Posted on 09/14/2012 12:56:43 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Yes, the argument does still stand, because it is the categorical definition of an argument - trying to persuade someone (YOU) with reasons (NOT VOTING ROMNEY) to accept a certain conclusion (WILL ENSURE A ZERO WIN). Seems simple enough.
You mistake my emotional appeal for you to change your course of action as a philosophical appeal to your logical motive, which, semantically speaking, is an entirely different thing.
And try not to miss the forest for the trees here... I said you’re “giving” your vote to Obama, not voting for him literally, i.e. if you sit at home or vote third-party candidate, Obama-voters will have no need to negate your nonexistent Romney vote for a Zero win. So, you’ll have in effect aided and abetted in a Democrat victory.
Okay, now we’re done here.
With language like that, you've come dangerously close to wilfully mischaracterizing a free exercise of the franchise as a criminal activity.
That said, a false dichotomy is always a spurious appeal, a fallacy -- and therefore, not an argument, but appeal to motive rather than logic. Accusing people of criminality into the bargain shows how far over the line you are.
NOW we're done.
There’s no false dichotomy here, unless viewed through spoiled brat lenses: I can’t get what I want (a true conservative prez), so I’ll ruin it for everybody else (and campaign against the least leftist of the two viable candidates).
That, my friend, is aiding and abetting in a Democrat victory.
And don’t hide behind “the franchise”. What, are you an employee of the ACLU all of a sudden?
Again, thanks for helping Zero win re-election. It was a nice 236 years.
NOW WE’RE ALL ALMOST DONE FOR, thanks to a few who should have known better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.