Well, that's certainly blog-worthy enough for you to come out of blog-retirement.
I'm sure that there is more to the story.
As I was saying, I took out the garbage tonight and it was raining. It has been raining all day. Mostly a drizzle but it was coming down pretty good at the time that I took the garbage out, of course. It seems odd for this time of the year.
I believe the term is Climate Change.
Is that anything like ObamaCare becoming the Affordable Care Act since it hasn't quite worked out so well?
Remember the "opposite rule" when reading the names of laws.
How about "opposite-plus rule" since The Great and Powerful Oz promised that premiums would go down by $2,500 and they have in fact gone up over $3,000?
Wasn't this post about rain?
I believe that it was.
So, I took the garbage out and it was raining. I came back in the house and told my wife, "It's still raining and it's really coming down right now."
She grabs her smart phone and taps the screen a few times and then holds the phone out so that I can see what she has pulled up. It's a satellite image of the area showing that it's raining and that it's really coming down right now.
I looked at the image.
I looked at the image a little longer.
I looked at the image a little longer and tried to figure out what exactly I was supposed to glean from the image.
I gave up and asked, "What does it mean?"
She pointed to our approximate location on the map which was covered with shades of blue with the darkest blue being right over our city. Then she explained that the blue area meant that it was raining. She also showed me that it was raining to the northwest of us and that rain would likely pay us a visit tonight.
I looked at the image.
I looked at the image a little longer.
I looked at the image a little longer and then felt my shirt. It was wet. From rain. That was really coming down at the time that I took the garbage out. I touched the foster dog, who had gone out to pee at the same time that I took the garbage out. She was wet. From rain. That was really . . .
"Did you not believe me when I told you that it was raining?"
It used to be that you had to be careful with information found on the Internets and were cautioned to verify it in some way. Now, it appears that you have to be careful with IRL information and should verify it using the Internets.
It turns out that she did believe me (so she says) and she was checking to see if we were going to get snow tonight (so she says).
Too bad people don't use this Internets thingy to verify Obama's bullshit.
You don't need the Internets for that. Just look to see if his lips are moving.
I’ve paid as little attention as possible to this story
1. It’s not true.
2. It’s political drama in an effort to get the Republican
minions and Democratic cult members to fight against each other after coming
together in opposition to attacking Syria.Unity cannot be allowed because it challenges the one-party system.
3. I was trying to finish up a research paper.
Today, with college finally over, I decided to take a peek
into the political headlines to see what nonsense was being put out as “news.”Here’s some great stuff from an article
written by Mark Felsenthal for Reuters, “Obama pulls out stops in warning on
“A decision to actually go through with it, to actually
permit default – according to many CEOs and economists – would be, and I’m
quoting here, ‘Insane, catastrophic, chaos.’
These are some of the more polite words.” – Obama
Funny, those are the same words I would use to describe
voting Obama in for a second term.
Except you didn’t use the more polite words.
“Warren Buffet likened default to a nuclear bomb, a weapon
too horrible to use.” – Obama
It's worth noting that the nuclear bomb was used twice after the Japanese surrendered
and now uranium depleted shells used in the Middle East have created a
radioactive situation worse than those two atomic bombs.If this debt default is like a nuclear bomb and
nuclear bombs are too horrible to use and the United States government uses
them to murder innocent people, does that mean that Obama is arguing FOR debt
“This is not just for me.
It’s also for my successors in office, whatever party they’re from. They shouldn’t have to pay a ransom either
for Congress doing its basic job. We
gotta put a stop to it.” – Obama.
Apparently, when making financial decisions for a country, dictators
should not need permission from the people who hold the specific duty of
controlling the purse strings.
That seems true enough.
Congress should just be renamed as “Rubber Stamp.”
“’This is the creditworthiness of the United States that
we’re talking about,’ [Obama] said.
‘This is our word. This is our
good name. This is real.’”
He makes it sound like the world will look down on the
United States government if it defaults.The only
people who think the United States government has a good name are ‘Merkins who
live in Pretendland.
Then, apparently, The Great and Powerful Oz turned toward the usual tactic of
describing end-of-the-world scenarios that will occur if people don’t do what
He says.I don’t have my finger on the
pulse of what constitutes popular thinking (using the term oh-so-loosely) but I
have to wonder if His threats carry the power they once did.How many times can people hear these threats
before the empty threats lose their oomph?How many times can Chicken Little cry wolf before doubt about His
credibility occurs, even in the minds(?) of the spoon-fed zombies?
You aren’t including his Keynesian Klown cult members are
It doesn’t look like it or there wouldn’t have been a
question mark behind the word “minds” and there wouldn’t have been the word
Either you’re with him or you’re with the terrorists.
Same logical fallacy, though.
Apparently, the puppets are easily interchangeable.
In addition, can you think of any challenges you might have in successfully convincing someone else that the technique you chose demonstrates what you now know that it demonstrates?
The main challenge in successfully convincing someone else that the technique I chose demonstrates what I now know that it demonstrates would be in trying to get them to break from indoctrinated thought processes or personal biases, an incredibly difficult challenge.
People have been indoctrinated to reify “government.” They actually believe and talk as if there is such a thing as a “government.” The premise that “All government employees are people,” and its ramifications on the argument will likely catch them by surprise because they think in terms of “government” doing things and are mostly unconscious to the fact that “government” is just a whole bunch of people. Reminiscent of The Matrix, many people aren’t aware of the reality in which they live and this kind of argument can cause a lot of internal, emotional turmoil that they would rather not deal with because it’s uncomfortable. It challenges the foundation of many of their beliefs and that is, understandably, a very scary thing.
The problem of personal bias is two-fold: it’s personal and, as such, there may be an emotional attachment to the position. This bias may come from personal experience (a family member feloniously killed by a person with a gun) or from media-hyped incidents, falling victim in both cases to the fallacy of misleading vividness. The emotion could be loyalty to a political party, demanding that the party position be defended at all costs (critical thinking be damned!). It could be any number of reasons. Being personal, it may not be immediately apparent what the person’s motivation may be in defending the invalid argument. The emotional attachment to the position may make it feel to that person that “attacking” their opinion is an attack on them. This may cause them to entrench mentally, which in turn may cause them to argue with even less regard to rationality, resort to ad hominem attacks, or storm off so that don’t have to face reality.
One thing that will likely be similar in both cases is using the appeal to special pleading, arguing that government employees are not “regular” people. It will be argued that government employees, although taken from a general cross-section of people, somehow possess a particular trait or superpower that exempts them from the rule that “People having guns creates an unsafe situation.” People who have had the government gene spliced into their DNA can be trusted to have guns but “regular” people can’t. Not only is this fallacious but since government employees hurt and kill far more innocent people with guns than non-government employees, a fortiori government employees should be banned from possessing guns under the gun control argument.
A couple of other fallacies are likely to make an appearance. There are good odds that an argument from effect will be presented (“If we don’t ban guns, there will be a mass murder every week.”) or a straw man (“So, you’re okay with someone walking into a school and shooting little kids?”). There are better odds that the fallacy of pious fraud will show up (the old work horse of weak political arguments, the “necessary evil”). If the debate continues, don’t be surprised to see ad hominem, a red herring or two, an appeal to force, or the fallacy of the kitchen sink (where every fallacy is thrown in, including the kitchen sink - I made that one up).
Overcoming these challenges with someone who is deeply staid in reification or personal bias is nearly impossible (trust me) but their irrationality doesn’t diminish the counter argument and shouldn’t discourage pointing out the invalidity of the gun control argument.
Explain why the technique you selected would be useful.
I think this substitution works on several levels. It points out that the argument is invalid because it’s self-defeating. It provides an opportunity to disassociate from indoctrinated thought patterns and existing, potentially emotionally charged, biases. The idea of banning all dogs from biting is likely to be quickly dismissed as absurd, meeting this requirement of reductio ad absurdum. It also uses analogy to point to something that never seems to get discussed.
Arguments against gun control laws tend to come in three flavors:
Challenging the premise that people who have guns are dangerous (grasping by the horn)
Substituting situations that are more dangerous into the logic (reductio ad absurdum)
Appeal to the Constitution (using the 2nd Amendment - a fallacious argument with a plethora of suspects – appeal to authority, appeal to popularity, begging the question, amphiboly, and probably many more)
The first two are done to demonstrate that the argument is weak and the third is a misguided attempt at asserting a person's rights. In the first, stories and stats are presented to show that far more guns are kept or used in ways that do not harm innocent people and that the media-hyped incidents (appeal to misleading vividness) account for a miniscule portion of the people who have guns. The second substitutes more dangerous situations that people don’t want banned into the argument. For instance, many more people are killed by mistakes and diseases they contract in hospitals than by felonious gun use, therefore people should be banned from going to hospitals, in order to protect them from an unsafe situation (you can substitute showers, smoking, Coke and McDonald’s, and a whole host of causes of death and injury far more dangerous than people with guns). While both do a good job of showing that the gun control argument is weak, the dog/pit bull substitution goes one step farther, showing that the argument is worse than weak, it’s not even valid. Strength and weakness don’t even need to be considered because it is essentially a self-defeating, non-argument.
Framing the argument around dogs helps put some distance between the argument and indoctrinated thought patterns and closely-held biases. People have some very illogical ideas when discussing gun control (which will be discussed in the answer to the next question) and making dogs the center of attention may help them to think more rationally about the argument.
Arguing that dogs should be banned from biting is laughably dismissed. Most dogs bite naturally out of fear for their own safety or in protection of their owners/property. No one faults a dog that bites out of self-defense or that bites an intruder that enters a house. When dogs do bite, the blame usually goes to the owner of the dog who either failed to maintain control of the dog, or worse, trained the dog to be vicious. When someone hurts someone with a gun, no one looks intently at the parents, teachers, social workers, social system, clergy, or others who played a role in training the person to be vicious. The gun becomes a scapegoat, either to avoid being tasked with solving the real and much more difficult problem, or to disarm the subjects of a country to make them easier to control, or some other motive not actually related to the "danger" of people having guns.
The analogy (which would probably be missed by most people) specifically using pit bulls as a substitution uses another indoctrination theme played out by the corporate media. When you say “dogs,” the image of your own dog comes to mind or the thought of them as “man’s best friend.” When you say, “pit bull,” thanks to media-hyped incidents (appeal to misleading vividness – are you sensing a theme?), people think of vicious, snarling beasts that rip children to shreds. However, in this case, the pit bulls’ masters are scrutinized and many times, it is found that they trained the pit bulls to attack. This creates the impression that pit bulls are inherently dangerous and that their masters are idiots and/or cruel, inhumane bastards who knowingly created a potential menace to society. If you were to compare the number of innocent people killed and injured with a gun by people who are not government employees with those who are killed and injured by government employees, not surprisingly, you would find that government employees are by far the greater threat. The nature of their training, environment, mindset, and weaponry makes them inherently more dangerous (I was a cop for 12 years and killed someone in the line of duty) and there is no doubt that their masters are idiots and/or cruel, inhumane bastards who knowingly create a potential menace to society.