Few facts offered to support argument
By Letter to the Editor on December 12, 2018.
Re: “Facts speak the truth on past PC governments,” Dec. 5 Thanks to Jim Taylor for his letter which providing wonderful fodder for teaching critical thinking skills, specifically, recognizing fallacious reasoning. The scary and unfortunate thing about fallacious reasoning is that it can manipulate emotions and convince untrained readers, while providing few to no facts to support the argument. Taylor attempts to take on Peter Mueller’s arguments about how the previous Conservative governments in Alberta failed us. He begins with a classic straw person fallacy where he imposes an argument on Mueller that Mueller did not espouse by suggesting that Mueller lumps all conservatives together when in truth, Mueller clearly distinguishes between the moderate Lougheed PCs, who had foresight to open the trust funds, and those “short-sighted” conservatives who came after. These conservatives did not continue to contribute to the trust funds after 1987. Next, Taylor tosses us a few red herrings when he refers to Alberta transfer payments because, not only does this have nothing to do with the issue, but his understanding of the nature of transfer payments is oversimplified. However, Taylor does provide us with a wonderful example of a “begging the question” fallacy when he asks how much money Alberta would be able to put into trust funds if we didn’t have to make federal transfer payments. This also fallaciously jumps to a hasty conclusion that suggests Alberta would naturally choose to plump up the trust funds. Evidence? Another red herring compares Norway’s and Alberta’s tax rates. Again, nothing to do with Mueller’s argument about Norway’s farsightedness in planning its rainy-day fund. Perhaps if we are comparing tax rates, we should also consider Norway’s free post-secondary education, 37-hour work week, superb health care, and social welfare programs. Taylor’s last suggestion where he questions why people did not volunteer to pay more taxes reaches the fallacy of reductio ad absurdum. Seriously? Using connotative language and flowery metaphors, Taylor tries to distract from the real argument in his final paragraph by asserting that a tax on carbon does nothing to reduce carbon emissions. Fact check Mr. Taylor: a carbon tax is proven to be the most pragmatic method of reducing carbon emissions in several countries. Finally, Taylor’s closing suggesting that “the feds [refuse] to support Alberta by getting pipelines built” is another straw person. Since when? If the feds did not support the pipeline, why did they buy it? Why would they invest in meetings with the Indigenous communities to expedite the process, rather than delay it again in another court hearing? Fluffy, emotional arguments may work with some people Mr. Taylor, but truthfully, most of us see right through them. Gwendoline Dirk Medicine Hat 10-9
Thanks Gwendoline you have nailed it. My senior friends and I are sick and tired of these fellow seniors who continue to stick their heads in the sand and make up excuses for why this province is in financial ruin and Norway and Alaska aren’t . The truth is they allowed it to happen and when we tried to put a stop to it they called us all sorts of names. Young Albertans had better make certain they stand with us in the next election and make certain these fools, because that’s what they are, don’t get their wish because they will vote in Jason Kenney if we let them. They aren’t smart enough to understand what he’s promising to do to us will make our lives a living hell.
But then as our retired police officer friends point out these are the same type of seniors who aren’t smart enough to avoid letting con-artists cheat them out of their money. Klein and Kenney have made fools of them and they aren’t smart enough to figure it out.
Hi Gwendoline,
Your comments in the second last paragraph about the federal government actually supporting the Trans Canada pipeline are correct. PM Trudeau has tried to follow an approval process that engages all stakeholders but unfortunately it was deemed inadequate by the courts. This was unexpected as during the process there was no red flags raised by anyone that the process was inadequate. Of course, critics using 20/20 hindsight, have jumped on this setback and blamed PM Trudeau. But instead of walking away from the pipeline the federal government has restarted the process and hopefully after these next rounds of hearings all the criteria for approval will be met.
Your comments about the carbon tax being effective in reducing carbon dioxide emissions is supported by a number of sources and interestingly there was an article on page 2 of the Dec 14th NEWS entitled “Carbon pricing most efficient way to cut emissions: Canadian Chamber”. I don’t like the carbon tax but I think it’s necessary to achieve a meaningful reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
Great comments. My friends and I don’t like the carbon Tax either. But bashing it while it pays rebates to reduce the burden doesn’t make much sense, while the Klein generated fees added to our gas and power bills by his deregulation does nothing but make the rich get richer doesn’t make any sense at all. The Carbon Tax hasn’t financially destroyed anyone in any of the other areas where it’s been in place and has proven that it works, so why would it in Alberta? Oh I forgot Jason Kenney says so and he is their hero, and while they brag about what wonderful conservatives they are they support a well known Liberal pretending to be a conservative and they expect us to join them. How stupid do they think we are?.