Critical thinking and political matters.

@kennethamy,

It's because "rational" is only in the eye of the beholder. What's rational to me may be irrational to another person.

@cicerone imposter,

I'm not sure "rational" is a subjective assessment, like we may find with issues such as icecream preference.

Why do you think it is?

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

You're all over the place in this post, and your grammar is wanting. Clarify what you are trying to say.

0 Replies

By "rational argument" I mean to say "a reasonable, logical and factual argument."

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
Your very question here raises the difference between (1) having a right, and (2) its being right for someone to exercise the right. And that was the distinction my post was based on.

And you ignore the attempt to restrict someone's rights by influencing public opinion with lies and falsehoods.

Quote:

Arguing whether they ought to do it is not only an intellectual exercise, because if, for example, Consolidated Edison which owns a part of the site decides it would be wrong its property to the Muslim group, the building will not be erected on that site, and arguing whether the structure ought not to be built may persuade them not to sell the property.

Your example is not a way of making them change their mind. It is a back door way to restrict their rights by not letting them purchase property. On what legal basis could Con Ed not sell the property to a muslim group? Not selling because they are muslim would be a violation of their rights.

And you ignore the attempt to restrict someone's rights by influencing public opinion with lies and falsehoods.

I think you mean restricting the exercise of those rights not the rights themselves

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

By "rational argument" I mean to say "a reasonable, logical and factual argument."

And that means? How are "reasonable"," logical", and "factual" , any clearer than the notion you want to define by them? There is no use in defining a term (which is to clarify what it means) in terms of terms as obscure, or even more obscure than the term you are trying to define. In fact, it is called, "the fallacy of explaining the obscure in terms of the more obscure".

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

I'm not sure "rational" is a subjective assessment, like we may find with issues such as icecream preference.

Why do you think it is?

Well, it will be pretty hard to tell whether or not it is, if we don't know what it means.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's because "rational" is only in the eye of the beholder. What's rational to me may be irrational to another person.

If, "what is rational to me may be irrational to someone else" means merely that what I believe it rational others may believe is irrational, the same applies to the shape of the Earth since what what I believe is round other may believe is flat. Does that mean that the shape of the Earth lies in the eye of the beholder too? In that case, what isn't in the mind of the beholder? The fact that different people may have contrary beliefs about the same thing does not mean that there is no correct belief about that thing. Although some might believe that the shape of Earth is round, and others that it is flat, that doesn't mean that the Earth has no actual shape independently of what is believed. So, the argument that there are differing beliefs about whether X has property, p, therefore, X does not have property p, is fallacious, as you can now see. So, in particular, the argument that because some believe an argument is rational (whatever that means) and some believe the same argument is irrational (whatever that means) so whether the argument is rational or irrational (whatever those mean) "lies in the eye of the beholder", is fallacious.

"Just a moment's thought...but thought is very difficult, and a moment is a long time. (A.E. Houseman).

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

The shape of the earth is not a matter of rational reasoning; it's already been established as a oblate spheroid. People who believe it to be otherwise are just plain stupid, and has nothing to do with rational or irrational.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I'm not sure you understood what he was saying. His was simply pointing out that, people having conflicting beliefs over things, does not mean that what they are conflicting over is a matter of opinion. It may be over a matter of fact, and one person may be right, and one person may be wrong. You seemed to be saying that because your rational may be another's irrational, that neither party can be right or wrong. But that's no reason to think that.

But I understand that you believe that "rationality" is a matter of opinion. Not a matter of fact, like say the shape of the Earth. So that could be a reason.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:

parados wrote:

Quote:
In a democracy, public opinion always has a place, and ought to have a place. That is part of what a democracy is. It is nonsense to think that after a representative is elected those who elected him have no business letting him know what they think about matters he is going to deal with. How else can the representative represent those who elected him, unless they let him know what they believe about what he is going to represent them on? What is he supposed to do, use ESP?

That's an interesting argument kennie. Didn't you argue that the Constitution has no bearing in this argument because it has nothing to do with the government? Now you are arguing that this is an issue that does involve the government because we are a democracy.

As soon as you involve the use of the government it is a constitutional issue and the will of the majority is tempered by the Constitution.

The will of the majority, and all the people is thwarted by the constitution... The thing enumerates property rights which we have fought a civil war over more certainly than it enumerates human rights; and though inertia was built into the constitution, one now has to move parties before thinking of moving government.... Where those who approved the constitution had an expected one representative for every 30 K of people, now each one represents over 600K because of extra constitutional changes the Supreme Court passed on... Our house, the peoples house has made itself a sellers market... We have to exhaust every force for change in organization in order to move government... That is not the constitution that was approved at the beginning... Even with parties, and corruption; so long as there were spoils there was the expectation that government would serve the needs of the people, or fall... Bureaucrats as much as elected officials run government, and only gross misbehavior can get them fired...They should go as the government goes to ensure the sewer gets flushed out once in a while... It does not work... People find it impossible to organzie and we should know why... That does not mean they are satisfied or not angry..

More New Yorkers are opposed to building a mosque near Ground Zero, despite the fact they haven't been following the issue all that closely, according to a new poll that cound have some implications for the Governor's race

And, to be strictly moral in the National sense, the Muslims would regard the feelings of the people of this country... To be moral in relation to Islam is to take nothing of this world into account, to put nothing material between ones self and The God, Pray to The God, and testify to his prophet and his unity when ever and everywhere one happens to be... I am not going to stand between those people and the practice of their religion for if I were capable of belief I would believe as they rather than as a Christian... Since I am a lousy Cathoilic I could only make a poor and miserable Muslim, so what is the point...

The point of rights is more easily seen... They are to protect the minority from the mercurial nature of the majority... The majority does not have the right to abridge rights, or to decide when a person shall have rights... People know what rights they need, and if we will be a nation we will respect the rights people show they cannot live without... Since most people can live without property, it should be considered a privilage and paid for... Taxes on property should pay for the protection it receives from the government, the police, and military when it fights our wars...

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

In the Republican primary for governor next month
I m voting for Paladino because he opposed the mosque
and he is against gun control.

David

Are you a knee jerk republican or just a jerk republican... I support Gun rights, but not because they are particularly useful except as a bell weather of all rights, because when the government controls all guns the democracy is obviously at their mercy... But, we don;t need guns for change and their use would be counter productive... All people need to do is change themselves to have national change... They need to become disenthralled by the form of their government... If everyone only breathed on it, the house of cards our government is would fold up and fall...

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Isn't it ironic, that those who want to build the mosque claim that it is for the sake of "bringing people together"? And this has proved to be the most divisive issue in a long time. And, isn't it strange that those who claim they are trying to bring people together are insisting on pursuing this which divides people and builds up resentment, more a more. It make one wonder at their real motives.

We have fought all our wars for a better understanding of people because nothing short of taking their full measure and giving them ours could convince anyone to respect the enemy while still at peace.. It is not an easy process and people some times have to get in each others faces to have a relationship... It is a mistake to live with those people... We should have kept ourselves apart from them... Having them here, seeing how we live will inevitable result in both resentment and contempt... Islam and Western Christianity are very different, and it is a great gulf to bridge at that point of division... If we cannot understand them we cannot respect them, and because they know us, they have no reason to respect us... Their religion is a religion of honor, and ours is a religion of faith... What does the art of war say about understanding your enemy??? If we could understand them with our western mind set we would already have peace... And again, without understanding we will have no relationship..

0 Replies

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

It is totally within the realm of critical thinking to appeal to emotion and appeal to concensus if those appeal will logically achieve the desired result. An appeal to emotion is not necessarily an emotional appeal. An appeal to concensus in the U.S. is an appeal to what the concensus thinks is the root of being American, if it were not there would not be a vote. Both appeals are logical appeals for achieving the desired results and require critical thinking to do properly. The real fallacy discussed here is roping the term critical thinking to a very limited axiomatic ideal. It is a process, not a religion.

To be a real nation we must have consensus, unity across the board... The parties rule by division, like the Caesars: Divide and conquer... And in doing so, in dividing us to have their power, they send an engraved invitation to the world to attack us at will...

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

Fido wrote:

parados wrote:

Quote:
In a democracy, public opinion always has a place, and ought to have a place. That is part of what a democracy is. It is nonsense to think that after a representative is elected those who elected him have no business letting him know what they think about matters he is going to deal with. How else can the representative represent those who elected him, unless they let him know what they believe about what he is going to represent them on? What is he supposed to do, use ESP?

That's an interesting argument kennie. Didn't you argue that the Constitution has no bearing in this argument because it has nothing to do with the government? Now you are arguing that this is an issue that does involve the government because we are a democracy.

As soon as you involve the use of the government it is a constitutional issue and the will of the majority is tempered by the Constitution.

The will of the majority, and all the people is thwarted by the constitution... The thing enumerates property rights which we have fought a civil war over more certainly than it enumerates human rights; and though inertia was built into the constitution, one now has to move parties before thinking of moving government.... Where those who approved the constitution had an expected one representative for every 30 K of people, now each one represents over 600K because of extra constitutional changes the Supreme Court passed on... Our house, the peoples house has made itself a sellers market... We have to exhaust every force for change in organization in order to move government... That is not the constitution that was approved at the beginning... Even with parties, and corruption; so long as there were spoils there was the expectation that government would serve the needs of the people, or fall... Bureaucrats as much as elected officials run government, and only gross misbehavior can get them fired...They should go as the government goes to ensure the sewer gets flushed out once in a while... It does not work... People find it impossible to organzie and we should know why... That does not mean they are satisfied or not angry..

The constitution (now and as it was approved in the beginning) contains provisions for majority rule, while at the same time guaranteeing that minority rights are not violated.

The constitution writers spoke against a "tyranny of the majority."

Virtually the only power the majority has is the power to abridge and attack rights they disagree with... Roe V wade has for long been settled law, and yet those who support it must always defend it and those who hate in are continually on the attack...and multiply that sort of situation a hundred times of minorities defending rights the majority attacks and you have this country... All governments exist to do good, and where is the good of this defense and sniping after rights??? We can do no more... We cannot make government work for us... It is in the grip of parties of which the constitution makes no mention... The parties hold power by dividing us, and every district is drawn to deny one party or another a majority... Do you think it is a cooincidence when house districts of 600k elect by a majority of a few thousand??? Our government lives on this enforced divison of the population whose minorities right and left are denied the representation given to them by the constitution with a loophole that the parties have grown by taking... The people have lost the power the extra constitutional parties have gained.. Because we are divided by parties we cannot effect change in our government.. We blame our neighbors when they are as powerless as ourselves...Look at the government, deeply in debt to support an economic systen which should support it...Do we need change and an responsive government??? Even while the whole mess and most of the population is crying for change, you can see how little of change occurs... It is only enough of change to satisfy the most ravenous for change... It is a sop thrown to Lazarus

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

By "rational argument" I mean to say "a reasonable, logical and factual argument."

Is it not reasonable and logical to use an argument based on experiential statistics, What I mean by rational is the same as what you mean by rational.
Argument:
I want a mosque built at ground zero.
You have an emotional connection to the perceived rights granted by the first amendment.
I tell you that it would violate the first amendment not to let me build a mosque.
It is probable that you will feel bad for having initially violated the first amendment.
Your ideals about the first amendment win out over your initial reluctance to have a mosque built.
It is completely logical for me to argue to your emotions about the first amendment.
Argue on a mass scale and the probability that the majority people will uphold their ideals about the 1st amendment is more likely than the probability of people who don't.
This is a valid, rational, factual, and effective argument.

What practitioners of formal logic miss although on the very first day of class or in the very fist chapter of a book that teaches it, is the nature of an argument. An argument asserts a position, it does not describe a series of facts, that would be a description. It may use those facts to support an argument but it is not the argument. All arguments have an objective. Assuming that my objective is to convince people in the most effective way possible, an appeal to emotion can be calculated into an argument without being a fallacy.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

A "red herring" is, of course, an attempt (intentional or not) to divert discussion from the real issue to an issue that appears to be the issue at hand, but is not. A shining example of that is President Obama's recent speech which supported building a mosque by a group of Muslims very near the site of the 9/11 attack which murdered so many people. President Obama argued that just as any members of a religion have the right to build a religious structure at the site, so do Muslims.

But that argument is a red herring, for no one is disputing the legal or constitutional right of Muslim (or any other group) to build whatever they please to build at that, or any other site. What is being disputed is whether it is right for them to do so. Whether they ought to build such a structure so near that particular site. And whether or not they have the legal or constitutional right to do so is clearly irrelevant. There is an important distinction between having the right to do something and its being right to do that something which President Obama's speech ignores, and it is just that distinction that lies at the heart of the dispute.

Now, for another illustration of critical thinking consider the following argument:

Either President Obama realizes that his argument is irrelevant and so, is a red herring, or he does not. If he does, President Obama is being disingenuous. If he doesn't, the President is confused. So, either the President is disingenuous, or he is confused.

The above is an illustration of what logicians call "constructive dilemma".
(emphasis mine)

Aside from the "intentionality" of "red herrings", there may be some sort of dilemma in the above post. But, of course, it isn't President Obama's, nor is it particularly constructive. The red herring belongs to the OP. Originally, i did not plan on responding to this post, in part because it was so obviously an appeal to emotion while pretending to be a logical argument (the hypocrisy of which i find offensive), and also because i expected that the entire thread would soon be awash in just the sort of emotional responses that the OP concealed, expected and desired to incite. Nonetheless, after this many responses, i feel compelled to post my own poor contribution. After implying that the President of these United States is either stupid or a liar, i can't imagine that the OP is so confused or disingenuous as to expect politically neutral results.

i am not interested in either enhancing the confusion that the OP had an obvious, unspoken interest in fermenting, nor do i feel like feeding the delusions of certain participants that feel that the OP has a point by my response. The misguided often require human responses (including contrary ones) to validate their illusions, since absurd reality also often fails to yield to them (their delusions).

To the point, President Obama's remarks seem less like a misguided attempt at logical argument, less like support for a liberal agenda, than it is an attempt to refer "moral" opponents of the mosque to the US Constitution that makes their "moral" objections legally irrelevant. President Obama's speech is not meant to represent moral support; it is meant to show the constitutional allowance that cannot prevent (without being inconsistent) the building of the mosque. The reading of this stated position as endorsement is a "red herring" by President Obama's right-wing opponents. Rather, it is a legal reminder to the opponents of the mosque that they cannot rely on legal (or national/ historical precedent) crutches to support their lame position (ie their incapacity to distinguish between a legal right and a [Christian] "moral" imperative.)

...Anyway, the implication of the OP is that the current democratically elected President is insensitive to the 9/11 terrorist victims (and is therefore unworthy of the Presidency?). This is in no obvious way true. It represents the OP's own political bias (however valid), without even remotely sufficient logical basis.

Something to think about.

2 Replies

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

To be a real nation we must have consensus, unity across the board... The parties rule by division, like the Caesars: Divide and conquer... And in doing so, in dividing us to have their power, they send an engraved invitation to the world to attack us at will...

There is no reason to equate consensus with unity...unity does not require consensus. The problem with the two party system is not that the two parties are divisive, but that they are polarizing. The problem isn't that there are too many options, but that there are too few. Only when our many differences are extolled will we realize that most of those differences are superficial. Only when we accept our differences will we realize how much we have in common.

1 Reply

@Razzleg,

Razzleg wrote:

...Anyway, the implication of the OP is that the current democratically elected President is insensitive to the 9/11 terrorist victims (and is therefore unworthy of the Presidency?). This is in no obvious way true. It represents the OP's own political bias (however valid), without even remotely sufficient logical basis.

Something to think about.

You mean you don't enjoy a good bait and switch post?

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

You mean you don't enjoy a good bait and switch post?

Of course I enjoy them, when they reflect my own biases Twisted Evil

I just can't publicly approve them without harming my "objective" credibility and revealing my personal opinions Very Happy

1 Reply

Critical thinking and political matters.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know