Governor Vetoes Bill Requiring Procurement Consultants to Register as Lobbyists

Re:Governor Vetoes Bill Requiring Procurement Consultants to... by blazespin on Monday May 16, 2016 @09:05PM (#11710715)

I disagree. Editorialized implies opinion. I don't think the fact that the bill is "transparency legislation" is an opinion. I think everyone agrees that's exactly what it's for. Whether it achieves it, is another question, and might worthy of a veto because it does not. But that's what it's trying to achieve.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Governor Vetoes Bill Requiring Procurement Consultants to... by argonaut on Monday May 16, 2016 @09:14PM (#11710749)

Even if that was true, it is opinion that picks which "facts" to put in the title. If the title was "Governor Vetoes Bill That Would Have Cost State $1.3 Million," that would also be factual, but it is quite blatantly editorialized.

> Whether it achieves it, is another question

If a bill doesn't achieve transparency, then it isn't a piece of transparency legislation. It's a piece that someone claims to be transparency legislation, and that others disagree about, making it a matter of opinion.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Governor Vetoes Bill Requiring Procurement Consultants to... by r00fus on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @02:13AM (#11711633)

Just because "some people" don't think a fact to be true, doesn't mean it's a matter of opinion.

This is a case of argument to moderation [1] - presenting dissenting opinions to factual evidence doesn't mean the "truth is somewhere in-between".

Example: Obama presents birth certificate, but "some people" (notably the current GOP frontrunner/nominee) dispute this. The reality is not somewhere in the middle... one side has facts.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Governor Vetoes Bill Requiring Procurement Consultants to... by argonaut on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @07:01AM (#11712546)

Sure, but none of that refutes my point. All you've done is point out a logical fallacy in a side comment I made, my argument didn't rely on the side comment.

If the bill does not in fact achieve, or cannot be proved to achieve, more transparency, then saying it promotes transparency is opinion.

And my point about the mere selective choice of words in a headline being subjective still stands.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Governor Vetoes Bill Requiring Procurement Consultants to... by eva1984 on Monday May 16, 2016 @09:22PM (#11710778)

It is no doubt an interpretation of the legislation's purpose, thus an opinion.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Governor Vetoes Bill Requiring Procurement Consultants to... by mmanfrin on Monday May 16, 2016 @09:16PM (#11710755)

Yes, the notion that the bill is "transparency legislation" is in fact an opinion, as can be gleaned from the fact that the article title is different from that of the linked article -- the original poster has editorialized.

[ Parent | on HN ]