ON THE NOON RADIO report Wednesday, asserting (without foundation) that “You can’t be pro-job and anti-worker!”
What is the logical fallacy found in this assertion?
Fair enough, Dolly. What is the nature of the category?
The assertion embeds the assumption that the forces arrayed on the Left are pro-worker.
And why is that an error?
Duh! Because — like — they’re not?!
What evidence do you offer to support your contention?
What happens if the union leadership get their way?
I don’t know… what?
Well, the governor has already said: layoffs. Layoffs of unionized government workers.
OK. So how is the speaker in question mistaken?
Sounds like he’s conflatin’ the individual teacher with th’ union. Assumption of identity invalid. What is good for the union — extension of power — is not necessarily good for the teacher — job insecurity.
But wait! There’s more! The statement also assumes that the teachers are the only “workers” in the picture. He ignores the burden that a whole ‘nother group of workers — the taxpayers — is forced to bear, without any choice in the matter. Or… rather, with their choice in the matter as expressed by the results of the last election taken away from them by the anti-democratic tactics — the mob action on the part of the unions, and the denial of quorum on the part of Democrat office holders. Looks to me like the real mass of workers has been electorally disenfranchised by the cowardly tactics of the Left.