Upload_transparent

Daily Mirror on George Bush's Re-election

 
 
 
 
 
Download PDF FREE
Value This
Doc
Scribd
Average
     
Pages: 1 43
Words: 48 13640
Characters: 257 81678
Lines: 21 623
     
     
Letters per word: 5.35 5.99
Words per line: 2.29 21.89
Words per page: 48.0 317.21

Add to your reading list

Flag_red Flag this document

Document Information

9,376 Reads | 0 Comments

Description

Cover of the UK's Daily Mirror tabloid, November 4, 2004

Pdf_16x16 1 Page


Date Added

05/14/2007

Category
Tags
Groups
Awards

Flame Rising

Copyright

Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

More info »

 

dannydarg

dannydarg

I'm not sure what is being asserted here. Is it that these people are genetically inferior to some norm and hence <physically> incapable of voting in a way that will lead to their overall happiness or is it an environmental claim that, were they to be placed in a country like the UK (where this was printed) they would have voted differently, nay, `intelligently.' These options appear to exhaust all possible meanings of the phrase "someone is stupid." Now the first option is blatantly racist as it's the claim that a group of people is genetically inferior to your own. Plus, it's intrinsically unlikely since most Americans are descendants of British and European settlers, so the genetic differences should be, a priori, negligible. The second option, that "were they to be in a different environment, they would vote intelligently," simply begs the question. You are assuming what you are trying to demonstrate. You therefore need to start with the phrase "differently." Now voting differently in a different environemnt does nothing to show that one vote is less "intelligent" than the other. The author of this title can't just argue that "this vote is different to the sort of vote that would be classed as intelligent here therefore it is not intelligent" as the intelligence of an act must be judged according to its circumstances. E.g. an intelligent act in Antarctica is to put on a warm coat, but that doesn't make the same act "intelligent" in the Sahara desert. The author must therefore claim to KNOW (or have good arguments) the environment and personal circumstances of 59 million people who voted in this manner in order to conclude that their choices were in fact stupid, that is, they will suffer reduced happiness in the long-run as a result. That is a big burden of proof. Perhaps if I were buy a copy of this paper I would find such arguments formulated in a logically coherent manner tracing back to plausible premises that I do in fact accept. However, I think you'd have to be the really stupid one, ironically, to think such a "news"-paper is interested in intelligent argumentation.

11/04/2008
theantibush

theantibush

Until votes are weighed according to education, community service, citizenship status, age, time in country, and criminal record, we will always have sub-prime leadership...across the board.

05/30/2008
gimme1latte

gimme1latte

makes you kinda wonder~ doesn't it.. Well, I sure didn't vote for Bush

10/04/2007
Yoda2

Yoda2

That look just plain scares me....egads.

05/14/2007
ninjapirate007

ninjapirate007

i wouldn't call 59,054,087 people dumb. maybe uninformed or scared by something they shouldn't have been but not dumb.

05/14/2007
sanctifyer

sanctifyer

Wow - I've never seen The Mirror this passionate about a political figure...

05/14/2007
funfan

funfan

I wonder what is the percentage of people who now regret voting for him.

05/14/2007