Here I shall endeavour to assess the following arguments for both Ralph Klein and a letter to the editor from a journal columnist Liane Faulder. For such arguments, after reading once, would feel as though their arguments are, in such a way, valid; such is not the case for both arguments include such fallacies—which will be discussed below.
Let us first assess Ralph Klein’s argument regarding the health-care system:
I want to say something to the Prime Minister of Canada: Sir, the federal government contributes less than [thirteen] cent of every dollar Alberta spends on health care. Somebody who pays that small a percentage of the trip cannot demand the right to give directions.
People all across this country want a more efficient, more effective health-care system. So, Mr. Prime Minister, the provinces want to fix the system, not to wreck it. Please sir, work with us.
Then, we shall reconstruct Klein’s argument, stating the premises and his conclusion.
Premise 1: All Canadian citizens desire a more efficient and effective health-care system, so the Prime Minister ought to fix it.
Premise 2: If the federal government contributes less than thirteen cent of every dollar owned, then they are unworthy of such responsibility.
Conclusion: If the federal government contributes less than thirteen cent of every dollar owned, then the Prime Minister ought to fix it.
Assuming the premises which Ralph Klein has stated are indeed factual, then his argument would be deemed valid; Yet upon analyzing Klein’s argument regarding the health-care system in Canada need not for a Prime Minister to resolve. Such is a fallacy of relevance; specifically, missing the point, for the governor general holds the power to elect cabinet members of the federal government. Ergo, Klein’s concern need not to be addressed to the Prime Minister. In addition, there is no need to appeal by saying “please”, for the priority of the government are its citizens; such appeal to pity is also irrelevant.
The next issue to be assessed is a letter to the editor regarding a journal columnist Liane Faulder on her article "Bathhouse concerns boil down to intolerance of gay community", in which, she claims that sexual activities done in the bathhouse need not to be considered as a health issue. This, of course, begets opinions, particularly, this:
Incredible. Journal columnist Liane Faulder was actually capable of writing that sexual activity in a gay bathhouse cannot be considered a health issue. ("Bathhouse concerns boil down to intolerance of gay community", Jan. 15).
No one could be stupid enough to believe that. Faulder seems to believe that criticizing gay men in any way is somehow immoral. She can't bring herself to admit what she must know—that some gay men are sexually compulsive to the point where they just don't care if they infect other people with HIV. Surely Faulder can admit this is happening without considering herself a homophobic bigot.
Can be translated to this form:
Premise 1: Some gay men are sexually compulsive to the point where they just don’t care if they infect other people with HIV.
Premise 2: Faulder can't bring herself to admit that no one could be stupid enough to believe that criticizing gay men in any way are immoral.
Conclusion: Criticizing gay men are in no way immoral.
In assumption that all the given premises regarding this issue are true, then by way of deduction, we deduce that, in conclusion, gay men should somehow be criticized for some bring HIV which, in fact, is a health issue. Surely this sounds plausible, yet contains fallacies to which I will discuss below.
First, in regards to the offensive languages used to address the issue is insignificant; calling Liane Faulder a "homophobic bigot" is indeed irrelevant to the argument; such fallacy of relevance, specifically, ad hominem, is not needed; and the entirety of the sentence can also be considered as a tu quoque. Secondly, the arguer is missing the point, assuming that sexual activities in the bathhouse begets health issues such as HIV, should somehow be closed, instead of bashing the article and Faulder; can also be considered as a fallacy of red herring, for the arguer missing the point leads to a different subject: Faulder's stance where should gay people be scrutinized, completely diverting to the topic about the bathhouse raising health issues.
References:
1. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/klein-tells-chretien-to-bu...