The Rush To Be Right

[InLove]

Thanks, Seattlegal. I am glad that it might be of value to someone. I know it is to me, because I have much to learn in many areas. Quite a bit, actually, when it comes to "research".

All part of the learning process.

InPeace,
InLove

[flowperson]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Ooops! I thought this thread was going to be about Rush Limbaugh. *luna tiptoes away*

Ummm...Luna, the longer this thread goes on, the more I DO believe it IS about Rush Limbaugh !

flow....

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards!

Special nod to InLove, thanks for the list!

the longer this thread goes on, the more I DO believe it IS about Rush Limbaugh !

Of course it is! Absolutely! No doubt! Indeed!

Just as equally it is about Michael Moore, Al Franken, Jeanine Garofalo, Bill Moyers, Barbara Streisand, Jane Fonda, Warren Beatty, Hilary Clinton, ...and the people who love them.

PS: How's that for appeal to authority?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Paladin!

Originally Posted by Paladin

So good to see you Juan!

Thanks! I'm not quite back yet, just stealing an insomniac moment to sneak in.

Yes there is so much to ponder in all the quotes you have pulled, and I wonder who is the "You" that is defending a right position.

Ah, I left that intentionally vague. The quotes, all of which were good in my estimation, were pulled from different contributors, therefore the "you" is a collective one.

Further, what position exactly is being defended. It seems that multiple positions are mentioned by several people here, so forgive me if I find the question a bit vague.

You found the question as I intended. The idea was to provoke thought. The collective "you" was to strengthen the point that we all need to base our internal beliefs and philosophical outlooks on what we individually deem as right and correct.

It was Artistotle himself who said that the mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain a thought without accepting it. If more persons were able to at least do this, I should be quite inspired and joyus.

Certainly. Yet intellectual consideration is a far different thing from internal guidelines. There are cultural and social considerations; there is familial training and indoctrination; there are loyalties to family, friends and tribe; there are latent memories; there is formal education; there is religious education, indoctrination and inclination; there is aptitude spiritual and mental. There are other considerations I am likely overlooking.

However, as you have stated to have a proper, calm and hopefully edifying discussion there needs to be a structure that logic and reason can provide, if the "combatants" would or could adhere to the set parameters.
Learning the fallacies of logic can uncover attempts to prove a proposition with rhetorical pathos, as you mention.

This is so if one is engaged in a purely scholarly pursuit. If one is, say, wooing a lover, would one adhere strictly to logic and reason? If one is teaching a dog not to jump on someone, will one appeal to a dog's sense of logic and reason? If one is on a battlefield facing a mortal enemy, is one to resort solely to logic and reason? There is time and place for emotional response, just as there is time and place for logic and reason. I allow that the time and place for each is often confused; but I also allow that to leave one in favor of the other is not human nature, is not rational, and is not reasonable.

Emotion and logic are fundamentally at odds with each other, they are effectively the antithesis of each other. Not that they cannot co-exist, but that seldom can a person consistently balance them equally. Or so it seems to me.

[flowperson]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards!

Special nod to InLove, thanks for the list!


Of course it is! Absolutely! No doubt! Indeed!

Just as equally it is about Michael Moore, Al Franken, Jeanine Garofalo, Bill Moyers, Barbara Streisand, Jane Fonda, Warren Beatty, Hilary Clinton, ...and the people who love them.

PS: How's that for appeal to authority?

Who ARE these people anyhow...? I for one do not look to them for commentary on political leadership in thought anymore than I look to the Rushman. Ralph Nader..well, that's another story because he has a record of credibility in the public arena. But he's Lebanese, and well...that's a second or now third world nation huh... so what would he know anyhow ?

By the way...did you know that the Rushter is from Cape Girardeau Missouri which has the tallest TV tower in the USA, and is also reputedly to be the first site of a UFO crash in 1941...even before Roswell, New Mexico? What a stroke of long-term political genius to find and cultivate the talents of a Jewish alien clone from the midwest near where the strongest earthquake in U.S. history originated to slash and ravage the dreaded liberal establishment !

This thread is not a political argument Juan, and you are absolutely right about the application of mass psychololgy techniques through the media. We pretty all much agree that this now established reality is likely intellectually poisonous for anyone exposed to it for extended periods of time. The real question is what we might be able to do about this so that people might be able to attempt to think clearly once more...probably an impossible dream. So I, for one, don't participate very much in media consumption, other than to find out what the weather might be tomorrow...but then the weather's pretty much the same here everyday. I do listen to NPR though, and shortwave newscasts from overseas.

Since referring to the Nazis seems to be popular these days, remember that it was Josef Goebbels and Leni Reifenstahl that pioneered the use of mass media psychology in Germany in the 1930's to enable public acceptance of Hitler's rise to power. He and she found that if you repeatedly told or showed lies often enough and convincingly enough, a certain and increasing portion of the population would believe and implement policies to support the lies over time. It certainly worked in Germany, and it's certainly working on both sides of the political spectrum here. Hence, a profound and contentious schism in the body politic of the good ol' US of A.

Mine is not an argument that seeks to blame the messengers, but an argument that asks that the amplification of the messages be turned down somewhat so that messages of moderation might prevail over the long term. If I'm not mistaken, that was the original intent here. But in our commercially crazed world of communication, that's about as likely as the sun rising in the west tomorrow.

flow....

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Originally Posted by InLove

From wiki:

The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also known as falsified dilemma, fallacy of the excluded middle, black and white thinking, false dichotomy, false correlative, either/or dilemma or bifurcation), involves a situation in which two alternative points of view are held to be the only options, when in reality there exist one or more other options which have not been considered. The two alternatives presented are often, though not always, the two extreme points on some spectrum. Instead of such extreme simplification and wishful thinking, considering the whole spectrum, as in fuzzy logic, may be more appropriate.
The false dilemma fallacy refers to misuse of the or operator. For another misuse of "or", see the false choice fallacy. For misuse of the and operator, see package-deal fallacy.
A false dilemma may not necessarily be limited to two choices; it may involve three possibilities, in which case it is known as a trifurcation, or more, in which case the dilemma may be more the result of accidental omission than deliberate intent.

InPeace,
InLove

Does Logical Fallacy have any Golden rules?

If not, I took the liberty of making some of my own.

The Golden Rules of logical fallacy
1. DO NOT JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER.
2. ALWAYS EXPLORE YOUR OPTIONS.
3. DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU.
4. TREAT OTHERS LIKE YOU WANT TO BE TREATED.
5. THERE IS ALWAYS MORE THAN ONE WAY TO SKIN A CAT
6. ONE PERSONS TREASURE MAY BE ANOTHER PERSONS TRASH.

well you get the idea.
Any one else?

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by YO-ELEVEN-11

Does Logical Fallacy have any Golden rules?

If not, I took the liberty of making some of my own.

The Golden Rules of logical fallacy
1. DO NOT JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER.
2. ALWAYS EXPLORE YOUR OPTIONS.
3. DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU.
4. TREAT OTHERS LIKE YOU WANT TO BE TREATED.
5. THERE IS ALWAYS MORE THAN ONE WAY TO SKIN A CAT
6. ONE PERSONS TREASURE MAY BE ANOTHER PERSONS TRASH.

well you get the idea.
Any one else?

Okay YO, I have to admit you got me there, I cannot see how logical, practical truisms belong in a list of logical fallacies.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Okay YO, I have to admit you got me there, I cannot see how logical, practical truisms belong in a list of logical fallacies.

Don't you pseuso-hate when the young are right...and when they use age old wisdom agin' us?

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Well, try this one on for size.

Golden Rules of Practical Trusims
1. Look before you leap
2. Stay the course
3. Do unto others before they do unto you.
4. Treat others Like you think they want to be treated
5. The only way to fish is with a fishing pole
6. Clean up your trash to keep the beggers away.

Both "Practical Trusims" and "Logical fallacies"
are in essence only as effective as the rules that govern them.
(There are rules that govern being "wrong" just as their are rules that govern being "right")

Stating that some thing is "Logic" is less "logical" than proving it is "logic". Having an opinion (even if it is "proven" wrong) anywhere on the spectrum is more "logical" than not having one at all.
(Being wrong can lead to learning) ( Discussing a "moot" point can lead to learning and knowing what a "moot" point is.)

My point. (excuse the pun)

Interaction and growth has take place for "logical fallacy" to be transformed into Practical Trusim. ( In the begining the Heaven & Earth were "VOID" and out of that "VOID" came something.) (Something from nothing) imagine that.

So, We begin with golden rules of logical fallacy that seem to be more suited as practical truisms.

Thusly, to have logical fallacy is in fact logical and necessary to the growth and development of Practical Trusim. So, It may in fact be Logical that so many "Rush to be right" No matter how far apart on the spectrum that rush puts them or how "moot" some of the discussion may become. Thus spuring growth for mediation and then to understanding and ultimately PEACE.

Now, with all that being said, and to throw another "Log"(Log-ic) on the fire.

Am I right or wrong?

[Quahom1]

Now, with all that being said, and to throw another "Log"(Log-ic) on the fire.

Am I right or wrong?

Quite right...now I have one for you...simplest of sayings but the hardest to follow...

"Practice what you preach"...a little harder than it sounds in life.

Sometimes, it involves life...

v/r

Q

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Quite right...now I have one for you...simplest of sayings but the hardest to follow...

"Practice what you preach"...a little harder than it sounds in life.

Sometimes, it involves life...

v/r

Q

LOL...

Now tring to do that would mean a whole lot of "logical fallacy"

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by YO-ELEVEN-11

LOL...

Now tring to do that would mean a whole lot of "logical fallacy"

where is the fallacy in doing what is correct? You tell others how to live...then you lead by example. Unless you are stating that the preacher can't walk the talk...then the issue is not with the message, but with the messenger.

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

where is the fallacy in doing what is correct? You tell others how to live...then you lead by example. Unless you are stating that the preacher can't walk the talk...then the issue is not with the message, but with the messenger.

Just a joke my Friend.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by YO-ELEVEN-11

Well, try this one on for size.

Golden Rules of Practical Trusims
1. Look before you leap
2. Stay the course
3. Do unto others before they do unto you.
4. Treat others Like you think they want to be treated
5. The only way to fish is with a fishing pole
6. Clean up your trash to keep the beggers away.

Both "Practical Trusims" and "Logical fallacies"
are in essence only as effective as the rules that govern them.
(There are rules that govern being "wrong" just as their are rules that govern being "right")

Stating that some thing is "Logic" is less "logical" than proving it is "logic". Having an opinion (even if it is "proven" wrong) anywhere on the spectrum is more "logical" than not having one at all.
(Being wrong can lead to learning) ( Discussing a "moot" point can lead to learning and knowing what a "moot" point is.)

My point. (excuse the pun)

Interaction and growth has take place for "logical fallacy" to be transformed into Practical Trusim. ( In the begining the Heaven & Earth were "VOID" and out of that "VOID" came something.) (Something from nothing) imagine that.

So, We begin with golden rules of logical fallacy that seem to be more suited as practical truisms.

Thusly, to have logical fallacy is in fact logical and necessary to the growth and development of Practical Trusim. So, It may in fact be Logical that so many "Rush to be right" No matter how far apart on the spectrum that rush puts them or how "moot" some of the discussion may become. Thus spuring growth for mediation and then to understanding and ultimately PEACE.

Now, with all that being said, and to throw another "Log"(Log-ic) on the fire.

Am I right or wrong?

(sigh) Where do I begin?
Lets see, having no opinion is against the rules of logic? Therefore it is illogical to say "I abstain?"

I'm sorry Yo, you haven't made your case in any of this.

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

No Paladin. I am simply stating that "all" is logical but at different levels.
even illogic has roots in logic.

Originally Posted by Paladin

having no opinion is against the rules of logic? .

Originally Posted by yo-eleven-11

Stating that some thing is "Logic" is less "logical" than proving it is "logic". Having an opinion (even if it is "proven" wrong) anywhere on the spectrum is more "logical" than not having one at all. (Being wrong can lead to learning) ( Discussing a "moot" point can lead to learning and knowing what a "moot" point is.) .

So for example:

If I said "Paladin" you are wrong and I am right"

I have left out some of the middle ground in the process of determing if you are in fact "right or wrong"

In other words I used no process in this determination. Which in turn would make it a "Logical fallacy" or moot point.

In doing so, I have created a dialogue that will lead to wanting to establish a set of guidelines to establish what is right or wrong.

Originally Posted by Paladin

(Therefore it is illogical to say "I abstain?".

No, illogic is in fact logical in some circumstances. Abstaining is just another form of logic. Just as illogic is just another form of Logic.

example:

May childrens games have no "Logical" conclusion, but are Logical for them to do so that they learn to interact with other children.


So the Rush to be right, or the act of abstaning can be deemed logical or illogical in different ways.

Does this help any?