Critical thinking and political matters.

All logic is thought and all thought logic...

Quote:

I have a constitutional right to vote given me by (among other things) the 14th Amendment. However, if my vote is motivated by a bribe, then it was no right of me to vote. Therefore, this is an example of a right which is not right.

That doesn't even make sense kenneth. The right to vote still exists. It didn't cease to exist because you exercised that right under false pretenses. The fact that you took a bribe doesn't change the right to vote in any way nor does it make the right to vote invalid or wrong. It only means you took a bribe and acted illegally when exercising that right. It in no way makes the right to vote wrong.

I'm beginning to see why people like kenneethamy continues to be confused. They lack the ability to use logic to think.

The funny thing is that this guy seems to believe that this is 'critical thinking.'

Cycloptichorn

If you would provide actual answers instead of vague emotional appeals, this might go faster.

The funny thing is that this guy seems to believe that this is 'critical thinking.'

Cycloptichorn

All morality is based upon emotions, primarily based upon pre rational bonds between child and mother which is where we get our sense of nation, for natal, navel... You must see the connection between ethics, and ethnic, or are you blind... And you must know, that all rational areguments have the target of individual good, that is, a certain fixed perspective; that his is not true of morality for which only the most general and infinite definition of good is evident...

Jeb, The only person embarrassing themself is you. How people vote is a legal right; why and how they vote is the voter's choice no matter how they arrived at their vote. Bribes and stupidity does not invalidate anyone's vote.

Jeb, The only person embarrassing themself is you.



How people vote is a legal right; why and how they vote is the voter's choice no matter how they arrived at their vote.
Bribes and stupidity does not invalidate anyone's vote.

OSD, You did get the jest of what I said?

Okay, it's "himself."

You guys are embarrassing yourselves, this is the kind of thing that makes me think I'm wasting my time. You have the right to vote, but it is morally wrong to base your vote on a bribe. You had the right, but were in the wrong. It is very simple.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/emotiona.html

An appeal to emotion is a type of argument which attempts to arouse the emotions of its audience in order to gain acceptance of its conclusion.

Therefore, this is an example of a right which is not right.

You had the right, but were in the wrong. It is very simple.

It only means you took a bribe and acted illegally when exercising that right. It in no way makes the right to vote wrong.

I don't think so. Elections are subject to invalidation. Voting for money is an example of corruption. The only way such a vote would stand is if the situation never came to light.

Jest is a joke; humor. Jist is the significant essence.

Fido wrote:

All logic is thought and all thought logic...

With all respect, Fido, if all thought were logic,
then there 'd be no room for chaotic confusion.





David

Fido wrote:

All morality is based upon emotions, primarily based upon pre rational bonds between child and mother which is where we get our sense of nation, for natal, navel... You must see the connection between ethics, and ethnic, or are you blind... And you must know, that all rational areguments have the target of individual good, that is, a certain fixed perspective; that his is not true of morality for which only the most general and infinite definition of good is evident...

Thanks Fido. You said it.

Logic isn't transperspective. It only works when anchored to a single viewpoint. That's evident in the fact that it doesn't admit contradictions, right?

I always think of Othello regarding emotion and morality. Logic can't condemn Iago. The heart does it easily.

So the law court is a picture of interaction between the mind and heart. The mind draws in facts and relationships. The judge is an image of the heart... the part of us that doesn't get tangled up in argument. But it's the fact that emotion can act without understanding that makes it important to temper it. So withdrawing to the courtroom is a way to suspend action and search for understanding prior to judgement.

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.

No one is attacking any Muslims. Where did you ever get that idea? As Obama later said, although they had a legal right to build, he questioned whether it was a wise thing to do. And so do I. And so do many people.