- Re: The trouble is … Archived Message
Posted by Tomski
on November 23, 2019, 9:35 pm, in reply to "Re: The trouble is …"
|
Time is my enemy, but here goes: For example you say: Unfortunately if that has to wait til after the election it takes the winds out of the sails of the idea we get to vote for anything but a personality. Assumption 1: The imaginary potential voter has certain expectations which have to be satisfied. In this particular case (I assume, because of the thread direction etc.) it centres on the military industrial complex and foreign policy. It’s particularised. Clearly it serves only one segment of the voters or one particular portion of the voter’s worry. Why assume this would be the most important issue for the Everyman etc. voter? In the unlikely event that you are referring to yourself this may be true. This is also a strawman, if generalised, making assumptions there are no other issues within the Manifesto that are worthwhile. Assumption 2: This issue is so important to this voter, that his/her decision will be thus governed in choosing not to vote or vote otherwise, or hold nose (winds out of the sails). No comment (see Assumption 1) except that there is a definition here of the degree of engagement, ‘eagerness’, as I said in my original response. It’s a leap of imagination. Assumption 3: Why would anyone do that i.e. vote for the personality? Although this may be important on some levels, especially if the voter is not politically engaged, it is a human thing. But to offer one issue as being all important, coupled with the personality as being the only hook, and thus there is no alternative. It’s a strawman again. You say: Just like a referendum if you vote and then get told no, the opposite, then what you are voting for is precisely nothing. I don’t see the relevance (see assumptions 1-3). There is no comparison and therefore a strawman. |