the id, the ego, & the single misfiring brain cell

Hi cousin, thanks for the free press. :)
Talking about what COULD happen isn’t necessarily fear tactics or snowball fallacy. When one looks at history to learn about what can happen under certain circumstances, it’s more about learning cause-and-effect. When you see a CAUSE happening, or STARTING to happen, you KNOW what the effect will be, if it keeps going.

If you leave your gate open, the dog probably will get out. That’s not a scare tactic or a snowball fallacy. That’s saying what COULD happen, and probably WOULD, knowing cause-and-effect.

I often speak of economics because that’s human behavior visible in black and white (or green and red :). There are economic LAWS, just as there are laws of gravity. A small marble will fall, just like a bowling ball will; however, the bowling ball will do much more damage.

If economic policies have the effect of unbalancing a sector in the economy, it’s not a scare tactic to say that it COULD have a damaging effect . . . it WILL. (ex: the housing crash) Its’ a matter of how much or how bad, barring mitigating circumstances.

Let’s use the example of high taxes (one of my favorites to argue against, or as you call it my “pet peeve.” :) If taxes are TOO high in a country, it can (and DOES) have several effects: 1) people can move their residency to other countries (ex: The Rolling Stones left England). 2) people can be less productive (ex: the Beatles broke up in large part because of complex and confiscatory taxes, 3) their MONEY can move out of country . . . they can invest in businesses in other countries where taxes don’t minimize the return.

You don’t argue that it happens in small ways, as when people move from a high tax state to a low tax state. I also know of people who work less to stay out of the next higher tax bracket. This is the “small marble” example . . . this proves the validity of the economic law. How can you argue that bigger taxes will not have a bigger effect?

You don’t argue that they CAN happen . . . you argue they don’t affect the U.S. that much. I agree with you to the extent that they don’t happen in the U.S. that much YET. However, if our taxes became as high as the U.K., it WOULD happen. That’s not scare tactics, it’s just a law of economics. If taxes keep SNOWBALLING, and getting bigger and bigger, then our economy stands a snowball’s chance in WELL, you know . . .
:)

Example of Liberal snowball fallacies:

*There’s a cross on public land, they’re trying to force everyone to become Christians! (or nativity scenes in public, etc.)
*AZ law allows cops to ask for proof of residency during any legal contact, therefore they WILL do racial profiling!
* Tea partiers are against big government, therefore they’re as dangerous as Timothy McVeigh! (says Bill Clinton)
AND
* Humans produce 3% of the world’s carbon dioxide, therefore we’re DESTROYING the planet!!!
:)

Diana,

You may be onto something. I read a news story a couple of years ago (and sadly I can’t find it now) about a study that found people who consider themselves liberals are more likely to enjoy amusement park thrill rides. I’m not so sure fear is the deciding factor, because most roller coaster fans I know love the rush that fear brings. But maybe it’s that conservatives are less comfortable with the feeling of fear.

Dave

My pleasure, Becky.

I’m trying to figure out a way to just give a permanent link on my main page. I probably need to add a gadget or something…. I’ll do it later, in my leisure time HAHAhahahahahahaha *snort* oh me…

OK. I’ll be serious. :)

I agree that simply predicting an effect (like your example of the dog getting loose) is not a snowball fallacy. However, when you automatically assume that if we give someone a right, they’ll not be satisfied and will continue to take and take and take (when you’ve given no rational argument for why you believe that’ll happen), then you’ve gone to scare tactics (whether you mean to or not, and I tried to clarify that), and you’re committing the snowball fallacy.

Should I begin to list them as you commit them? Would that help?

A couple of thoughts on your liberal “snowball fallacies":

“*There’s a cross on public land, they’re trying to force everyone to become Christians! (or nativity scenes in public, etc.)” I agree that if someone actually made that claim, they’re committing the snowball fallacy. I’ve never heard such a claim, myself. I have heard good arguments against such activity, however.

“*AZ law allows cops to ask for proof of residency during any legal contact, therefore they WILL do racial profiling!”

I’m not sure this is a snowball fallacy, although I agree it appears to be. I don’t see it as such because, frankly, I don’t know another way the cops will determine whether someone MAY be an illegal immigrant. I’m open to your thoughts on the matter, though.

“* Tea partiers are against big government, therefore they’re as dangerous as Timothy McVeigh! (says Bill Clinton).”

Thanks for providing the source. :) You know I like that kinda stuff. (I’m interested in your actual source, of course. I know from experience that you tend to hear stuff people don’t actually say, so please provide a link Clinton’s actual words at your earliest convenience.) I don’t know that that’s technically a snowball fallacy, but it IS a scare tactic (and so far as I can see, stupid).

“* Humans produce 3% of the world’s carbon dioxide, therefore we’re DESTROYING the planet!!!”

Not a snowball fallacy. This is a case of leaving that gate open and predicting the dog will escape. The only difference is, the dog already has. We’re now trying to get him back into the yard.

I acknowledge, though, that you’ll hear people on both sides of the divide say stupid things, and I know I cringe when I hear stupidity, regardless of who utters it.

My point with this blog entry was…maybe something I should clarify.

d

I focussed on the Snowball Fallacy not because conservatives have a monopoly on it, but because they’re damn near it, in the political arena. Snowball fallacies are scare tactics. That is, when the snowball effect cannot be backed by scientific data (it can and is with climate change) but it is offered as an argument, anyway, it is a scare tactic (whether it is intended to be or not).

By the way…just because someone is telling us to be scared does not mean that person is using “scare tactics.” If I told you to not walk into traffic or you might be hit and killed, I’m warning you. “Scare tactics” are understood to be rhetorical attempts to control a person’s behavior through unfounded threats or snowball fallacies. Basically, if your attempt to frighten someone is grounded in reality and scientifically demonstrable, it isn’t a “scare tactic"; it’s an attempt to get you to stop ignoring reality.

Just heading you off at the pass there. :)

When I speak of the conservative mindset versus the liberal mindset (and this is partially a comment on Dave’s interesting post), and how fear plays a factor, I mean it seems to me that fear plays a notably greater role in the conservative mindset than is does in the liberal one.

Take universal health care (JUST AS AN EXAMPLE). Liberals tend to focus on the statistics by the WHO that suggest a socialist or single-payer health care system is far cheaper and far superior to a market-driven one. It’s also better for the economy (small and big business). People are healthier, they can work more, they less disincentive (so I say because not having to make a co-pay isn’t necessarily what I’d call incentive to most) to use preventative health care and therefore the reactive health care costs tend to be considerably lower. Liberals (in my experience, and I’ve discussed this with many over the last year) tend to acknowledge the risks (some doctors might move to another country–but which one? ;)–the government will probably have to put out more money than they estimate, people might have to wait a little longer to see their doctors–although I’m not convinced of this at all–etc), but consider the risks and glitches worth what we stand to gain by implementing such a system.

I think the fear of what might happen (which is often a snowball fallacy) tends to RULE how conservatives think. This is why conservatism is marked by a desire to return to “the good old days,” which weren’t actually that good, but at least the risks were KNOWN and thus known to be acceptable. And on the other side of the divide, liberals tend to be more willing to do ORM and make the choice that seems to be an improvement on the current or even past states of being, and thus better for all.

If you doubt me, take a look at your position on any of the uncounted arguments we’ve had over the last few months. You will note that yours are systematically characterized by a FEAR of WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN. While I have my fears and concerns, I am clearly not as ruled by my fear of the unknown as you are.

d