The old "and the next thing ya know" argument...

[hollywood926]

I've noticed in the short time I've been a member here that, although I agree with 90% of what is said, there is often a great deal of exaggeration and "the next thing ya know" arguments that ultimately do not serve us well.

When we hear the other side say, "Oh sure, let's let men marry men - and then the next thing ya know, men will be allowed to marry sheep!," we immediately think these people are very close to being mentally retarded.

Yet in the past week or two, I've read several similar arguments on this board. First it was the Scott Peterson verdict - "he was convicted of killing TWO people - the next thing ya know, Roe v. Wade will be overturned!!!!" This is a stupid argument. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other, and Scott Peterson is hardly the first person to be convicted of killing two people because he killed a pregnant woman.

And then there were the numerous threads of today regarding the Freedom Initiative Act. "The next thing ya know, they are going to DRUG OUR CHILDREN!!!!" I went to senate.gov and carefully read the bill in question. Here's a snip:

(a) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Education, and the Attorney General, acting jointly and in consultation with the Directors (as that term is defined in subsection (k)), shall make 10 grants to demonstration facilities to implement evidence-based preventive-screening tools to detect mental illness and suicidal tendencies in school-age youth and to refer those youth in need of assessment or treatment.

It's quite a stretch to jump from that to the government forcing drugs upon our children without our consent. Does anyone here actually believe that even Republicans would allow that to happen???

I really believe that, as a rule, our positions hold water. We do not need to lie, exaggerate, come up with ridiculous conspiracy theories or jump to baseless conclusions. If we do, how are we different?

[graywarrior]

1. Ruh-roh.

Here it comes.

[Minstrel Boy]

2. No need for ridiculous conspiracy theories

in an era defined by conspiracy fact.

Of course, not everything's a conspiracy. Just the important stuff.

[sangh0]

6. ridiculous conspiracy theories?

YOu mean the Twin Cities are going to be nuked, or that Karl Schwarz has info that will bring down the BFEE, or that the Russians have a new bomb called "Red Mercury", or that Vreeland is a member of OSI?

All ridiculous conspiracy theories you have promoted on DU.

[jdj]

3. the thing is, we have learned by experience

that these pervs get behind any iniative or precedent that serves their needs, and the reason we forecast is that they essentially have the money to do anything that they want. And now that they have the DRE's and rigged op.scans, not to mention computer access to voter reg. lists from umpteen avenues, they can call elections anyway they feel.

The only advantage we have is that they may not have enough foot-soldiers to rig elections in every county boe, or the folks that do may get sloppy.

I get what you are saying about the boy who cried wolf, but in this case, pro-lifers, I am convinced are behind the Peterson case getting so much play because of the potential for the Connor law fromt the get-go, it's their media after all. Haven't you EVER wondered why the stories like this get play while extroardinarily significant ones, like the Duefler report, never see the light of day? Doesn't it make you even a LITTle suspicious? If not, stick around.

[readmoreoften]

4. and the NEXT thing you know

I like the real way out ones like "If Bush gets three SCOTUS nominations, the next thing you know we'll have a Supreme Court that's tilted towards the fundamentalists for 20 years!"

Or "Bush is claiming to have earned political capital, the next thing you know is that he'll spend it!"

how about "Everyone is rallying behind Bush after 9-11, next thing you know, he's going to use his unearned support to justify illogical wars in the middle east!"

or "Now that digital identification is everywhere they're going to develop a chip you can plant under your skin!" (oh wait they did.)

Clue: it is good to be rational and reasonable during reasonable times. It is silly to cling to a false sense of rationalism or an 'aura of reasonableness' in an emergency.

This is an emergency.

Let's exit the building calmly. But let's not sit around and insinuate that others are 'conspiracy theorists' for pointing out the fact that we are in a burning building.

[hollywood926]

5. Is it impossible to have an intelligent argument here???

You are talking about reasonable conclusions. It is reasonable to conclude that Bush will pack the Supreme Court with as many right wing nutjobs as he can. Why wouldn't he? He wants judges who hold the same belief systems he does.

I am talking about unreasonable conclusions based on paranoia and only paranoia.

[sangh0]

7. It's called "argumentum ad absurdum"

If someone makes a reasonable argument that distinguishes between reasonable conspiracy theories and reasonable scenarios, they MUST be misportrayed as being an extremist that rejects ALL conspiracy theories (no matter how well suppported by evidence) and ALL reasonable scenarios.

I suggest that after you see who it is that misrepresents your argument in this thread, do a search and see the sorts of looney conspiracies they believe in. It will be very educational.

[Walt Starr]

8. I said it in many of the Peterson threads, the law is consistent with Roe

So many people have no idea what was even in Roe v. Wade. The law protecting the unborn and making it murder in these types of cases is 100% consistent with Roe v. Wade. In fact, state interest is mandated for second and third trimesters universally.

If people would read the decision, they would understand a lot more about how these laws work and why they must be in place.