Sally Smith - Is she a leader?

After my "Rexburg needs more transparency and less Political Hypocrisy", another letter to the editor came thanking Rexburg for it's Rich Artistry.  While I am happy to see that the arts are starting to become more functional, I have to wonder how this justifies sweeping broken hearts under the rug and acting as though nothing abusive had ever happened.

Rexburg voters have a right to know that:

Sally Smith was informed of abuses to Rexburg artists as early as Feb. 8, 2013 via email.

Other Artists lodged complaints about abuse but were not taken seriously.

Sally Smith was sent a draft of "Rexburg needs ... less Political Hypocrisy on Sept. 20, 2015 (at least 2 weeks before publication)

In response to my letter dated Sept. 20, Smith emailed me and invited me to a secret meeting that was never announced publicly. There are those that wonder if the meeting was even legal.  Happily, the Standard Journal found out about it at the last minute and was able to report on it.  That resulted in this article...

Officials reorganize arts council, still not approved by city council 

She had been informed of Daniel Torres behavior and yet she made sure I knew he was still in charge of the arts at that time.

"Daniel will be there, he will be working with the arts until the new employee is hired and trained"

The facts of the matter are that although Smith could have put a stop to the bullying, she gave the bully the keys to the playground and sang his praises for over 2 years.

Sally Smith is a very nice person to be sure, but is she a leader?

My rebuttal -

My Dear Anonymous,

Your letter to the Editor regarding my previous letter has been a study of logical fallacy.  

Thank you for the real-life example you have provided.

Logical fallacies are errors in logic, which means that there is something false in the foundation of the argument.  It also means that person has an agenda.

Your first two paragraphs are an "Ad Hominem" attack.  This refers to the strategy of attacking the person rather than attacking the idea she presents. Rather than debate the original argument on its merits, the opponent makes an attack upon some irrelevant fact about the person presenting the theory or claim.

The third paragraph is a "red herring" fallacy.  The goal is to redirect the discussion or confuse the issues by introducing a diversionary topic that is not relevant to the debate.  The fallacy's name refers to the practice of dragging smelly fish across the trail of a fox to redirect the foxhounds.

The fourth paragraph is a "Bandwagon" fallacy.  This argument tries to make a person believe that everyone else is doing or believing something, so he should also. Instead of making a decision based on his own research or opinion, he is tempted to agree because of social pressure.

The fifth paragraph actually has some merit.  Still, one must wonder, since the question was asked at a public meeting,--Why was it not answered publicly?

And last but not least an "Appeal to Anonymous Authority", since the writer did not have the backbone to sign their name.

Sincerely,

Victoria Loveland