For the record: non-parliamentarians can be illogical too.
I’m running this site called Parliamentary Fallacy Files where I run through Hansard and pick out bits which offend my delicate logical sensibilities. But as our dear Parliamentarians are in election mode, there isn’t the daily drip of Hansard to focus on.
I have some politics I wish to object to. Lots, in fact.
First off, I’ve been getting election leaflets. I’ve specifically excluded that stuff from PFF’s remit because it is too easy.
My local UKIP candidate had this statement on a leaflet: If you value freedom and democracy, we are the only party you can vote for.
(A subtle play on many people’s ignorance of the is-ought distinction? I reckon so.)
In the U.S., Bill Donohue from the Catholic League made what we call a ‘distinction without a difference’: I’m sorry. If I’m the only one that’s going to deal with facts tonight then that’ll be it. The vast majority of the victims are post-pubescent. That’s not pedophilia, buddy. That’s homosexuality.
Donohue then goes on to reference ‘social science research’, although he doesn’t specify what social science research he is talking about. What Donohue is referring to is the distinction between paedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia - in this sense of the word ‘paedophilia’, one is referring to pre-pubescents and hebephilia and ephebophilia refers to post-pubescents. This is a technical niche use of the word: in popular usage, paedophilia is also a general term that refers to both. The problem with the Church is not about age. Hair-splitting about whether the children fall into one category or the other is not helpful. The problem is simpler: you have people under the age of consent being abused and raped. If they are over-age, they may still be victims of rape or sexual abuse, even if it is not strictly paedophilic. The other problem is the cover-up and the deeds of silence and all the rest.
Donohue here is simply appealing to semantics. Just because you use a different word for something doesn’t mean that it suddenly loses any importance. Consider this dialogue:
Mumble: You hit that kid with your car and you didn’t stop! You bastard! You know that is a crime - you need to stop and get the kid to hospital or I’ll call the cops on you! If you hit someone in your car, you need to stop and sort it out or you are breaking the law!
Bumble: Stop being so shrill. Am I the only one who is going to deal with facts? You see, I’m driving a 4x4 SUV which under the rules of the United States Department of Transportation isn’t actually a car but is technically considered a light truck.
Mumble: (Seriously?!)
Bumble’s response is totally irrelevant. Mumble may have said ‘car’, but he meant ‘vehicle’. The fact that Bumble is driving an SUV that is technically not a car but a truck doesn’t mean that he has a carte blanche right to hit and run. He still needs to stop. The mere semantic difference between ‘car’ and ‘truck’ doesn’t mean anything in this context. Similarly, if I told you that I have a deadly allergy to onions, your assurances to me that you’ve only used spring onions and leeks mean very little when I have an anaphylactic shock.
One other thing which is pissing me off in politics. Arizona have passed a new law on immigration, and many on the left oppose it for various reasons that I’m not strictly concerned with here. Guess who is now getting involved? Celebrities. Pop star Shakira is getting involved, as is Major League Baseball. The press is now reporting this kind of thing like crazy despite it not mattering. I care that the Arizona law is bad law; I don’t care that pop stars and baseball players agree with me.
British politics is equally irritating but in another way: the focus on the parties and away from the candidates. I keep having to explain this - it should be very simple. You aren’t voting for Cameron, Brown or Clegg except if you live in Witney, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath or Sheffield Hallam. Everyone else gets to vote for local Parliamentary candidates. The media coverage and the rhetoric around the election all seems to miss this fundamentally important principle. Oh well. All be over next week and a fresh wave of MPs will be turning up in Westminster to fill Hansard with incompetence…
