Jason Chaffetz needs to look up "non sequitur" in a legal or other dictionary. Here's what m-w.com has to say:
1 : an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2 : a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said
Here's Mr. Chaffetz offering a very emotional and impassioned speech about how his parents were affected by cancer, and then equating dollars spent on Planned Parenthood with people killing others with bombs and bullets:
The whole thing was a debacle. Never mind that the esteemed representatives come off sounding hostile and misogynistic. Never mind that Planned Parenthood actually helps ensure that there are fewer abortions in the US due to offering women's and reproductive health counseling (including contraceptives...). And never mind that Planned Parenthood gets its federal funding through reimbursements governed by an individual claims authorized by Medicaid and Title X services (not, as the esteemed representative insinuated, by a direct payment)... This whole thing is a gotcha campaign against a group that promotes the rights of women to govern their reproductive health. And it is largely headed by men - men who, however well-meaning, are bungling the job, badly. Yes, Mr. Chaffetz, I'm glad you've been married for 25 years. That does not make your wife your property, and it does not give you the right or even perspective to make decisions regarding women's health for all women (or even your wife). Frankly, you'd be foolish to try. And, you are, sir. You are foolish to try.
Your benevolent sexism - talking about your wife's achievements and how proud you are of them, which comes off more like patronizing drivel in light of your obnoxious stance on everything else in the hearing - is terrible. Yes, one should be proud of one's partner's achievements. I'm proud of what my wife has accomplished, and I'm proud to have supported and encouraged her achievements. But your whole intro was just so poorly delivered... It was like putting a feather on a sledgehammer to soften the blow - the feather never fairs so well in such a scenario. Putting your wife's achievements in such a context diminishes those achievements and makes them a tool of your political policy. It's almost like you're saying you're proud of them so that now you can use them to promote your political agenda. I would guess that it made your wife uncomfortable to have her work trotted out in such a setting and manner. I know it would me.
Fortunately, we have hope for you and the other male-dominated committees in Congress. As more and more women become involved in the world and in politics, this kind of exchange is being scrutinized in ways not previously experienced. And this is a good thing, because in addition to keeping you honest, it offers refreshing and previously unheard perspectives into what women really need. HINT: it's not less funding for fewer choices regarding their own bodies.
Here's a memorable exchange (although, notice the body language of the Chair and other male members while she's speaking...)
Ms. Richards did an admirable job. She did not back down from awful questioning and unwarranted personal attacks. She came loaded for bear, and she was brilliant. I hope she inspires women across the world to stand up to the male-dominated authority. I know she's inspired me.
1 : an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2 : a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said
Here's Mr. Chaffetz offering a very emotional and impassioned speech about how his parents were affected by cancer, and then equating dollars spent on Planned Parenthood with people killing others with bombs and bullets:
The whole thing was a debacle. Never mind that the esteemed representatives come off sounding hostile and misogynistic. Never mind that Planned Parenthood actually helps ensure that there are fewer abortions in the US due to offering women's and reproductive health counseling (including contraceptives...). And never mind that Planned Parenthood gets its federal funding through reimbursements governed by an individual claims authorized by Medicaid and Title X services (not, as the esteemed representative insinuated, by a direct payment)... This whole thing is a gotcha campaign against a group that promotes the rights of women to govern their reproductive health. And it is largely headed by men - men who, however well-meaning, are bungling the job, badly. Yes, Mr. Chaffetz, I'm glad you've been married for 25 years. That does not make your wife your property, and it does not give you the right or even perspective to make decisions regarding women's health for all women (or even your wife). Frankly, you'd be foolish to try. And, you are, sir. You are foolish to try.
Your benevolent sexism - talking about your wife's achievements and how proud you are of them, which comes off more like patronizing drivel in light of your obnoxious stance on everything else in the hearing - is terrible. Yes, one should be proud of one's partner's achievements. I'm proud of what my wife has accomplished, and I'm proud to have supported and encouraged her achievements. But your whole intro was just so poorly delivered... It was like putting a feather on a sledgehammer to soften the blow - the feather never fairs so well in such a scenario. Putting your wife's achievements in such a context diminishes those achievements and makes them a tool of your political policy. It's almost like you're saying you're proud of them so that now you can use them to promote your political agenda. I would guess that it made your wife uncomfortable to have her work trotted out in such a setting and manner. I know it would me.
Fortunately, we have hope for you and the other male-dominated committees in Congress. As more and more women become involved in the world and in politics, this kind of exchange is being scrutinized in ways not previously experienced. And this is a good thing, because in addition to keeping you honest, it offers refreshing and previously unheard perspectives into what women really need. HINT: it's not less funding for fewer choices regarding their own bodies.
Here's a memorable exchange (although, notice the body language of the Chair and other male members while she's speaking...)
Ms. Richards did an admirable job. She did not back down from awful questioning and unwarranted personal attacks. She came loaded for bear, and she was brilliant. I hope she inspires women across the world to stand up to the male-dominated authority. I know she's inspired me.
Comments
But I am not trying to destroy anyone. Mr. Chaffetz remarks were representative of a logical fallacy, which is what I point out in the post. If anything, I'm trying to destroy logical fallacies. This isn't limited to a politicoal party - it was just the most egregious example most recently. If Mr. Chaffetz wants to defund Planned Parenthood then that's cool. It's his right. But using a weak straw man/ad hominem argument is unappealing.
Further - and this extends to all of the folks on the committee - the rudeness was excessive and unwarranted. It speaks poorly of the committee members' characters.
I fully support Planned Parenthood. And I do it as a Mormon. :)
Jason Chaffetz is destroying himself, he doesn't need help. Unfortunately, too many people are happy to sit back and watch him lie, so long as it destroys PP. The end justifies the means, you know.
At any rate, like I said - people may find my musings interesting, but if they're offensive or upsetting, I'd suggest they find better things to do with their time.
I like the musings of your "pea brain". I think they are insightful, and because you are more patient than I am, you often help me see things from a different perspective. I appreciate that.
And it can happen to the best of us. Members with strong testimonies, leaders and loved ones can succumb to false teachings of the adversary. Smart, strong saints are not immune. None of us are.
In speaking of these times, the Savior said, “For in those days there shall also arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch, that, if possible, they shall deceive the very elect, who are the elect according to the covenant.” (J.S. Matthew 1:22)
It is true. Some of the very elect are being deceived, and in their twisted sense of “enlightenment,” they are quick and convincing in their attempts to get others to join them. It is sneaky, it is devastating, it is horribly dishonest. Yet many of those apostates would defend their actions by protesting that they are following a “better path,” or “following Jesus,” when, in reality, they are blinded.
“…Satan seeketh to turn their hearts away from the truth, that they become blinded and understand not the things which are prepared for them.” (D&C 78:10)
In the Priesthood Session President Uchtdorf mentioned how this works: “Satan, our adversary, wants us to fail. He spreads lies as part of his effort to destroy our belief. He slyly suggests that the doubter, the skeptic, the cynic is sophisticated and intelligent, while those who have faith in God and His miracles are naive, blind, or brainwashed. Satan will advocate that it is cool to doubt spiritual gifts and the teachings of true prophets.” (Be Not Afraid, Only Believe)
Whether apostates who attempt to destroy faith do it out of misguided motives, or out of sport, they are real, they are out there, and they are dangerous.
As I listened to Conference, I heard one recurring theme that was repeated in talk after talk – at least eight references from different speakers. The theme? The importance of participating in the Sacrament in order to have the companionship of the Holy Ghost.
When I served as a Bishop, one of my “charges” I felt I was given from the Lord was to teach that proper understanding of, and participating in the sacrament is crucial to our happiness and salvation. It changes lives. I have seen it in others, and experienced it for myself.
How does this prevent personal apostasy? The reasoning is simple, and spiritually simple to comprehend.
Members of the Church who have the Holy Ghost with them. . .
• Sustain the Prophet and Apostles.
• Understand that living prophets trump dead prophets, and even canonized scripture.
• Do not live hidden, double lives and call it “righteous.”
• Do not seek to destroy the faith of others. They strive to build faith in others.
• Do not deny the authority of God and His Kingdom on the earth.
• Do not claim to know more than their leaders.
• Do not reinvent the ordinances – such as the sacrament (irony) to conform to their own imaginings.
• Do not claim to be privy to a “better” way of living the gospel than that which is taught within the Church.
• Do not let go of the iron rod, nor try to redefine it.
Perhaps the biggest, and most obvious: People who have the Holy Ghost with them are not fooled by alternate voices of the adversary.
While I'm grateful for your prayers and diligent efforts to keep me from apostasy (not sarcasm), my daughter read what you posted earlier and asked why I allow toxic voices in my life. She was amused and slightly offended by your insinuation, perhaps because she knows me better than you do and knows what my relationship with the Lord is. I don't know why you feel that posting such personal affronts under the guise of anonymity is acceptable, but I'm not going to accept or post comments any longer that are of this nature. As I wrote above, you can choose to read my blog or not, and if you do, you may choose to make comments or not. But I also can choose to publish them, and in the future I just won't.
For the record, I attend my meetings, read scriptures daily with my family and on my own, pray daily with my family and on my own, have weekly FHE regularly and consistently, pay a full tithing, and hold a current temple recommend, attending the temple as often as I can. I am NOT perfect, but I'm doing the best I know how. I'm sorry if you and I disagree on political issues, but I fully and completely sustain the Brethren to the best of my ability. As far as I am aware of such things, I am not apostate, nor am I inclined to go that direction. I really don't appreciate the judgement or insinuation. Really, it makes you look foolish, and it's not helpful in rational discourse. My relationship with the Lord is my own, and you are NOT privy to the yearnings and feelings of my heart.
I respect Mr. Chaffetz for his desire to serve and I believe he's doing the best he can. But he's awkward and inarticulate, and he certainly doesn't represent my views politically. He ran for office, and therefore his actions and thoughts are under more scrutiny than the average private citizen - shucks, even John Oliver did a bit about him, which I did not post because I felt it was inappropriate and personally affronting to Mr. Chaffetz. One may disagree with a political standpoint and not be apostate. That's why the Church has repeatedly said that they do not support political candidates and platforms, while giving support to certain issues. Even then, I don't have to agree necessarily... To me, it's like getting a calling that I don't necessarily want. It's not my job to agree or want a particular calling (I just got one I'm not terribly thrilled about, and have done several times in the past) - my job is to do the best I can in the calling I've received. I do this because I sustain and love my leaders and the Lord, as well as the people I serve. It's not apostasy to have a different opinion. It's apostasy to teach that as the truth and to say that our leaders are wrong. As far as I'm aware, I've never done that, and don't intend to.
I loved John Oliver's bit. The Secret Service was dumb to break the law to try and make Chaffetz look bad. He's MORE than capable of embarrassing himself without help from them.
Anonymous is terribly pathetic.