| RavenBlog |
|
| Comments on Saturday 21 September 2002: |
| Consumer beware, at least in America - Volkswagen cars since 1997 have been, and still are, manufactured with crappy components controlling the electric windows. In under a year, two of these have broken in ours. They can supposedly only be replaced with $500 parts, of the same rapid-break nature, and the dealership claim they are not covered by the warranty. When they break, the windows stay open, and the dealerships don't stock the part so you can't close the windows for over a week. This is bad. So, if you're buying a car, buy another brand. They don't even offer non-electric windows as an option. Tsch.
[00:47] |
| nik |
| Or buy lots of them in the UK, and demand satisfaction under the Sales of Goods Act, and others. Hurrah for not-quite-rampant-yet capitalist nations. Good thing about the VW Passat - there was a recall, because the suspension would start squeaking after a few months. Not dangerous, apparently. Which does rather beg the question - why do a complete recall and free fix (which costs over £1000, if you missed the window) for a basically cosmetic problem? |
| Tom |
| Because otherwise elephants would get driven insane by the intolerable squeaking and devour your automobile. BTW, it bloody well doesn't beg the question. The phrase 'beg the question' has a very specific meaning that doesn't at all involve raising, provoking, or in any way postulating a query of any sort. In fact it refers to a logical argument that is flawed because it assumes the truth of the point being argued without any valid reason to do so. Such an argument is said to beg the question. |
| Nik |
| Hm. Their 'logical argument' is that the issue is minor and cosmetic. 'The truth' is that they recalled an entire year's production to carry out a £1000 fix for no money. I consider that to be 'flawed'. Therefore, it begs the question. Also, I tend to employ English as it is *commonly used*, in casual speech, so even if it weren't an applicable phrase, it's still acceptable to the lay-English-speaker. |
| Nik |
| Well, your average, Joe-on-the-street lay-English-speaker, anyway. |
| Tom |
| Tsk. Joe's at it again I see. Didn't his wild staring hair give you a hint that he is not to be trusted when it comes to strict logic? You may be correct that the Volkswagen company is guilty of begging the question, but not for the reasons you advance. They may have employed this argument for example: 1. The issue is minor and cosmetic. 2. We recalled an entire year's production to carry out a £1000 fix for no money. Therefore 3. The issue is minor and cosmetic. Note that the statement 'The issue is minor and cosmetic' is not an argument, but simply a premiss that can be employed as part of an argument. It could perhaps be turned into an argument by splitting the premiss on the conjunction to create two premises, but not a very interesting one. This is what begging the question is all about: when a single one of the premises used is logically equivalent to the conclusion drawn from them. Mr Bush has provided us with a sterling example that I hope to see in all future logic textbooks: 1. We must go to war with Iraq. 2. We must go to war with Iraq. Therefore 3. We must go to war with Iraq. This should illustrate the point to you quite graphically. I have found that people who lie on the street are inadequate judges of the correct usage of the English language. Often they claim to lay on the street, which can only be correct if eggs are involved. I suspect them of drunkeness and lewd behaviour. |