<p>There is an unquestionable relationship between income and voting preference. The lowest income categories support Kerry and the highest income categories supported Bush. The margins increased perfectly.
So the poor versus rich stereotype seems to be proven. Any other data is welcome.
Whereas the Ivy Leagues have always been for the wealthy through legacy and donations, just look at how both Kerry and Bush got in because of their wealth although both were mediocre students. Although Kerry is the 'liberal' in Harvard I've already shown that wealth indicates being Republican and Kerry was an exception.</p>
<p>WPSON2010, the dots seem to be pretty close and easy to connect. Both the abortion doctor and the soldier have it in their job descriptions to do something that someone finds immoral. Should not that someone consider both persons responsible for their actions? Well, it may be a bad idea to argue in a way that will turn you against the soldiers, but sense says that you can't be against the war without saying that they are morally in the wrong.</p>
<p>rationalwar, fair enough with the income stats. I didn't bother looking at them. I'll take your word on it. My gripe was with your words, "Ivy Leagues of the Conservative Elite". Regardless of income, I never saw the Ivy Leagues as being conservative schools. With fellows like Peter Singer on the Princeton faculty, the Ivy Leagues seem pretty liberal. It's alright to attribute affluence to conservatives, which you probably did with your link, but when you call the Ivy Leagues bastions of conservativism it seems almost as if you want it to be true.</p>
<p>"but sense says that you can't be against the war without saying that they are morally in the wrong."</p>
<p>My sense says otherwise. My sense says the commander in chief, aka the decider, has made a series of poor decisions. The soldiers and their families are paying for those decisions. I don't fault the soldiers for following a legal order, however poorly conceived it might have been; I blame the commander in chief and his staff. Do you still see a contradiction here.</p>
<p>What kind of logic says I have to support the failed policies of an inept administration or find the soldiers guilty of a moral fault? Is that something you've come up with someexp; if so, please elaborate.</p>
<p>And to take your doctor analogy a but further, since you seem to like it, how can you both support doctors and be against abortion? Are you beginning to grasp just how bad the doctor analogy is? When you're refuted that argument you'll have also refuted the argument that to support the troops you must support the war. It's really that simple.</p>
<p>Your last paragraph confuses me. "how can you support doctors and be against abortion?" That's the point exactly. Is there a typo?</p>
<p>Do you mean doctors, in general? Doctors to abortion vs soldiers to a war is not quite as analogous as abortion doctors to abortion vs soldiers to a war. Granted, the analogy works best when you are refuting outright pacifism. Just as you can't choose to be an abortion doctor and not be liable for abortions, so can you not choose to be a soldier and not be liable for the general crime of war.</p>
<p>The fact that the soldiers did not choose this exact war makes the analogy less applicable. However, to those who enlisted after the invasion the analogy works just fine. They were absolutely aware of what they were getting themselves into. To Master Sergeant Joe, who enlisted in the 80s to fight the Russians, not so much, but he still has the option of leaving before retirement.</p>
<p>You seem to be against the war WPSON2010. Fine. Many will agree with you. What about you and this sentiment has to do with the soldiers? Do you think soldiers who have volunteered to serve their country, not their executive, want to see 1,000 protesters screaming at them before they go off to serve? Why do these protesters need to bring their war to the soldiers? Why not to the administration, if that is where the fault indeed lies?</p>
<p>As for the doctor analogy? It may not be completely accurate but the sentiment remains. There is a distinct connection between the targets of protesters' attacks and your own. These protesters seem to want the soldiers to know that they do not support their actions or endeavors. If what you say is true, WPSON2010, then why don't these folks go down to D.C. and chant in front of the White House.</p>
<p>Nice inaccurate propoganda. First of all, there were no graphs on the CNN link. You obviously read them. Second of all, think about what you posted. The per capita income is irrelevant because it can be thrown off by extremely wealthy individuals. Where as the East Coast and the West Coast has a majority of corporations that will skew off the numbers.
Can you show any exit poll that shows that wealthy individuals vote Democratic and poor people vote Republican. Not at all. It's simply not true.</p>
<p>Ok, CWJones441. Like I said, I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you. I guess I should add I can write it for you but I can't read it to you. Here's my original post:</p>
<p>"I am against the war, very much for our soldiers, and agree that West Point - or any of our service academies for that matter - is not the place for political demonstrations of any kind. Keep them outside in the civilian world where they belong"</p>
<p>Let me high light the important part:</p>
<p>"West Point.......is not the place for political demonstrations of any kind. Keep them outside in the civilian world where they belong".</p>
<p>If you need any more clarification than that CW, you're on your own.</p>
<p>And from someexp: "Your last paragraph confuses me. "how can you support doctors and be against abortion?" That's the point exactly. Is there a typo?"</p>
<p>Yeah, it's all very confusing someexp, and highly complicated. The statement says "you must be for abortions if you support doctors." And here's the tricky part: The statement is supposed to be incorrect, illogical, and easily understandable as such. Most folks can recognize that you can certainly not support abortions while supporting doctors. Apparently it seems you find this contradiction to be inconceivable, and can therefore apply this obviously and intentionally fallacious statement as an analogy to everything else; sadly to both the determent and deterioration of rational thought.</p>
<p>Or you want to examine each doctors field of practice and pedigree. This suggest you miss an important point about analogies; they are a blunt instrument. It doesn't work to try to narrow it down to this type of doctor or that type of doctor; it's an analogy - doctors in this analogy are doctors. The analogy either works or it doesn't; without the aid of explanation, clarification, or putting a fine line to it. In this case it doesn't. Look up quotes by Mark Twain or Will Rogers; they knew a good analogy when they used one.</p>
<p>This whole thread is reminding me more and more of Alice in Wonderland; and not in a good way. But you guys are a riot!</p>
<p>Doctors in your analogy are doctors. Abortion doctors in the analogy used are abortion doctors. Can you be against abortions and still support doctors? Absolutely. Can you be against abortions and still support abortion doctors? I really don't see how. Because the latter analogy better resembles soldiers and war (all soldiers do war, but not all doctors perform abortions, only abortion doctors), that is the one to be used.</p>
<p>But what about a "good" abortion in someones eyes (ie after a rape) vs. a "bad" abortion like a form of birth control late in the pregnancy. Maybe a little like a "good" or maybe necessary war vs a war at least perceived by some as unnecessary...</p>
<p>Just a thought, I didnt know i stumbled upon the naval academy forum...</p>
<p>I knew I shouldn't have used that analogy because I view abortion as morally wrong and war as morally right. My bad.</p>
<p>However, the analogy still works, it doesn't matter which side you're on the "I support the troops but not the war" defense doesn't work. That's the equivalent of what I said with abortion, don't read so far into the comparison.</p>
<p>But it is the servicemen and women's choice to be in the armed forces... No one forced these individuals to join, and when they did join they knew that the possibility of war, especially after Desert Storm, was likely...</p>
<p>Sorry Tac, the "if you support the troops you have to support the war" rhetoric doesn't work; it's a complete sham.</p>
<p>Let's say, for example, that the emperor declared war on Canada because the maple syrup they use on their pancakes up there is too dark. Concerning that war is your position that if you support the troops you have to support the maple syrup war? What if we find that the emperor is wrong, and that the maple syrup they use on their pancakes is actually lighter than our own, and our intelligence was completely wrong. Suppose the emperor now says he really invaded Canada because the Canadians were talking with the Icelanders about jumping over the turnstiles at the New York subway. Do you still support the emperor and his syrup war? How long should we stay in Canada fighting this war? If you say you don't support the maple syrup war then that obviously means you don't support the troops. But I know you support the troops so the conclusion is that you support the maple syrup war, the subway turnstile reasoning, and our indefinite stay in Canada.</p>
<p>Common Tac, you can do better than that can't you?</p>
<p>Oh, and let's not forget the Cigar wars. You know, the one where the former emperor Clinton invaded the Dominican Republic because he was convinced the Dominican's were going to cut off his supply of cigars. After the invasion, and when it was found out the intelligence was wrong, he then changed the reason for the invasion to, "they were rolling them too tight".</p>
<p>There were others opposed to the Cigar war but Ted Kennedy shouted, "how can you support the troops if you don't support the cigar war?!?" At that time Ted was a big cigar lover also. But Ted's plan worked and the American public, lining up like sheep, went along with the Cigar war. It was only after the Monica thing that we discovered Bill really wanted the cigars .......</p>
<p>You get the idea Tac. The commander in chief isn't infallible and intelligence isn't infallible. Your position seems to be there are no "bad" wars; that every war is for the good of the country, and that any dissent from that position is an attack on the troops. By your reasoning the vast majority of our nation is, today, against our troops. I think you're wrong.</p>
<p>"But it is the servicemen and women's choice to be in the armed forces... No one forced these individuals to join, and when they did join they knew that the possibility of war, especially after Desert Storm, was likely..."</p>
<p>Of course; the troops volunteer to serve the nation in it's most dangerous actions. But what do you suggest once it's discovered a grave error in judgment has been made? By your question you imply the troops are stuck with whatever bad decision the coc makes. We need to value our troops and their service and sacrifice more highly than that. Don't you think they deserve better?</p>
<p>And for you debate team fans the lowdown on why the don't support the war don't support the troops argument fails and why it's so easy to make mincemeat out of it:</p>
<p>"NON SEQUITURS"
When we talk about logic in this article, we aren't talking about symbolic or formal logic. We're talking about the logical rules that govern the making and evaluation of arguments. When we talk about arguments, we mean a premise or series of premises that is or are intended to lead to a conclusion. A "non sequitur" is when such good intentions fail.</p>
<p>"Non sequitur" is Latin for "it does not follow." To say that an argument is a non sequitur is simply to say that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. This term would apply to any argument that has a conclusion that doesn't follow from its premises. It is often used, however, to refer to particular types of arguments that clearly do not follow from their premises and never could.</p>
<p>For example, any argument that takes the following form is a non sequitur:</p>
<p>Step 1: If A then B. If I am a Navy goat, I am a hoofed creature. Step 2: B I am a hoofed creature. Step 3: Therefore, A Therefore, I am a goat.</p>
<p>It is clear that this argument does not follow. Suppose it turns out I'm an Army mule? Even if the premises and conclusion were all true, the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premises. This sort of non sequitur is also called "affirming the consequent."</p>
<p>Another common non sequitur is this:</p>
<p>Step 1: If A then B. If I am in Rome, I am in Italy. Step 2: Not A I am not in Rome. Step 3: Therefore, not B Therefore, I am not in Italy.</p>
<p>The speaker could be in all kinds of other places in Italy, worrying way less about pickpockets and having a great time. This sort of non sequitur is called "denying the antecedent."</p>
<p>West Point is a public school. This judge will get overruled. The folks at West Point think they go to a private school? Sorry, the people who are subsidizing this mediocre education have a right to protest at a public school.</p>