Body Blow To Activists: Whopping 82% Of Berlin's Voters Refused To Support Net Zero 2030 As Referendum Fails

[ashurbanipal]

So where is the massive support for Global warming initiatives? 3.8% sounds a lot like support for most leftist issues that are supported in this country

No facts are available in any of the news stories I saw about it to explain the low turnout. Again, there were complaints about people not getting their ballots in time or not being able to deliver them where they were supposed to go, but we don't know that's why turnout was that low. However, since it was so low, we don't really know what Berliners actually think about the issue. Perhaps it would have been defeated. Perhaps it would have passed. No conclusion can be drawn from the available facts.

Since the measure got more yes than no votes, it's just as "valid" to claim that a pitiably small percentage of voters could be bothered to vote against.

 

[Nickyjo]

zEROHEGE!

grain of salt

Mountain of salt.

 

[Conservative]

No facts are available in any of the news stories I saw about it to explain the low turnout. Again, there were complaints about people not getting their ballots in time or not being able to deliver them where they were supposed to go, but we don't know that's why turnout was that low. However, since it was so low, we don't really know what Berliners actually think about the issue. Perhaps it would have been defeated. Perhaps it would have passed. No conclusion can be drawn from the available facts.

Always excuses, if this was such a hot button issue the voters would get to the polls. It isn't no matter what spin you try to put on this. The same was true of the American election, people had to be hand fed to get them to vote thus no passion for Biden or the real issue other than hatred of Trump

 

[Lovebug]

zEROHEGE!

grain of salt

Berlin Voters Balk at Fast-Tracking Climate Neutrality by 2030

Berlin voters balked at a plan to make the German capital climate-neutral by law by 2030, which would have put it 15 years ahead of Germany’s national target.

www.bloomberg.com

 

[Grand Mal]

Tell you what, you take your global warming initiative and pay for it in Canada and let the American people decide what is best for them. There wasn't enough support in Berlin on what the left calls a blah blah blah...

Your source is still dishonest thrash.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Oh btw - nice appeal to authority there.

"All intelligent and rational people..." LOL

What authority is being invoked there? "All intelligent and rational people" is not an authority--especially not in the sense required by the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy.

 

[Lovebug]

Your source is still dishonest thrash.

I posted another

 

[Nickyjo]

So why is it the people of Germany have apathy for this effort? Seems a lot less support than you and the rest of the left wants to claim. The squeaky wheel gets the attention and when it is negative you ignore it. Not enough interest to promote this issue so what do you do, attack the messenger and ignore the reality of the vote

The reality of the vote doesn’t disprove climate change theory, and as reports indicate, Germany is still pledged to be net-Zero at a later date.

 

[Lovebug]

So why is it the people of Germany have apathy for this effort? Seems a lot less support than you and the rest of the left wants to claim. The squeaky wheel gets the attention and when it is negative you ignore it. Not enough interest to promote this issue so what do you do, attack the messenger and ignore the reality of the vote

It is mainly a matter of date, 2030 v 2045.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Always excuses, if this was such a hot button issue the voters would get to the polls.

What do you think I'm excusing? I gathered the relevant facts and pointed out that the ZeroHedge author drew the wrong conclusion from them.

It isn't no matter what spin you try to put on this. The same was true of the American election, people had to be hand fed to get them to vote thus no passion for Biden or the real issue other than hatred of Trump

Sounds like you are now the one trying to make the same excuses for Trump here, by the same logic by which I could be accused of making excuses. Under the same logic as the "facts" that you draw upon, again, 255,776,631 Americans didn't vote for Trump. Thus, we can conclude that there is such an overwhelming hatred for Trump and for Trump supporters that your cause in this country is utterly hopeless, completely without merit, and seen for the obviously worthless drivel it is by the vast majority of Americans.

If you don't like that "logic" and think it's invalid, you should see the "logic" of the ZeroHedge article exactly the same way--the logic is literally the same in both cases.

 

[EdwinWillers]

This isn't the only relevant question. Completeness is also important. Here's the classic example (and this is why I brought it up in my other post, above): an international race took place in the mid 70s. Here's how Pravda reported the results: "The Russian car came in second, while the American car came in next-to-last."

They failed to include the fact that there were only two cars in the race. Notice that what they claimed is accurate. However, by cleverly leaving out certain facts, they led their readers to believe something that is, in fact, false--namely, that the Russian car performed better than the American one did.

The ZeroHedge article leaves out some crucial facts that alter the conclusion to be drawn pretty substantially--namely, that voter turnout was ridiculously low (3.8%), and that the measure still garnered more yes votes than no votes. Having those facts also in view, the conclusion to be drawn is more nuanced than the one ZeroHedge wants you to draw.

It's the relevant question I asked. Is the content of what they posted accurate or not?

The details can be addressed as well - and should be; but that isn't the point here.

At issue is the common ad-hominem many people around here, almost by rote, make whenever they encounter a source not of their liking. They immediately attack the source rather than the content of their post.

This ad-hominem is, I dare say, more prevalent than any other logical fallacy thrown out here on DP. It's become so prevalent it has become, imho, a bad habit - and a lazy and intellectually dishonest one at that - as if ZeroHedge claiming the sky was blue is entirely dismissable merely because it's ZeroHedge who said it.

Now, you did point out some issues that could be quite relevant to the content of the article. And that's the appropriate tack to take, not - as again is the habit of many here - to simply and blithely dismiss the entirety of the content merely on the basis of an ad-hominem attack.

 

[SuperDS77]

Kind of a weird way to frame the numbers. It’s not like 82% voted against it. Anyway despite the wishes of the writer, ecological issues aren’t going anywhere. Particularly not in Germany, whose Green Party is probably the most electorally successful in the world. The result here seems to borne of practicality rather than a rejection of a particular ideology:

Indeed it does. Most of the "change" desired by the climate alarmists is exceedingly IMPRACTICAL. Add to that, INEFFECTIVE, and you have a totally undesirable initiative.

 

[Grand Mal]

I posted another

So did I, post 33.

 

[ashurbanipal]

It's the relevant question I asked. Is the content of what they posted accurate or not?

The details can be addressed as well - and should be; but that isn't the point here.

At issue is the common ad-hominem many people around here, almost by rote, make whenever they encounter a source not of their liking. They immediately attack the source rather than the content of their post.

This ad-hominem is, I dare say, more prevalent than any other logical fallacy thrown out here on DP. It's become so prevalent it has become, imho, a bad habit - and a lazy and intellectually dishonest one at that - as if ZeroHedge claiming the sky was blue is entirely dismissable merely because it's ZeroHedge who said it.

Now, you did point out some issues that could be quite relevant to the content of the article. And that's the appropriate tack to take, not - as again is the habit of many here - to simply and blithely dismiss the entirety of the content merely on the basis of an ad-hominem attack.

Not an ad hominem attack, as far as I can tell. If a source has consistently shown itself to be unreliable in some way (such as one that consistently leaves out important facts or information that would lead to a different conclusion than the one implied by the article--as is the case with ZeroHedge), it is not ad hominem to call it into question or even dismiss it. Reliability of a source is a factor that must be considered when evaluating the quality of evidence in the actual world. In this case, the source consistently presents evidence that is of very low quality, and so, it is simple induction to presume that the present evidence it presents is likely similarly low-quality...as a quick google search showed that it, in fact, is.

I study fallacies for a living, and get paid pretty well to do so. Since you've ventured a thesis about the worst or most common fallacy committed on these boards, I'll do the same: the most common fallacy is a gross failure to understand what fallacies are and what comprises any given fallacy. Attacking the source in this case would only be a fallacy if the property of the source was one that is irrelevant to the conclusion of the argument. If the posters in question were saying something like "this source is staffed by a bunch of people who never take a shower and who eat fast food all the time!" that would be ad hominem. However, the reliability of the source as to the information they typically convey is relevant to any conclusions being drawn from that data.

 

[EdwinWillers]

As already pointed out, this Zero Hedge article was partisan and misleading.

Also, I'm not "anti-right", that's just a lie and says a lot that you had to go there.

Well, I apologize - I was making a point and stretched the example a bit too far. My bad.

And, to be fair, you didn't automatically dismiss the article merely because it was ZeroHedge.

That said, neither did you explain why the article was partisan and misleading. Might you clarify that for us?

 

[Conservative]

Your source is still dishonest thrash.

My source may be but the content is accurate and that seems to be ignored by you, you going to explain why such a hot button issue got such poor voter turnout?

 

[Conservative]

The reality of the vote doesn’t disprove climate change theory, and as reports indicate, Germany is still pledged to be net-Zero at a later date.

Yep, later day, 15 years later in the 2040's

 

[Conservative]

It is mainly a matter of date, 2030 v 2045.

15 years is a lot of time for people to wake up to the fraud being promoted by the left an issue ignored by the real polluting countries of China, Indonesia, India, Russia, take the issue to them as if we make a difference

 

[Grand Mal]

It's the relevant question I asked. Is the content of what they posted accurate or not?

The details can be addressed as well - and should be; but that isn't the point here.

At issue is the common ad-hominem many people around here, almost by rote, make whenever they encounter a source not of their liking. They immediately attack the source rather than the content of their post.

This ad-hominem is, I dare say, more prevalent than any other logical fallacy thrown out here on DP. It's become so prevalent it has become, imho, a bad habit - and a lazy and intellectually dishonest one at that - as if ZeroHedge claiming the sky was blue is entirely dismissable merely because it's ZeroHedge who said it.

Now, you did point out some issues that could be quite relevant to the content of the article. And that's the appropriate tack to take, not - as again is the habit of many here - to simply and blithely dismiss the entirety of the content merely on the basis of an ad-hominem attack.

Do you still not realize how dishonest that 'source' is? The referendum in Berlin received more 'yes' votes than 'no's. And the vote was simply about changing the target date but the article implies that the initiative was defeated.
The article, like pretty much everything from that 'source', is nothing but dishonest weasel-worded spin.

 

[Conservative]

What do you think I'm excusing? I gathered the relevant facts and pointed out that the ZeroHedge author drew the wrong conclusion from them.


Sounds like you are now the one trying to make the same excuses for Trump here, by the same logic by which I could be accused of making excuses. Under the same logic as the "facts" that you draw upon, again, 255,776,631 Americans didn't vote for Trump. Thus, we can conclude that there is such an overwhelming hatred for Trump and for Trump supporters that your cause in this country is utterly hopeless, completely without merit, and seen for the obviously worthless drivel it is by the vast majority of Americans.

If you don't like that "logic" and think it's invalid, you should see the "logic" of the ZeroHedge article exactly the same way--the logic is literally the same in both cases.

Voter turnout for this hot button issue doesn't support the liberal rhetoric of how terrible this problem is supposed to be

 

[Decypher]

Indeed it does. Most of the "change" desired by the climate alarmists is exceedingly IMPRACTICAL. Add to that, INEFFECTIVE, and you have a totally undesirable initiative.

The conversation has moved on in Europe. It’s not about if there is climate change but how to best tackle it. This event is part of that process and debate.

 

[Grand Mal]

My source may be but the content is accurate and that seems to be ignored by you, you going to explain why such a hot button issue got such poor voter turnout?

The content is dishonest weasel-worded spin.
How is changing the target date a hot button? And if not many 'yes' voters turned out, even fewer 'no's bothered. Where were the supporters of your side of the issue?
This is just what the right calls a 'nothingburger'. A nearly meaningless civic issue in Berlin was met with voter apathy and you try to pass it off as a big deal.

 

[Grand Mal]

Voter turnout for this hot button issue doesn't support the liberal rhetoric of how terrible this problem is supposed to be

It's a nothing story. A nearly meaningless referendum. You can't make it any kind of important by chanting, "Hot button! Hot button!"

 

[Conservative]

The content is dishonest weasel-worded spin.
How is changing the target date a hot button? And if not many 'yes' voters turned out, even fewer 'no's bothered. Where were the supporters of your side of the issue?
This is just what the right calls a 'nothingburger'. A nearly meaningless civic issue in Berlin was met with voter apathy and you try to pass it off as a big deal.

LOL, yep, didn't get the vote you supported thus no reason to buy the actual results. Got it

 

[Conservative]

It's a nothing story. A nearly meaningless referendum. You can't make it any kind of important by chanting, "Hot button! Hot button!"

How old will you be in 2045?