||[Jan. 7th, 2005|06:14 pm]
|||||Danger is the Shame - Iris||]|
Long time no talk... my excuse is that I was in Israel, so I didn't have easy access to a computer. It wasn't the best trip of my life - some bad instances of random chance affected me, and I'm now down one laptop, up one special search, and was very tired when I got back, but I found the country entirely enjoyable. If a little tense.
So, several Democrats and several Republicans proposed a formal challenge to the Ohio electoral votes. Every person who participated in the objection (as far as I know), KNEW that this was not going to turn the election around. This was not about trying to retroactively swing the election for Kerry, or even delay President Bush's inauguration. They wanted to bring up issues. And yet the issues were dismissed by most Republicans (see first article) as "Hollywood inspired," "quadrennial crying wolf," and "They're still not over the 2000 election, let alone the 2004 election."
...why do people insist on hearing what they want to hear instead of discussing the actual content of issues that are brought up?
Take this article for instance. All the poster was trying to bring up were the download issues with Firefox. There ARE issues, and they probably should be looked into. And yet, 95% (or more) of the comments to the post were about how insecure IE was. Sure, it's insecure, but that's not the point. It's a fallacy of logic to approach an argument with 'but X is worse'. That gives your argument no standing. I see this all the time in internet communities, and it drives me crazy. Especially with security, since it's such an essential thing with the internet. You don't win by being 'better' than X. You win by being perfect.
(He even said that he thought Firefox was a nice browser and pointed out its positives. Sheesh.)
Well, these fallacies might all be related to the fact that we humans don't have organized brains...
"I'm receiving final indication,
I'm aware my time is simply running out..."
- "Danger is the Shame", Iris