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.
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.
> 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.