Critical thinking and political matters.

as you pointed out the, OP was disingenuous in its argument. The interesting things in this thread are on the periphery. Such as the nature of the appeal to emotion itself and people who deliberately shroud themselves in mystery.

I'm not rightly sure that there is a purely unemotional argument. Although its not an appeal to emotion per-se any axiom is by definition accepted without proof and deemed self evident. It is my opinion that a person will build their hypotheses and arguments from the emotion generated by their attachment to an ideal regarding that axiom or accept an axiom based on their emotional attachment to an ideal. Thus all arguments are arguments from emotion.

as you pointed out the, OP was disingenuous in its argument.

GoshisDead wrote:

as you pointed out the, OP was disingenuous in its argument. The interesting things in this thread are on the periphery. Such as the nature of the appeal to emotion itself and people who deliberately shroud themselves in mystery.

I'm not rightly sure that there is a purely unemotional argument. Although its not an appeal to emotion per-se any axiom is by definition accepted without proof and deemed self evident. It is my opinion that a person will build their hypotheses and arguments from the emotion generated by their attachment to an ideal regarding that axiom or accept an axiom based on their emotional attachment to an ideal. Thus all arguments are arguments from emotion.

As i said in my post, i've been avoiding posting. i also have to admit that i have avoided wading/reading through a great deal of the posts in this thread, so i feel that i am in a poor position to comment on the emotional content of many of the other contributions, peripheral or not.

However, i tend to agree with the general position you seem to be arguing for. Any and all arguments seem to take account of emotions as well as facts, and for any "position" to seem relevant it needs to resonate emotionally as well as, if not more than, "rationally". To pretend that an argument does not also take account of emotional motives seems highly disingenuous to me. There are only emotional "motives", the incentive to a particular argument, rationality alone demands no communication.

I am reminded of a quote by Walter Benjamin, the textual source of which i am too lazy to research at the moment. His primary aim seems to be to combat the Neo-Kantian distinction/contradiction between feeling and reality. My paraphrase of the quote is this: Far from emotion being the contrary of, or a barrier to, objectivity; great passion is required to achieve objectivity.

I suppose what I mean by employing that poorly remembered passage is this: I don't expect reason to exclude emotion, but to include and use emotion to its greatest benefit. Feelings might easily be used to splinter popular opinion, but properly channeled it is an incentive and enhancement of rational thought. I'm sure that the above statement could be taken apart semantically, but i'll just hope that those who are willing to understand it do so. (i feel zero urge to defend my POV lately.)


I don't know if what i've said above has any relevance to your own position, nor do i seek to compromise your position in the forgoing discussion. Good luck.

And what about you justifying the accusation of disingenuity after you have "pointed it out"? You cannot "point out" what is not true. So you have to establish that I was disingenuous before you can "point it out". Go.

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.

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.

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.

It is my understanding that President Obama took no position whatsoever on the "wisdom" of building a cultural center near "ground zero."

The arguments about constitutional rights are arguments not based on the constition interpreted as law, they are based on the average ideologicaland emotional connection the public has about the constitution.

You may be upset about the mosque but you are likely ideologically incapable of calling the 1st amendment unjust and the mosque should be covered by the 1st amendment so your emotions against the mosque are unfounded.

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

I'm not rightly sure that there is a purely unemotional argument. Although its not an appeal to emotion per-se any axiom is by definition accepted without proof and deemed self evident. It is my opinion that a person will build their hypotheses and arguments from the emotion generated by their attachment to an ideal regarding that axiom or accept an axiom based on their emotional attachment to an ideal. Thus all arguments are arguments from emotion.

And what about you justifying the accusation of disingenuity after you have "pointed it out"? You cannot "point out" what is not true. So you have to establish that I was disingenuous before you can "point it out". Go.

kennethamy wrote:

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.

This is how you frame the issue. Others, including me, frame it as a case of religious discrimination and bigotry by the likes of Pat Robertson. And once you frame it in those terms, it becomes irrelevant whether the opponents try to impose their bigotry through legal pressure or through bullying in the media.

I disagree Obama's argument was a red herring, and submit that it was a perfectly valid argument. His only "sin" is that he framed the issue in different terms than you did.

Give me one example of restricting someone's right to do something while they were still able to do it.

Thomas wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

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.

This is how you frame the issue. Others, including me, frame it as a case of religious discrimination and bigotry by the likes of Pat Robertson. And once you frame it in those terms, it becomes irrelevant whether the opponents try to impose their bigotry through legal pressure or through bullying in the media.

I disagree Obama's argument was a red herring, and submit that it was a perfectly valid argument. His only "sin" is that he framed the issue in different terms than you did.

Good points. As with most political issues, all sides are attempting to frame the issue to their advantage.

Thomas wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

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.

This is how you frame the issue. Others, including me, frame it as a case of religious discrimination and bigotry by the likes of Pat Robertson. And once you frame it in those terms, it becomes irrelevant whether the opponents try to impose their bigotry through legal pressure or through bullying in the media.

I disagree Obama's argument was a red herring, and submit that it was a perfectly valid argument. His only "sin" is that he framed the issue in different terms than you did.

Good points. As with most political issues, all sides are attempting to frame the issue to their advantage.