Congress Critter

Letter to the Editor, The Roanoke Times:

I was the first questioner at Congressman Tom Garrett’s Moneta town hall on May 9. I spoke about my father’s eight-year battle against cancer, and asked how he would have been able to afford coverage with a preexisting condition if the Republicans’ health care bill had been law at the time. The congressman in response told me about his own family’s struggle with cancer. It truly is tragic how many of us know the pain and heartbreak of this disease.

Unfortunately, the congressman did not answer my question. It was a familiar feeling for many of us at the town hall who asked questions the congressman didn’t care for. So, yes, as the evening went on I found myself booing, clapping, and even shouting. What the heck was wrong with me?

Well, for starters, our congressman just voted to take health care away from 24 million people. Frankly, I’m sick of hearing that the real issue here isn’t what Congress is doing that will actually affect peoples’ lives, but how people react to these terrifying, sickening developments. To reiterate: under the bill the congressman voted for, if my father had still been with us, he could have been charged hundreds of thousands of dollars more just because he had the misfortune to develop a brain tumor. I can’t be polite when thinking of that possibility. The congressman doesn’t get points because he delivers that view calmly or respectfully.

Voting to kick 24 million people off their health insurance to fund a tax credit for the rich deserves some heckling, as the editorial put it. (By the way, heckling is what one does at a comedy club; at an American political event, we refer to it as protest.) And if my untoward behavior gives even a single member of Congress pause before taking another life-threatening vote, by driving home just how personally and viscerally their actions affect us, I will wear the “childish” label as a badge of honor. We couldn’t set a better example for the next generation; and I know I made my father proud.

Mr Garrett is big on using the dismissive, "we can disagree without being disagreeable". Which is a basic truth, but it's not something anybody gets to use as an all-purpose shield to deflect any and all criticism.

Garrett is a radical rightwing Freedom Caucus Ayn Randian authoritarian Daddy State bozo. The policies he supports and the agenda he's trying to advance are dangerous - and I don't use that term lightly.

The letter writer stated it pretty well - it's not heckling; it's protest. Characterizing this protest as nothing but grousing and/or heckling is another dismissive and condescending tactic used by people who can't answer the criticism and have no intention of considering your opinion anyway.  

These meetings are not about the Daddy State solliciting our input. They're about giving us the opportunity to agree with decisions that have already been made (aka: running government like a business).

So, one of the main conclusions here is: Fuck Polite, and Fuck Decorum.

And fuck Going Along To Get Along - which, btw, is something guys like Garrett have been loudly proclaiming for 30 years.

What it comes down to, I think, is that in order to get to the meat of the policy protest, we first have to be ready to break thru the armored fog these guys are always trying to get us to think is a valid argument in their favor, when it's almost never anything but one Logical Fallacy or another.

And, as a quick little refresher: Know Your Logical Fallacies

He Gets It Wrong

...again.

WaPo:

In a meeting with educators, Trump asked the principal of a center that serves students with disabilities about the prevalence of autism. The principal, Jane Quenneville, spoke about the increasing number of students with autism at the Kilmer Center, a Fairfax County public school. But Trump then claimed that there was a “tremendous amount of increase” in autism in general — “really a horrible thing to watch.”

This exchange is especially noteworthy, because Trump wants to create a vaccine safety commission that could roll back vaccine laws based on the widely discredited theory that vaccines cause autism. Since as early as 2012, Trump has falsely claimed there is a vaccine-autism link. On the presidential campaign trail, Trump again cited the junk science to explain the reason he believes so many children are diagnosed with autism.

So, is autism on the rise?

-and-

The rate in the 2016 report was the same as it was in 2014 — and the definition for autism was broadened in 2013.

The parameters for autism were changed in 2013, so that more kids who need help would get help. Way more important is that the Rate of Incidence didn't change for the three years after they re-jigered those parameters.

But 45* just goes right along pimping the Jenny McCarthy-style anti-vaxxer bullshit.

Here it is, putz: "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" is a Logical Fallacy.

In terms even 45* can understand: A legless dog won't come when you call him, but that don't mean he's deaf. 

So yeah - 45* is that guy.

Today's Meme

Lewis voiced the opinion that Trump's election to POTUS is illegitimate - an opinion I imagine is shared by about 100 million Americans and a coupla billion people around the world.

Trump hit back with his usual Tu Quoque crap - where, instead of dealing with the criticism and defending against the charges, he tries to deflect by pointing at problems in Mr Lewis's district.

And of course it worked - because of course it always fucking works - as the Press Poodles dutifully ran off to chase the tennis ball to check on how things are in Georgia's 5th District instead of staying with the story and asking Trump about what Lewis actually said, and seeing it as another reason to pursue the slightly more important story:

Whether or not the fucking President Of The Fucking United Fucking States is a FUCKING. RUSSIAN. DUPE.

Stop falling for that shit. Know your Logical Fallacies and watch what the fuck you're doing.

Pick A Side

In today's little fit of nostalgia, I'll say that we used to have movies for grownups where the lines were drawn pretty clearly. I'm not saying there's always a perfect dichotomy, but most of the time, there's a fairly obvious distinction between what's right and what's not, and art should illustrate those values for us - or at least reflect the values we manifest in living our everyday lives.

At some point you have to be able to step back and take a look at your own position. An art-form is supposed to help us with this self-examination thing, but it seems like something's shifted, and we've been pushed off kilter.

When I look back on some of the great movies that helped us figure ourselves out, and I start to wonder about overlaying those lessons onto our ideological alignments today, I can't help but think an awful lotta people would find themselves on the wrong side.

12 Angry Men

Seven Days In May

It's A Wonderful Life

Executive Suite

I promise this is not just me wanting to go back to some simpler time - there's no such thing in the first place. 

But what I'm always going to be harping on is that we have to be committed to believing as many true things as possible and not believing as many false things as possible. And we have to keep learning and relearning the skills we need to know the difference.

Logical Fallacy Illustrated

False Equivalence

Today's Tweet

Protestors are now calling for the firing of deputies issuing marriage licenses. pic.twitter.com/ZBrNGNvLZG

— Victor Puente (@thevictorpuente) September 9, 2015

So that's kinda where we are?  The point where the rubes are convinced that Kim Davis isn't the one going against the law - it's the cops and the judges, and everybody else who's not willing to accept their Brand-X Knock-off Sharia?

Now, you can go ahead and try to make the Both Sides argument by saying 'the libruls' think the cops and the judges in Ferguson (eg) are the bad guys, and so yeah, it all evens out.  Sadly, that sounds plausible because we've internalized that kind of paralysis. We've allowed the Opinion Pimps and their Press Poodles and their Coin-Operated Politicians to use our sense of fairness against us for political gain.  

The very thing that's at the core of our strength as the Exceptional Nation is now turned against us and becomes our greatest weakness.  Oh dear, what're we to do?  How will we ever figure this out and get a handle on what's real and what isn't? 

Chill, Sparky.

Here's the thing that we just can't quite get each other to remember about the shit we were supposed to learn in 9th grade Civics class.  You know - way back when school was a place where ya learned a coupla things about how to know what the fuck is goin' on?  Yeah that.  Anyway, the question is: who's following the guiding principles of the US Constitution?  

• everybody's supposed to be treated the same
• we're gonna be a nation of laws, not men
• nobody gets to take their religion and turn it into law 

All of which is intended to help us keep our personal shit separate from our government shit; by giving us a kind of simple bench mark for when we need to figure out what's best for the most while maintaining Equal Protection for as many of us as possible.

The cops in Ferguson failed to fulfill their obligations under their oath by engaging in selective enforcement of the law, and then they allowed it to degenerate into an extortion racket, which is crazy stoopid understandable because if you're not willing to see that the first part is pretty fucked up, then how ya gonna not go full-on-rat-bastard-straight-outa-The-Godfather-crooked-cop?  Seems like a logical progression.

As an agent of government, Davis failed to live up to her oath as well.  She refused to hold up her end of the deal.  That's against the law.  Denying US citizens their rights under the constitution is illegal, and it doesn't matter that your imaginary friend told you to do it, because that's fucking illegal too.

So, if ya wanna try to make that Both Sides argument here, then what you're doing is called False Equivalence/False Dichotomy, and I'm callin' bullshit on that.

Today's Scary Black Dude

This one's bouncing madly about in the Echo Chamber:

I don't know much about this King Noble guy, and I should prob'ly hold off on making this call, but - c'mon, really?  

He's indulging himself with a little Revenge Fantasy.  Is that really all it takes to frighten all you big strong hyper-macho types?  Y'know, it suddenly occurs to me that the scary black guy says "boo!", and your tiny little pecker gets very shy and even smaller than usual - is that why you immediately grab for your big steel substitute penis(?)  Just guessing.

I saw this on a coupla sites (Breitbart and Truth Revolt)...

...and it just fits too neatly into the standard play that the Right Radicals have been running and perfecting for a good 30 years.

Thousands of Americans killed by cops over the years. 

A cop is gunned down (by a guy who was found Non Compos Mentis in 2012, so where's the "isolated incident / our mental health system sucks" crowd?)

but no matter because now it's all even.

Hate crime for hate crime.

A little False Equivalence goes a very long way.

And let's not ignore the Mother Of All Obviousness here: This scares the fuck outa crackers because their worst nightmare is the thought that if given the chance, black people will start treating them exactly as badly as they've been treating black people for as long as anybody can remember.

Logical Fallacy Recap

I've posted one of these per week (more or less) for about 6 months.  Here's the whole banana:

Logical Fallacy #24 - Middle Ground

  

This is the big one, kids.  We get this one every day in every way.  This is what gives us the bullshit of "Both Sides" that we see and hear from the Press Poodles all the time.

It doesn't mean nobody should ever compromise on anything.  It just means that some things are in fact black or white, right or wrong, up or down, true or false.  And we have to be well-informed enough to be able to spot the Fallacy when it pops up.

Argument to moderation (Latin: argumentum ad temperantiam; also known as [argument from] middle ground, false compromise, gray fallacy and the golden mean fallacy)[1] is an informal fallacy which asserts that the truth can be found as a compromise between two opposite positions. This fallacy's opposite is the false dilemma

An individual operating within the false compromise fallacy believes that the positions being considered represent extremes of a continuum of opinions, and that such extremes are always wrong, and the middle ground is always correct.[1] This is not always the case. Sometimes only X or Y is acceptable, with no middle ground possible. Additionally, the middle ground fallacy can create the rather illogical situation that the middle ground reached in the previous compromise now becomes the new extreme in the continuum of opinions; all one must do is present yet another, radically opposed position, and the middle-ground compromise will be forced closer to that position. In politics, this is part of the basis behind Overton window theory.

Logical Fallacy #23 - The Texas Sharpshooter

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are stressed. From this reasoning a false conclusion is inferred.[1] This fallacy is the philosophical/rhetorical application of the multiple comparisons problem (in statistics) and apophenia (in cognitive psychology). It is related to the clustering illusion, which refers to the tendency in human cognition to interpret patterns where none actually exist.

The name comes from a joke about a Texan who fires some shots at the side of a barn, then paints a target centered on the biggest cluster of hits and claims to be a sharpshooter.[2][3]

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy often arises when a person has a large amount of data at their disposal, but only focuses on a small subset of that data. Some factor other than the one attributed may give all the elements in that subset some kind of common property (or pair of common properties, when arguing for correlation). If the person attempts to account for the likelihood of finding some subset in the large data with some common property by a factor other than its actual cause, then that person is likely committing a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

The fallacy is characterized by a lack of a specific hypothesis prior to the gathering of data, or the formulation of a hypothesis only after data have already been gathered and examined.[4] Thus, it typically does not apply if one had an ex ante, or prior, expectation of the particular relationship in question before examining the data. For example one might, prior to examining the information, have in mind a specific physical mechanism implying the particular relationship. One could then use the information to give support or cast doubt on the presence of that mechanism. Alternatively, if additional information can be generated using the same process as the original information, one can use the original information to construct a hypothesis, and then test the hypothesis on the new data. See hypothesis testing. What one cannot do is use the same information to constructand test the same hypothesis (see hypotheses suggested by the data) — to do so would be to commit the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

Logical Fallacy #22 - Anecdotal

The expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes. Because of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.[1][2] Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a generalized claim; it is, however, perfectly acceptable for claims regarding a particular instance. Anecdotal evidence is no more than a type description (i.e., short narrative), and is often confused in discussions with its weight, or other considerations, as to the purpose(s) for which it is used. This is true regardless of the veracity of individual claims.[3][4][5]

The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Some anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is an informal fallacy and is sometimes referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc. Compare with hasty generalization). Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a "typical" experience; in fact, human cognitive biases such as confirmation bias mean that exceptional or confirmatory anecdotes are much more likely to be remembered. Accurate determination of whether an anecdote is "typical" requires statistical evidence.[6][7]

Logical Fallacy #21 - Appeal To Nature

Some people use the phrase "naturalistic fallacy" or "appeal to nature" to characterize inferences of the form "This behaviour is natural; therefore, this behaviour is morally acceptable" or "This property is unnatural; therefore, this property is undesireable." Such inferences are common in discussions of homosexuality, environmentalism and veganism.

The naturalistic fallacy is the idea that what is found in nature is good. It was the basis for Social Darwinism, the belief that helping the poor and sick would get in the way of evolution, which depends on the survival of the fittest. Today, biologists denounce the Naturalistic Fallacy because they want to describe the natural world honestly, without people deriving morals about how we ought to behave (as in: If birds and beasts engage in adultery, infanticide, cannibalism, it must be OK). The moralistic fallacy is that what is good is found in nature. It lies behind the bad science in nature-documentary voiceovers: lions are mercy-killers of the weak and sick, mice feel no pain when cats eat them, dung beetles recycle dung to benefit the ecosystem and so on. It also lies behind the romantic belief that humans cannot harbor desires to kill, rape, lie, or steal because that would be too depressing or reactionary.[5]

Today's Christianist

Ya can't be "a true Christian" if you don't vote Republican.



hat tip = Mock Paper Scissors

Meet Ryan Anderson

Ryan Anderson is the young gun occupying the William E Simon chair at The Rich Boy Vanity Project Heritage Foundation - the guy's a piece of work.

Quick Recap: The point here is supposed to be about pushing the Phobes at Heritage to defend their stoopid - ie: Marriage Inequality within the IRS Code.  So the questioner asks why he shouldn't be allowed to file a joint tax return with his husband just like all the straight couples get to do - and behold the awesomeness beginning at about 1:00:



Anderson uses Slippery Slope to build a Straw Man made of Special Pleading, and finishes it off with a near-brilliant Tu Quoque flourish, just before he deploys Begging The Question as a lead-up to blaming the victim (it's your own fault because you wanna marry the wrong person).

Once you know what you're looking for, it gets easier to find.

hat tip = Mock Paper Scissors

Logical Fallacy #20 - Begging The Question

Begging the question means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.[1]

The term "begging the question" originated in the 16th century as a mistranslation of Latin petitio principii "assuming the initial point".[2] In modern vernacular usage, "to beg the question" is sometimes used to mean "to raise the question" (as in "This begs the question of whether...") or "to dodge the question".[2]

Logical Fallacy #19 - Black Or White

A false dilemma (also called black-and/or-white thinking, bifurcation, denying a conjunct, the either-or fallacy, false dichotomy, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, the fallacy of false choice, the fallacy of the false alternative, or the fallacy of the excluded middle) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The opposite of this fallacy is argument to moderation.

The options may be a position that is between two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be completely different alternatives. Phrasing that implies two options (dilemma, dichotomy, black-and-white) may be replaced with other number-based nouns, such as a "false trilemma" if something is reduced to only three options, instead of two.

False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice (such as, in some contexts, the assertion that "if you are not with us, you are against us"). But the fallacy can also arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception.

Logical Fallacy #18 - Genetic

The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1] is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.

The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question.[2] Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are irrelevant to its merits.[3]

Logical Fallacy #17 - No True Scotsman

No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"),[2] creating an implied tautology. It can also be used to create unnecessary requirements.

A simple rendition of the fallacy:[3]

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

Person B: "I am Scottish, and I put sugar on my porridge."

"Person A: "Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

A cited example of a political application of the fallacy was asserting that "no democracy starts a war", then distinguishing between mature or "true" democracies, which never start wars, and "emerging democracies", which may start them.[4]

Logical Fallacy #16 - Composition and Division

The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part). For example: "This fragment of metal cannot be fractured with a hammer, therefore the machine of which it is a part cannot be fractured with a hammer." This is clearly fallacious, because many machines can be broken apart, without any of those parts being able to be fractured.

This fallacy is often confused with the fallacy of hasty generalization, in which an unwarranted inference is made from a statement about a sample to a statement about the population from which it is drawn.

The fallacy of composition is the converse of the fallacy of division.

A fallacy of division occurs when one reasons logically that something true for the whole must also be true of all or some of its parts.

An example:
A Boeing 747 can fly unaided across the ocean.
A Boeing 747 has jet engines.
Therefore, one of its jet engines can fly unaided across the ocean.

Logical Fallacy #15 - Appeal To Authority

Argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ab auctoritate), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.[1]

In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism.[2] The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:

A is an authority on a particular topic

A says something about that topic

A is probably correct

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence,[2][3][4][5] as, while authorities can be correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons,[citation needed] they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.[6]