form a more liberal/free society is different than “deregulate everything and cut taxes for everyone.”
December 20th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
@Cole
the reasonoids are all first culture intellectuals.
they dont understand math or science.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Wow, it’s like liberals didn’t even read what was written!
December 20th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Hint, Marxists: They’re TALKING ABOUT CLIMATE and their predictions have been utterly WRONG.
“He who controls the past, controls the future” huh?
December 20th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
@change: I’m quite a fan of the headline of the article you linked:
December 20th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
This is hilarious, check out what Permanent Republican Majority Believers were talking about four days ago:
Shows how much people want to believe in their own Cult.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
in the comments they look down their nose at a commenter talking about motorboating salma hayek. oh noes
! those guys figuratively fellate freidrich hayek constantly. its hard to make sense when one has their missle receiver full of austrian sausage.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
@Sentient Puddle:
Stupid spam filter, here is the correct article.
Read it and weep, libs. Or just deny! Buy more carbon credits! Burn the heretics!
December 20th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
@jacy:
Su-Su-Suderman, I like that. I still dig that horn a cappella rock out in that song.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Now excuse me while I use my truck to go blow some sweet carbon on Mother Nature’s face while running errands.
Have fun spinning this one, leftists!
December 20th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
@change:
Link
Note the year that this was written. Now, search on “Atlantic conveyor current”. Or, you could simply dissolve in your own ignorance.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Principia Mathematica is clearly a sociaIist plot.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
@change:
Get a spine, moran.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
@change:
Heh. What exactly are you looking for? “It snowed, therefore all temperature measurements throughout the entire field over the last hundred years are completely wrong forever”?
“Snow is less frequent” and “snow will never come again” are different sentences. You can tell from the words that are different. I’m not sure why you think that something existing somehow debunks it being rarer than before.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
@change: In the vain hope that you might learn something, here’s a hint for you:
Google the phrases “long-term trend” and “statistical outlier”.
dms
December 20th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
@change: Noooo! You’re driving! Clearly, it is our deep seated resolve to ban all vehicles, and your using one to get from one place to another is offensive and horrifying to us!
December 20th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
@change: In any case, you’re clearly pulling out only the interpretation you want to read, and ignoring everything else. Isolating bits of those quotes…
That sounds like a testable hypothesis, and one that data should be readily available for.
Less snowfall? Ditto. Should be statistics out there for that too.
Thus, your homework now is to find data from 2000 to now and see how it stacks up.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
@change: Huh. Anecdotes shouldn’t be substituted for science in any context. Hoocoodanode!
Idiot.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
@change:
From the one climate scientist quoted:
But I understand that it’s hard to read hiding under that bridge.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
@change:
from the linked article:
oh noes. the guy was right. this disproves everything.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Every now and then a bit of loose change falls out of Rush’s pocket, rolls across the Intertoobs and lands here with a squishy tinkle. Once here it tries to dazzle with tired old slogans, bumper sticker talking points and ‘neener neener’ arguments.
It’s kind of a squishy tinkle down theory in action, best ignored.
replay from yesterday, will repeat as needed.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
@Dennis SGMM: God bless you for your efforts, but what are you thinking? That this chump wants reasoned argument? Make some tea, prep supper, do something constructive…
December 20th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
@change:
I’m still trying to figure this one out. This seems like he’s expecting it to be this big “fuck you” to everyone here. Does he think that liberals/moderates don’t drive?
December 20th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
I still gotta give Nick Gillespie his props for his wardrobe. Nothing says contrarian badass like a worn out leather jacket. Kinda has the same effect Tucker’s bow tie.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Sigh. Dear change: not only does climate / = weather, but
“global” / = “England,”
“A scientist was wrong 10 years ago” / = “all scientists are wrong,” and
Oh! Look at this! “2010 Tied With 1998 as Warmest Global Temperature on Record.”
I’d say “In your face!” except that, in this case, “winning” = “genuine global catastrophe.”
December 20th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
@change: You don’t have to convince me. I love pie too. Pecan is the best, especially this time of year if your make it with bourbon.
December 20th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
@change:
Some people need to periodically be reminded that the plural of “anecdote” is not “data.”. You seem to be one of them.
December 20th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Where the fuck is the ombudsman when you need him?
December 20th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
@p.a.:
You’re right. As an unreconstructed old hippy I still cling to the notion that sweet reason and the perfectibility of humans will triumph in the end. Making a cup of green tea.
December 20th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
@licensed to kill time: Please do!
Do you ever wonder what it would be like to work with the guy? It’s not that he has different policy/political beliefs, it’s that he’s so adolescent with his taunting, “hey everybody look at me” behavior.
December 20th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
@FormerSwingVoter: The theory is that if liberals think something is a good idea, then doing anti-something pisses off liberals and is thus by definition a worthy ideal.
Hey change, do you know what liberals also think is a good idea? Looking both ways before stepping out into traffic. We also believe in always turning off the circuit breaker before rewiring power outlets.
dms
December 20th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
@And Another Thing…:
I would guess most have us have known a guy like that at some point in our lives. They’re the ones you sidle away from while murmuring about that thing you just remembered you had to do. If you’re being polite, anyway.
Otherwise you just roll your eyes, point and laugh.
December 20th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
This is yet another instance of “up is down”. How competitive bidding would be seen as a government monopoly shows an abysmal ignorance of basic economics— or basic logic for that matter. This is really beyond my comprehension.
December 20th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
A retort for Radley.
December 20th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
People who think climate change means less snow do NOT understand climate change. Climate change will mean MORE snow in the Arctic down the road. As the ice caps melt, there will be more moisture in the air and we will probably see massive amounts of what amounts to “lake effect” snow. With more snow, more heat will be reflected off the planet.
The end result of the climate change we are experiencing is likely an ice age.
December 20th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
You guys realize that the entity identifying as “change” is Cole trolling your asses?
December 20th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
@Dennis SGMM:
I like the way this particular troll seems to think that it damages climate scientists’ credibility that they modify their theories in response to new data.
@change:
Oh yeah, that reminds me: Obama and the Democrats raised the CAFE standards last year.
Enjoy your truck while it lasts. Which plug-in do you think you’ll replace it with in three years? Nissan’s or GM’s?
December 20th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
You all invested a lot of energy in a guy who clearly doesn’t understanding what he’s linking. Do you think he will weigh your evidence and change his mind?
December 20th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
@burnspbesq:
Some people need to periodically be reminded that the plural of “anecdote” is not “data.”. You seem to be one of them.
I think I might need to regularly borrow that.
December 20th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
@Gatsby:
Sadly for Balloon-Juice readers this is exactly the argument that BJ front pager ED Kain made here for a couple of weeks.
December 20th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
@Gatsby: It is the time tested principle of ‘Because Shut Up, That’s Why’ with a helping of “You are so close-minded you just don’t understand.”
December 20th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
@jacy: Hey, what’s wrong with Conor Freidersdorf?
I am POd at Sully right now because he forced me to waste my afternoon looking up the Lester Bangs quote I wanted in response to his QOTD link.
December 20th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Too bad full size trucks are exempt from cafe, Joe.
December 20th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
[...] Check out this response from John Cole at Balloon Juice. He runs off a list of Reason articles that allegedly commit the [...]
December 20th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
@change:
Not anymore; under the new rules, they’re counted as part of the fleet-average that manufacturers have to meet.
Ha ha. So, how many miles does the last large truck you’re ever going to own have on it right now?
December 20th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
ONE! TWO! THREE! FOUR! I DECLARE A BLOG WAR!!
December 20th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
This is sort of boring but germane. One theory scientists have, and it sound pretty credible, is that the reason Britain and N. Europe are experiencing colder and harsher winters is because the warm waters of the Atlantic gulf stream is being interrupted by the flow of arctic waters south. The warm gulf stream sweeps up the East Coast from the Carribbean and across to N Europe. But the cold Labrador Stream, plunging downward from the north has increased in flow from disappearing ice and melting glaciers. Britain and N Europe aren’t getting the warm waters that kept winters fairly temperate for ages.
So yes, the unusually snowy conditions there do have something to do with the global warming aspect of climate change, scientists believe.
December 20th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Radley has just responded and shown that none of your 5 examples are actually examples of this particular fallacy.
December 20th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
@cleek: Don’t look now. Radley’s attributing your stuff to me and busting out the old “But it’s different when we do it!” defense.
Let’s see how worked up we can get him. I mean, he started out jabbing us because he was mad at Roger Ailes, and now looks worked into a total froth. If we provoke him enough he might say something so stupid he’ll get a ‘Heh, Indeedy!’ from a true libertarian hero like Insty.
And back to Roger Ailes- I’m sure in years to come we’ll all remember Reason’s huge contribution to ending DADT. Not.
December 20th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
@John Cole:
Doing my part.
December 20th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
When are you going to add “Balloon-Juice Fallacy” to the lexicon?
December 20th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
@The Moar You Know:
Entirely offtopic, but I had the realization that pretty much everything I add vanilla to would taste better with whiskey in it as well. So I just made my own vanilla with beans and a bottle of Jack Daniel’s. Now everything gets some extra flavor.
December 20th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): To be in the lexicon it would probably have a definition but the “Balloon-Juice Fallacy” seems to be “whatever Radley wants it to be”.
December 20th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
I wonder if “change” is the same guy as “truth” who used to troll over at Sadly, No! He’s got the same kind of patter: utter insipidity, combined with just enough of a troll’s true art to get people to bite every single time.
That kind of continuity is always heartwarming. Oh, wait, that’s bile.
December 20th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
@malraux: Mmmmm. Sounds sooo good… How ‘bout a food thread, John? Like ways to perk up standard Christmas dinner fare, maybe??
December 20th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
@change:
Apart from the Atlantic conveyor belt that has already been mentioned: Getting both hotter summers and colder winters is evidence that the climate is not moving out of kilter?
Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.
December 20th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
@Dennis SGMM:
@Belvoir:
The Gulf Stream is fine. Better than ever.
The unusually cold winters of 2009-10 have nothing to do with it and everything to do with the North Atlantic Oscillation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N.....scillation
These cold spells are not connected in any known way to greenhouse gases or global warming.
December 20th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
After attempting to defend John at Balko’s place—
John, there is ambiguity. You could be writing “Too funny” about cleek’s post instead of Reason, for example. But an ordinary reader would assume that you endorsed what cleek wrote.
Roger Ailes appeared to have written, “Reason doesn’t care about DADT because they didn’t write about it the day it was repealed.” Out of those five, you have one ongoing silence that could be used to say these people don’t care, one using this line of argument against someone else who has used the line of argument, two “silences” that are really someone not able to articulately express their views, and one silence that is meaningful because it is silence—Chavez’s. So maybe you have two.
December 20th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
@Belvoir:
Absolutely right. Consider: Paris is further north than Chicago, but historically has had much milder winters for that very reason. In another bad feedback loop for climate change, European winters are likely to get worse with warming, generating more carbon to keep warm. But asshole idiots like change will deny till snow doesn’t exist. Oops, neither will we, in all likelihood, at that point.
December 20th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Guys, why do you respond to him?
Does someone who writes this….
...really dignify so many responses? Don’t sink to his level. Ignore him. He won’t get the satisfaction he’s looking for.
December 20th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Global warming is fake because it was all made up by a couple of scientists on their e-mail. This was well proven by people who read the e-mails and thought they knew what they meant.
Also, if global warming is happening, it is natural and caused by changing output of the Sun. We know this because it’s simple common sense because the Sun is HOT and also none of these so-called scientists have ever thought of looking up at the Sun and asking if it was doing anything or measuring it or sending up satellites or nothing. Nope, they’ve got their liberal blinders on and listen to Al Gore instead of borrowing a telescope from Glenn Beck.
Plus, global warming if it is happening isn’t a problem, because the Earth has been through big temperature changes before. This means that nothing can ever be affected by man-made activities because the Earth is big and mostly does stuff on its own. A long time ago we had a lot more oxygen in the atmosphere and you had giant spiders and centipedes and such and you didn’t hear any of them complaining.
December 20th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
@Juice:
Maybe so, maybe no—as usual, it’s hard to argue with the yahoos because reality has a habit of being complicated.
Oops, don’t intend to refer to you as a yahoo, Juice. From what I read, the impact of the Greenland meltdown is minor as yet, but other changes are impacting the Gulf Stream already, and the impact of meltwater is likely to be real if not currently. Heh, heh.
December 20th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
@malraux: Gimme! Gimme now!
Please?
December 20th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
@les:
Yes, yahoos would be wary of just leaping to conclusions.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/.....-Greenland
The strength of the gulf stream is fine.
The NAO shifted it this year closer to Greenland so that Greenland is having a warmer than normal year and northern Europe is having a colder than normal year.
For the time being there is also a blocking high pressure zone over northern Canada and Greenland contributing to the arctic air spilling into northern Europe.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.g.....p?id=42260
The same thing happened last year.
Again, none of this has the slightest thing to do with greenhouse gases.
It’s weather, not climate.
December 20th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
@4jkb4ia: But isn’t Balko shifting the goalposts here? He defined the Balloon Juice Fallacy initially as an ‘arbitrary deadline to respond’, or not responding quickly enough. Then he redefined it to exclude it’s applicability if ever, in the long storied history of a blog or media outlet, someone somewhere has commented on that particular topic. Isn’t that just an instance of the Goalpostus Movearoundus Fallacy.
December 20th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
@El Cid: You left out one: that God is a benevolent being who would never cause humans undo harm like he did in the big flood, or various other famines or pestilences.
December 20th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Not one of the articles John Cole quotes from “cleek” actually shows anything like what John Cole and “cleek” accuse Reason of doing.
Too funny.
December 20th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
@change:
If you really want to piss liberals off I would recommend that you pull your truck in the garage, leave it running and close the garage door. Then get back in the truck, roll the windows down and floor the gas pedal for ohhh, maybe a half hour. That would really piss the liberals off, trust me!
When you’re done be sure to drop back in here and tell us about it so you can piss us off too!
Good luck and remember, have fun!
December 20th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
Obviously anything over 20% is waste. It must be, by definition. Otherwise you are claiming that definition of non-wasteful spending is something that relies on the actual utility of the spending. Clearly this is wrong. Because hey, you could end up with 100% not being waste!! 20 is the number. The exact number. The magic number.
December 20th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
@change:
Hey, man, that’s really beautiful. I have to say, the quality of your contributions has really shot through the roof since you started writing about pie all the time.
December 20th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
@fasteddie9318:
Indeed, I think we all owe cleek another round of applause for the pie filter. And by “cleek” I naturally mean “John Cole,” and by “John Cole” I naturally mean “Roger Ailes,” as Balko and his illiterate schmibertarian fanboys have so astutely ferreted out.
December 20th, 2010 at 9:14 pm
I’m not trying to start an argument, but I read all those links in the update and none of them apply to the Ballon Juice Fallacy argument.
Can someone post a non-snark comment explaining?
December 21st, 2010 at 9:59 am
@John Cole:
he’s a fucking idiot.
i love that he gets all “didn’t bother reading” while accusing you of writing what you’re clearly quoting.
and his defense of the quotes are “no, the article is really about ” ? or “no, it was in response to ” ?
so, the definition of “BJ Fallacy” is whatever he wants it to mean whenever it suits him best.
again: a fucking idiot.
December 21st, 2010 at 11:47 am
@Will Oliver:
of course they all apply.
the BJ Fallacy, as originally stated, is :
all of the things i quoted are instances of people using the “his/her/their silence is telling” thing. in each of those cases, the silence is supposed to signify something deep and damning.
December 21st, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Cleek’s last example is actually a counter-example. Moynihan is using the “the deafening silence obviously means…” fallacy against Zaitchik. Reading the entire article helps one not look like a “fucking idiot”.
December 21st, 2010 at 5:18 pm
@cleek:
So just curious, how does a Supreme Court nominee refusing to answer a direct question relate to the Balloon Juice Fallacy? To me it doesn’t seem to relate at all. If the question was never asked and she never commented on the issue…then yeah I can see it applying, so the first one doesn’t seem to work either.
The last one is using the Balloon Juice Fallacy to highlight how its a fallacy. So again, doesn’t apply.
And Balko does not appear to have attributed the quoted portion to Cole, but castigates him for repeating it without seeing if the examples fit. The first two don’t.
Even the second one is a bit of a stretch:
They used to believe something, now they are silent on that topic. Not exactly the samething as remaining silent on a topic one has never held forth on.
The one on same-sex marriage actually reports on the refusal of opponents of same-sex marriage to go on record with regards to their fears regarding same-sex marriage. Given that the question is asked and people refuse to go on record noting that seems reasonable. Again, doesn’t quite fit the fallacy. And for extra irony awards, this whole thing started over gay rights…
So, no Will Oliver is right, none of these appear to fit the fallacy. Balko doesn’t claim Cole found these examples, but that he quoted your list without doing even rudimentary fact checking.
December 21st, 2010 at 10:42 pm