> The truth or falsity of the idea being a circumstantial ad hominem > has no bearing on the fact that this happens to be a list of > educated people asking > that only educated people shoould be allowed to vote.
Twisting it like there is no tomorrow? eh? Only Pervez Musharrag could spin it more. ;-) Converting adversity into an opportunity. The point is that the argument will stand on its own, regardless of who is discussing it, based on its own merit. It is fallacious to declare (not referring to your POV) that educated people will decide in their own favor. That would reflect on the quality of their education. The fact that there exists, an opposite view - on this very list proves that they wont decide so in a unanimous manner. Examples of Circumstantial Ad Hominem "Bill Gates claims that tax breaks for corporations increases development. Of course, Bill is the CEO of a corporation." Its a fallacy to ignore that B G could have more compelling reasons for his views. > That much is a given and remains undeniably true > notwithstanding the > particular classification that is sought to be applied to the >(wholly true) statement. Stating something fallacious and then stressing that it it true wont make it true -let alone "undeniably true" > 2) The uneducated were unrepresented in this debate. Even more important IMHO would be to examine whether the ignorant folks were actively consulted when these voting rights were granted to them. If at a later date it is discovered that it was indeed a mistake, why not rectify that mistake? > *We do not know if uneducated people will agree or disagree > that they should be unrepresented among voters The whole argument is unconnected with their agreement or disagreement or representation. The main line of the discussion is whether letting everyone vote is creating a tragedy for **all**. To be more precise, whether voters in general, being ignorant is creating a ruinous situation for democracy. > *We could opt to somehow poll the uneducated about their views > on the matter and be ready either beat them down if they > disagree, or alternatively, we > could opt to back down graciously. Being uneducated in the first place (ignorant is a better word) and then *having* a view worth polling ? Isn't that a contradiction somehow? > Since there are too many unresolvable > uncertainties in this debate - I > personally do not think it worth debating. On the contrary it is such a clear cut and simple one. And the directions pointed to by Udhay and Bharath Shetty make it even more simple to understand the *why* of --Is voter ignorance killing democracy? Lukhman
