Reply #45: I approached the piece with an open mind, ready to be told my feelings were used. [View All]

[Pholus]

So we have different standards to be met. I required direct evidence to change my viewpoint. You required an argument that supported what you already felt. As a result, you will by nature accept a lesser argument than I will and in that case circumstantial evidence would probably seem sufficient.

But considered on the evidence presented, the title of the article borders on the logical fallacy of "affirming the consequent" in that the main argument is:

Because they hate unions, the right wing started a media blitz in WI which was confirmed by hard evidence like the phone call. The TSA "grope or peep" fest last fall was also media blitz. Since the right wing hates unions they must have started that one as well.

Since a direct cause was not established via evidence, the article failed to support its thesis statement adequately.

You, who apparently had no problem with the TSA, as a result feel this is sufficient to support your belief.

Me, whose core beliefs are being smeared by the premise of the article in that if I hate the procedure I must somehow be supporting the right wing, will not find it sufficient.