Big Tobacco's Self-Defeating Position

The Australian Federal government is well on the way to introducing legislation requiring plain packaging for cigarettes. Not surprisingly, tobacco companies are not happy. From the Sydney Morning Herald:  

British American Tobacco Australia (BATA) has attacked the federal government's cigarette plain packaging plans, saying there's no proof it will reduce smoking rates.

I know their arguments are more nuanced than simply "it won't work", and they claim it will effect their ability to market their brand against competing companies in the marketplace, etc. But fundamentally, the fact they are campaigning so feverishly against plain packaging contradicts their claim it won't work. If they really believe it won't work, then why bother campaigning? A position that is fairly Self-Defeating. 
BATA chief executive David Crow went on to say:

We don't want to see a situation where taxpayer dollars are being wasted.

Wow. Thanks for you concern for the waste of government funds David... How much money, time, energy is being spent on combating smoking related illness? The hypocrisy of statements like this is almost admirable; the Bad Faith breathtaking.

Please abstain from euthanasia vote unless you're a closet fascist

One of the first debates of the first sitting of the newly formed federal parliament of Australia will be whether the two Australian Territories (the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory) are allowed to legislate their own laws regarding voluntary euthanasia (as the states are able to). For the full rundown to the background of this story see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_Australia

The major political parties (Labor / Liberal / National / Greens) have agreed this should be a "conscience" vote. It occurred to me a conscience vote is in fact a contradictory and self-defeating argument for those opposed to such legislation. (It is also offensive that these people don't seem to understand the contradictory position they are taking and believe they have the right to potentially force me to die a slow and painful death - perhaps I'll write more about euthanasia on another occasion.)

On one hand they agree that it should be up to someone's conscience to decide about euthanasia. This is clearly their position - that there is insufficient evidence or argument for or against euthanasia to the point that their party is unable to have firm and unified position, one way or the other. On the other hand, when an individual politician votes no, they make explicit that in their view, it is only their conscience that can be trusted, not the individual consciences of all adult Australians.

Note that I even think voting at all on a conscience vote is being somewhat contradictory. Even voting yes implies you think a conscience vote, and therefore a "no" vote, is legitimate. So in that sense, all our parlimentarians, except for those who abstain, are pseudo/closet fascists.

Xenophobic electorate elects PM responsible for 130000 migrants a year

Clive Hamilton in the Sydney Morning Herald:

Rarely in our history has a federal government pursued such a high level of immigration as the Howard Government. Each year about 130,000 new migrants arrive on our shores… the Government plans to increase the numbers.

The fact that John Howard, who has gained re-election by exploiting Hansonite xenophobia, has presided over a record inflow of foreigners is an irony little remarked, not least because the Government tries to keep the figures quiet.

There are two types of humbug I wish to examine here. First is a Self Defeating Argument - with the statement that the government exploits xenophobia in the electorate yet is responsible for mass immigration. These two claims from Hamilton are inconsistent, and given one of them is a fact (130000 immigrants), the other (xenophobic electorate) would seem to be false. However, it could be true if it was also a fact that the government tries to keep these figures quiet (as he claims). Well, I found the figures in about 2 minutes of browsing. Perhaps it's just an uninterested media?

The second bit of humbug actually voids the first in a way. Technically, Hamilton doesn't offer up a Self Defeating Argument, as he hasn’t actually linked the immigration numbers to the claim of xenophobia. As a matter of fact, he hasn't provided any evidence for this claim. He is simply Propagating a Factoid.

Now, I could be wrong about all this. The Howard government might try to keep the immigration figures quiet to keep onside with a xenophobic electorate. But Hamilton hasn't provided one shred of evidence for these claims.
____________________
Source: It's life, but certainly not as we want it - Clive Hamilton - Sydney Morning Herald - December 30, 2006.

Technorati Tagged - Fallacy, Self Defeating Argument, Factoid Propagation.