What I Should Have Said: logical fallacy

[scarfman]

I saw an argument here on LJ that set me to thinking, but it was on a flist of my flist so I don't feel mannered replying there.

The argument, paraphrased, was this: "When Mark Foley was discovered in a sex scandal, the Republicans ousted him and repudiated him. When Bill Clinton was discovered in a sex scandal, the Democrats defended his lies about it with that the questions were out of order. Give me the Republicans' outrage over the Democrats' apathy any day."

Now, it just so happens that in Applied Math this week we're covering symbolic logic.

Let:

• p = elected official
• q = ought to be repudiated by his political party
• r = discovered to have had sex with a consenting adult
• s = discovered to have had sex with minors

Clinton p^r :.q

Foley p^s :.q

The two arguments are not the same argument.

Now let t = official covered up misconduct after it was made public in the table on the left, and u = party covered up misconduct until it was made public in the table on the right, and ... well, someone better than I at symbolic logic will have to write those statements.

Comments

[athelind.livejournal.com]

Let's not forget w = "political party's tame news network 'accidentally' identifies elected official as a member of opposing party -- THREE TIMES".

It has been pointed out that, in the District of Columbia, the age of consent is 16 -- so Congressional pages, ages 16-18, aren't legally "minors".

I, personally, do not find that information reassuring or mollifying.

[scarfman]

Thanks for the datum. However, I believe the definition of minor is one who hasn't reached the age of majority, not one who has not reached the age of consent, so I think my logical statement still stands.