Argumentum ad Hominem

General, Philosophy, Politics

Hand up stop sign

With the debate over Gun Control is heating up agian, I thought I’d take the time to talk about one of the reasons why it is going to be so difficult to get both sides to sit down at the table.  I submit for you consideration that one cause is the rash of the use of the logical fallacy “Argumentum ad Hominem“.

For those of you who want to read up on this fallacy, just follow the link, for all the rest here is a simple working definition: an attack on the person making the argument.  In the case of gun control, both sides are all too often falling into this logical fallacy.  Or rather, I should say, all to often they think they are being attacked by the other side.  Because of this both sides of the debate end up talking past each other even before anyone starts talking.  This is a basic offense against debating.  If you come into a discussion assuming the other side is not and will not listen to what you are saying the debate is over before it starts.

Anyone who knows me, knows I love to debate.  I was raised in a family where free an open debate (arguments some would say) was not only allowed but encourage.  While my Dad was a engineer, he loved logic, my Mom was a sometime speach couch.  When ever the debate got personal one or the other them, sometimes both, would step in an say it was getting personal and it was time to stop.  Well, with the debate on gun control it is time to stop, take a deep breath and calm down.

This will not be easy, for either side.  To the pro gun control side I say “don’t take the action of the NRA personally and don’t take their bait”. The NRA is a professional lobby and one of the favorite tactics of any Lobby is to get the other side upset.  To the pro gun side I say “don’t take any limitation to the 2nd amendment as a personal attack, it’s not.”  One of the first truisms of Constitutional Law I learned was this “Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.”  Simply put, all rights have limitations.  Period, Stop, Close Quotes.  Finally I say to everyone, assume the good intentions of the other side.

That’s it, just grant the other side what you demand for yourself.  That they are good people trying to find a workable solution.

A Challange to the Pro Gun folks

Philosophy, Politics, ,

Rattlesnake Flag

It has been over a week since Las Vegas so it is, in my opinion, time to start talking about how we can prevent an occurrence.  As has become habitual we basically have two sides, the pro gun control side and the pro gun side.  Today I am going to address just the pro gun side.  What I’m not going to do is say you are wrong, nor am I going to challenge any of your arguments favoring gun ownership.  What I am going to do is issue you a specific challenge and wait and see if you are willing to take it up.

What and/or How do you propose to take action to prevent the kind of mass murder that took place in Las Vegas?  There are some conditions

1) No changes to the laws in regards to guns.  None.

2) No change in how we inforce the current gun laws on the books.  Not Federal, not State, not Local.

That’s it.  Guns are off the table.  Ammunition is off the table.  Anything doing with pistols, or long arms is off the table.

I really do want to hear from you and see your ideas.  I’m sick and tired of people talking past each other on this issue.  Now is a great time for the pro gun lobby to step up and show what they are made of and put forth good solid ideas on what we are going to do mass murder that uses firearms.  Can you do it?

WARNING: If I don’t hear anything, if no suggestions or ideas are put forward I will take that as tacit agreement that the pro gun lobby holds that we just have to accept these casualties.  More on this later if I hear nothing.

The GOP and the “Rock and Hard Place”

Politics

Recently I happened to read an article on the Politico website titiled “Angry GOP donors close their wallets” and it got me to thinking about just where the Republican Party has gotten itself.  The old saying my folks you to say to me “Well, Beau, you’ve gotten yourself stuck between a rock and a hard place.  Now what are you going to do?”  I think this is quite fitting to say to the GOP. So what is the Rock and wht is the Hardplace?

I think I will start with the Hardplace as it was the subject of the Politico article that started it all.  Simply put the Hardplace is all the Big Money the GOP and conservative have been freeing up the last few decades.  I’m not just talking about the individual donors, we’ve always had them, but also the dark money PACs.  We’ve all seen them with the great names like “committe to make america great again” or “Protect American Freedoms Committe” that tells you absolutely nothing about just what agenda they’re pushing.  An before you jusmp all over on me, yes there are PACs like this on the Left, it is just the Right is Soooooo much better at creating and funding them that the PACS are now causing the GOP more and bigger problems than the Democrats.  If you just look at the political science studies on campaign financing  you will see the GOP has more big money donors than the Democrats.  Warning: Becareful where you look way too many of the Think Tanks out there have a political bias that is often not obvious.

The Rock is a bit less obvious, it is the result of two factors.  First the gerrymandering of congressional districts and the 2nd is the ‘Make no Compromise ‘ mindset current in American politics.  Because of the extreme gerrymandering of too many of our congressional districts in too many of our states the only real threat to an incumbent GOP congressman is in the primary.  Given the fact that primaries usually have low turnout it is only the most ardent party members who vote.  Given, next, we have the “Don’t Compromise” attitude of the party faithful. Congressmen are more worried about angering a relatively small number of dedicated voters.  The problem is these self same voters are more often than not small donors, not Big Money Doners of the Hardspot.  Now add in that the Donor class and the dedicated voters often don’t want the same thing.  This problem can be handled if your careful.

As you may ask, why are the Donors the Hardplace and the Voters the Rock.  Basically it is this, the Donors don’t need to do anything.  They just stop giving money and fade into the background. The Voters on the other hand have to move to have any effect at all.  I’d also like to point out that many of the Big Money Donors are very good at various forms of gambling, be it dice, cards, horses, or stocks.  As the song “The Gambler” goes:

”You need know when to hold them, know when to fold them, know when to walk away, know when to run.”

What has been going on for way to long (I’d say since Nixon’s Southern Startagey but I could be quite wrong) is to come up with nice sounding theories on finance, easy fall guys to blame, and all the other classic political tricks and you can keep the average vote from noticing that they aren’t getting what they were told they would get.  Like, passing big tax cuts that go mostly to the very wealthy and corporations and give it a nice sounding name, say “Trickle Down Economics”.  Next when the average vote fails to see any positive change in there economic situation tell them they really didn’t get “Trickle Down Economics”  because of the “Libretard Socialist” who fought the tax simplification.  If that doesn’t really work you next blame it on all of the “Illegals” taking their jobs.  Now finally consider this; in politics, like all human activities, eventually you have to pay the piper.

You always have to pay the piper, always.  The time is coming that the Conservatives are going to have to face up to the fact that the GOP has been playing them for over 30 years and failed to deliver much, if anything, they have been promising.  The rock started moving when Donald Trump wan the GOP nomination and now the Hardspot has reared up.  Soon we will get to ask the GOP “What are you going to do now?” Because it looks like the Donor class is deciding to get up from the table and the only question t left is whether to walk or run.

Another Test of the NRA Meme(s)

Philosophy, Politics, Rants

I am sorry to see that once more a mad man with a gun(s) has come forth and provided us with data to test the NRA memes about how much we need “Good Guys with a gun”.  Before I start I wish to say I am heart broken that so many people have had to suffer and die.  To all the friends and families of the victims of the Las Vegas mass murder I can only say I grieve and sorrow with you.  My grief is not your grief, my sorry is not your sorrow.  I say this to you in the small hope that you get some small comfort knowing a total stranger grieves with you in some small way.

I do not know, and I will not even attempt to predict why this massacre in Las Vegas happened.  It is too early and we know too little to say anything definitive about motive of the perpetrator.  Nor will I enter into any discussion of pro and cons of gun control, this is not the time for this to take place.  What I will be talking about is the meme that the NRA is always pushing that the only way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

This is a very insidious meme.  Without a doubt this bad man with a gun was stoped by good guys with a gun.  The problem is that the good guys in question were highly trained professionals.  These good guys were not just someone who likes shooting, they were not just great marksmen, they are men and women who train for just this kind of crises.  They train individually and they train togeather.  They know what they are doing and they know what their team mates are going to doing and going to do.  An this is why the meme of a ‘good guy with a gun’ is so insidious.

This meme gives the impression that any good guy with a gun would be an asset in the kind of situation that happened last night in Vegas.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  Don’t just trust me, go ask any policeman or other first responder just what the effect of a bunch of armed civilians running around in the CF that Las Vegas was last night.  I won’t even attempt to give you any of the many scenarios that come to my mind as I write this.  What I will do is talk about ‘seeing the elephant ‘.

Let’s do a little experiment here, go find a combat vet.  Find an marine, or an army fire team member.  Someone who has been in actual combat.  Someone, as Bill Malden put so eloquently “a member of the benevolent and protective order of those who have been shot at” and ask them this:  What happens to someone the first time they are in combat, the first time they are shot at?  I think they will tell you there are just three things you will do

1) Break and run-a-way

2)  Freeze

3) Follow training/orders

An they will tell you one other thing; until you are in actual combat you have know idea which one of the three you will do.  If you are real real lucky and well trained it will be 2 or god helping 3.  But you will not know till you really do see the elephant.

This is why I will always fight this meme.

Incloseing I’d also like to point out that Nevada is a functionally ‘Open Carry’ state.  That is to say that the state laws regarding the open caring of firearms are enforced with a very light hand.  Next Las Vegas was getting ready for several gun shows and there was an influx of people with many many guns for these show already.  Given this there should be a good number of ‘good guys with a gun’ in the area of the shooting.  I await with great interest to see the data on just what all of these gun toting good guys did when the massacre started.

The Debate on Multiculturalism

Philosophy, Politics

Personally, I do not play the game of one culture is superior to another or all cultures are equal. I do this because I have yet to see any system of measuring the qualities of a culture that is not subject to sever subjectivity. There is no external, objective, measure. All we have is what he shows in his talk when he discusses Donald Trump’s statements. All that really be said is that “I” think, feel, etc, that being Innovative is a good cultural trait with out giving any objective measure of why it is good. You just as might as well say that Hawaiian culture is superior to Kansas culture because Hawaiian promotes surfing while Kansas doesn’t.

This does not make me a Multiculturalist. I do not believe all cultures are equally good/bad. There are good cultures and there are bad cultures. But just like Art/Music/Literature each and everyone of us must make our own judgement. Like Ethics and Morals culture is of vital importance to everyone and it is up to everyone of us to do what we can, no mater how great or how small, to improve the culture we live in.

See more in a coming new posting in “Don’t Drink The Koolaid”.

An Now….Congress

General, Politics

Tomorrow Cogress will be returning from their summer (not) recess.  They now have a great opportunity to show just how well they can do their job.  We need to get funding for the relief effort for Harvey done ASAP.  I know that the 115th Congress has not been very good at moving bill thru but this should be an unguarded slam dunk.

The entire Texas delegation, both Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, should have had their staffs working on a bill since the first visit of President Trump.  Now is the time, Congress is the place for our elected representatives  to live up th the etymology of  name of that august body…’to walk togeather’.  This is not the time to deal in political issues and battles.  Now is not the time to ‘one up’ you political opponent(s).  Now is not the time to think about winners and looses.  The only loosers are the people in the states hit by Harvey, be they from Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas or where every.

 

So, dear Congress, now we will see if you can do the job you were brought togeather for or are you just a collection of political hacks.  Show the American people just what you can do.

Argument Vs. Attack

General, Philosophy

For some time now I have been thinking about the problem of many people on the right saying that those on the left are attacking them.  That they, the people on the right, are tired of it and are now fighting back.  From my research I’ve found that most who say this feel this way because they are having what they use to identify themselves, that is “I am a Conservative/Republican/Christian”.  An what is happening is most often not that they are being attacked but the ideas/concepts/beliefs are being challenged.

I decided to do a little research and I found that often when people have those ideals/principles challenged they can often feel personally attack.  This is especially true when the person arguing against them is using logic.  Logic is a blunt instrument and when used unthinkingly quite brutal (another post on that later).  But even when logic is not used as a blunt interment many people do feel they are being attacked in a debate.  I have also wondered why I usually don’t feel attacked when I’m disagreed with, and other times I do.

I think I shall deal with this last item first.  After a little thought and more reflection I have come to the conclusion it is because of my ‘trained’ ear.  By this I mean more than most, I can hear and recognize the anger and/or hostility in peoples voices.  Not to say, in the least little bit that everyone does not hear the anger/hostility, no not at all.  It is just because of my early life I developed a very good ear to the underlying emotion(s) in some one speaking.  This was do to both being raised by a speech couch and also personal survival, that is to avoid highly dangerous situations I learn to listen to how people were talking and not what they were saying.  So what does this have to do with argument vs. attack?  Just this, when we let anger, or hostility, or contempt, or disdain, etc, et al, enter our voice the other person will, most likely, key off of this and Not hear your words.

Now, with tone of voice dealt with, let us move on to other things.  I submit that one of the problems is too many of my fellow Americans have never really been thought the deference between argument and debate.  Even our dictionaries are not much help here as more often than not they show a debate as a form of argument.  An in a sense this is right, but it is also very misleading.  The main point I wish to make here is that in a debate it is quite possible for one side to accept the position of the other without any loss of face.  In fact it is often as not seen as being the highest rank of a debater to acknowledge the validity of their opponent.  In an argument, this is not the case.  When you are in an argument winning isn’t everything, it is the only thing.  Or at least this is how way to many Americans feel.

In closing let me point out this one fact.  Disagreement is not an Attack.  It is just disagreement.  This country was founded and has grown strong with the principle that we can disagree with each other.  True there are too many time in our past that we have ignored or forgotten this principle.  It looks like we may be forgetting this principle now, I hope and pray not.  So I ask each an everyone of you to help yourself and others to remember:

Disagreement is not an Attack

Debate is not an Argument

Listen to the words other may speak

Appeal to Authority

Philosophy

Well, I have found Facebook is good for more than pictures of kittens and raising my blood pressure this week.  Got into an interesting debate on climate and got  accused of committing the logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority

This accusation came about because in the previous post where I was given a link to a website created by a self professed  entrepreneur with no background in the study of climates that I preferred to base my position on listening to the debate on the subject of experts in the field.  This was held to be citing, appealing, to authority as a reason why my position on climate change was correct.  This has spurred me on to look up just what does constitute the informal logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

I went to just two sources, my textbook from my collage years (An Intorduction to Logic) an Wikipedia.  As they both agreed in form, if not detail, I did not bother with more research.

It should be noted that Appeal to Authority is no always an informal Fallicy, as is shown below

The argument is a defeasible argument and a statistical syllogism taking the form:

X is an expert on subject Y,
X claims A. (A is within subject Y.)
Therefore, A is probably true.

In actual fact the fallicy should be called Appeal to Unqualified Authority and/or Appeal to uncritical acceptance of Authority. An example of the former is

X is an expert on subject Y,
X claims A. (A is NOT within subject Y.)
Therefore, A is probably true.

In the later case

X is an expert on subject Y,
X claims A. (A Has not been study or researched by X)
Therefore, A is probably true.

As can clearly be seen these thre syllogisms are very simular but the second and third are fallacies.  The first because while A is an Expert A is not an Expert in the subject dealing with A.  The second is a bit more tricky in that X is and Expert in the Subject Y and A is found in Subject Y but X has no expertise in subset of Subject Y which A is a part.

This last is why listening to the Experts debate the subject is so important.  The two most important question a person who is being asked to accept the Appeal to Authority is

1) Is the person(s) really an expert in the subject

If so

2) Is the positions being put forward in the preview of the expertise.

So what does this all mean to the person(s) debating?  It is to as it is difficult do.  Listen carefully and the go check the credentials of the expert being cited.

Trump & Paris

Politics,

So, Pres. Trump has gone and done it.  He kept his promise to all those people who supported him because they think that doing something about Global Climate change has or will do something to harm him.  This action was not just taken for the benefit of the coal industry.  Pres Trump, or perhaps some of his advisors know that the causes of the decline of the use of coal and the consequently decline of the coal industry has little or nothing to do with the effort to do something about global warming.

It has been known for a very long time, on the order of 150+ years, that the burning of coal is very very dirty.  Just read some of the old Victorian novels if you doubt me, they have many a colorful passage about the coal smoke of the industrial cities.  Some even have graphic bits about the coal ash mountains and the effect on the lovely little village that was destroyed by the ash slide.  No, what Pres. Trump did today has a much more sinister foundation.

I submit that Pres. Trump withdrew from the Paris Accords for two simple political reasons that had little to do with economics or climate.  He withdrew to distract the media and the public from  maelstrom that has been his administration and that is threatening to gain in ferocity next week.  He also took today’s action to try and  shore-up his weakening political base, both in the country and in the Congress.  We will have to wait and see if this, in fact achieves it’s goals.

Personally, I think it will be just one more loose tree being thrown around in the coming EF5 that our dear President has been ignoring.

As the Experiment continues.

Politics

Soon it will be 120 days into President Trump’s administration, the great Political Science experiment into having someone with no political experience as President.  Not only does Pres. Trump not have any kind of expreance in politics, either Gran or  Petite we are just becoming aware of just how limited his business expreance is.  I have just read that his business expreance is quite limited too.  I wonder show many of  Pres. Trump’s base is aware that he has never once worked in, much less run a publicity held corporation?  That none of his much touted business ‘ come close to the size and complexity of the United States?

As strange as it may seem from what limited information I have been able to gather all of his business’ were/are what is called “closely held” with many of them being considered a “small business” even though most were worth millions or billions of dollars.  Stop and think about this, this is like making someone a captain of the largest luxury cruise liner whose only ‘captain’ a high powered cigarette boat.  Fortunately for us, unlike the aforementioned ‘captain’, the President is just leader of one of three co-equal branches of our government.   In case of fact there are people in the executive branch who’s it is their swarn  duty to tell him “no” when he try’s to do something that would put the ship of state in harms way.

In the next few weeks, while Pres. Trump is on his  foreign trip, this nation is facing what maybe it’s greatest diplomatic crisis’ since  Vietnam.  If the news reports of Pres. Trumps itinerary are accurate he will be meeting first to the Saudi’s over the weekend where his should be giving a speech.  This speach is proported to be about combating radical ideology and his vision for a ‘peaceful’ Islam.  Given his past performances I do not hold out much hope that the President will stay on script.  Indeed, I fear he will go badly off script and, as anyone with Even a casual  acquaintance with the sensitivities of Saudi’s about Islam it will take a very deft hand to avoid the landminds.  Like any devout people the Saudis do not take kindly being lectured about their fath by a nonbeliever.

Following his stay in Saudi Arabia the President is scheduled to move on to Israel where he as already managed to put his foot into it twice already.  First the Whitehouse seems to have a hard problem with dealing with the tricky issues of the Holly sites like the West Wall, that and the President doesn’t seem to know that this wall is, in fact, in Jerusalem.  I wonder if he even knows what the West Wall is a wall of? His next little  foo paw just came out today with his canceling his visit to Missada because he can’t land his  helicopter on the actual site.  But then, I’m sure he has no idea just why this is such an important place to the Jews of the world as he most like slept thru any Roman history class’.

Pres. Trump will next move on to a meeting of all the NATO heads of state and my mind totally breaks down here on just how many people he will manage to totally piss off.  I guess we will all have to wait and see and pray he doesn’t get his hands on the Illudium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator