Fun with the 2005 Special Statewide Election Voter Information Guide: Prop. 73
If you aren’t reading this year’s voter information guide with an eye for the funny, you’re missing out in a big way. Nearly every proposition has a gut-buster or two somewhere in the write up. The potential for fun is obscenely large. I can’t recommend this document enough if you need a good laugh.
Prop. 73 is the first proposition on the ballot this year. It’s officially titled “Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy.” Now, I know what you’re wondering here. This is just another anti-choice/pro-Big Government initiative. That’s frightening, not funny. How could I possibly find something to laugh about here? I agree with you on all counts. Nope, this isn’t a funny proposition at all, but the people who support it definitely are, and they show us as much in amazingly full splendor in their argument for 73.
For each proposition there’s a short (under 100 words) summary argument presented both for and against. These blurbs get mailed to every voter in the state. It’s free advertising for your cause, and the extent to which some groups misuse them is amazing and as a result hilarious. Here’s the 73’s PRO argument. Emphasis and capitalization are verbatim.
MORE THAN ONE MILLION CALIFORNIANS’ signatures qualified PROPOSITION 73! It will RESTORE Californians’ right to counsel and care for their young daughters before — and often after — an abortion. Similar laws are protecting girls in over thirty states. FOR OUR DAUGHTERS’ SAFETY, HEALTH, AND PROTECTION, VOTE YES on 73!
Oh man, this is just too good. I almost don’t know where to start. To make things simple, let’s take this sentence by sentence.
MORE THAN ONE MILLION CALIFORNIANS’ signatures qualified PROPOSITION 73!
Starting right off we’ve got an Appeal to Popularity. More than one million Californians’ (all-caps Californians at that) signatures qualified Prop 73. So what? That doesn’t make it right or good. It just means that one million people signed for it. Big deal.
It will RESTORE Californians’ right to counsel and care for their young daughters before — and often after — an abortion.
This is less directly funny, as all it’s really saying is that the author disagrees with the thinking behind exempting abortion from parental consent and notification in the first place. It’s quite their right to disagree with as much.
Similar laws are protecting girls in over thirty states.
That appeal to popularity wasn’t enough, so they threw in an Appeal to Common Practice. If thirty other states jumped off a bridge, should California do it as well?
FOR OUR DAUGHTERS’ SAFETY, HEALTH, AND PROTECTION, VOTE YES on 73!
MAYBE IF WE SHOUT AT YOU, YOU WILL VOTE FOR IT JUST TO GET US TO SHUT UP!
So, in summary, they’ve got the fact that they disagree with an existing law surrounded by two logical fallacies and some shouting. Maybe this isn’t funny so much as it is sort of tragic. It made me laugh either way.
It’s important to note, by the way, that the horrific nature of the presented argument for prop 73 — lined with fallacious reasoning as it is — should not be construed as an argument against 73. The argument author’s rhetorical ability or lack thereof doesn’t tell us anything about prop 73 being a good idea or otherwise. The League of Women Voters makes information regarding prop 73 available on the web. Read it yourself and make up your own mind.
I’ll note that the full arguments for and against and the rebuttals to the same are as fallacy-riffic as the summaries. They’re all available via the League of Women Voters site. Enjoy!
October 3rd, 2005 at 5:54 am
I shore wish I still lived out thar in KA-LEE-FORN-YA. Cuz everybody here in Georgia is a real LIBRAL compared to you west coasters with the Terminator running the damn place.
October 3rd, 2005 at 9:01 am
The other side is pretty “hilarious” too by your standards. Although they depend mostly on the Appeal to Fear.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-fear.html
Regardless, I appreciate your link to the League of Women voters. It is important to do your own research on these issues and not depend on the propaganda put out by either side.
October 3rd, 2005 at 9:31 am
Well, if you get down to it, every argument in the voter info guide is an appeal to fear (”if you don’t vote for this, the sky will fall” and “if you vote for this, the sky will fall” is a pretty standard pattern). CON certainly asserts that passing this would lead to back alley abortions and what have you, while PRO believes that not passing it would be a fast road to “older men, including internet predators” taking advantage of every underage woman on planet earth.
I don’t think the argument against has in rhetorical terms anything as wonderfully flawed as the argument for does.
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:10 am
Well, I would guess our differing opinion on each of the arguments is probably influenced by our opinion on the subject matter.
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:26 am
You have to admit, though, that the “ONE MILLION CALIFORNIANS” and “thirty other states” in the argument for is pretty funny. I mean, come on. Two huge fallacies in under 50 words? That takes skill!
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:39 am
I think you are funny…looking. Does that count?
Couldn’t help myself. = )
October 3rd, 2005 at 12:03 pm
Sure ;)