Here is a dilemma i was thinking about, during a pre-electional period. I don't know if it is a dilemma which consists of equally justifiable parts, but it seems to me that it would be one such.
Α political party x is the ruling party, with party z being the opponent one. For a long time all public polls show a prevalence of x over z, in terms of what people intend to vote for in the elections to be held. But after a time t, after x have failed in applying politics at the interest of the public, all polls show a precedence of z over x. Nevertheless, in any case, either before or after t, there is a steady precedence of x’s leader over z’s leader, in terms of who of the two is considered by people as the most suitable for prime minister.
On these grounds, in view of the forthcoming elections x members, as well as x’s leader, decide that their pre-electiolal campaign must focus on the comparison between x’s and z lead., and not on the comparison between x and z, for they consider that it is at the personal level that z is inferior to x, and thus they hope that it is through such a comparison that the status of x is strengthened. Such an argument seems quite justifiable.
On the other hand,though, someone would claim that the comparison at the personal level isn’t at x’s interest, on the basis of the following argument
Given that in any case all public polls show a precedence of x’s lead. over z’s lead, and reversely of z over x, to focus on the comparison between x’s and z’s lead. adds nothing to the common knowledge, besides the fact that it confirmates x’s lead. prevalence. On the contrary, if during the pre-electional campaign x’s lead, and all members of x, argue solely for the advantages of voting for x, and for the disadvantages of voting for z, -deciding to focus on the comparison between x and z, and not between x’s and z’s lead-, in case their arguments are convincing enough and also are imposed over people's attention to who of the two leaders is the most suitable, it is possible that they help x to take precedence over z, as to which party people intend to vote for in the elections to be held.
Which tactic seems to be the most justifiable onein theoretical terms? Or, to put it in mild terms, given that the first part part of the dilemma at least at first glance seems quite plausible, is the second part plausible too , be it less plausible than the first one? I have in mind an answer, which is quite logical, but i would like to know your opinion. thank you
Question
Guest
Here is a dilemma i was thinking about, during a pre-electional period. I don't know if it is a dilemma which consists of equally justifiable parts, but it seems to me that it would be one such.
Α political party x is the ruling party, with party z being the opponent one. For a long time all public polls show a prevalence of x over z, in terms of what people intend to vote for in the elections to be held. But after a time t, after x have failed in applying politics at the interest of the public, all polls show a precedence of z over x. Nevertheless, in any case, either before or after t, there is a steady precedence of x’s leader over z’s leader, in terms of who of the two is considered by people as the most suitable for prime minister.
On these grounds, in view of the forthcoming elections x members, as well as x’s leader, decide that their pre-electiolal campaign must focus on the comparison between x’s and z lead., and not on the comparison between x and z, for they consider that it is at the personal level that z is inferior to x, and thus they hope that it is through such a comparison that the status of x is strengthened. Such an argument seems quite justifiable.
On the other hand,though, someone would claim that the comparison at the personal level isn’t at x’s interest, on the basis of the following argument
Given that in any case all public polls show a precedence of x’s lead. over z’s lead, and reversely of z over x, to focus on the comparison between x’s and z’s lead. adds nothing to the common knowledge, besides the fact that it confirmates x’s lead. prevalence. On the contrary, if during the pre-electional campaign x’s lead, and all members of x, argue solely for the advantages of voting for x, and for the disadvantages of voting for z, -deciding to focus on the comparison between x and z, and not between x’s and z’s lead-, in case their arguments are convincing enough and also are imposed over people's attention to who of the two leaders is the most suitable, it is possible that they help x to take precedence over z, as to which party people intend to vote for in the elections to be held.
Which tactic seems to be the most justifiable onein theoretical terms? Or, to put it in mild terms, given that the first part part of the dilemma at least at first glance seems quite plausible, is the second part plausible too , be it less plausible than the first one? I have in mind an answer, which is quite logical, but i would like to know your opinion. thank you
Link to comment
Share on other sites
2 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.