No. of Recommendations: 22
"I really want to rec your post, but I can't. I make it a policy not to rec anything that calls someone an idiot (or similar), even if I agree with the rest of the post (or, occasionally, the ad-hom used)."
I want to tell a few quick stories that will seem random but I will try my hardest to tie together at the end:
1.) The major theme of Issac Anisimov's "I, Robot" is the primary laws governing the programming of robots. The laws are there to protect humans from robots. However these laws can be caried out to absurd extremes to show a world where Robots enslave and lock up humans in order to protect humans from themselves. It is about robots and programming, but the lessons can be used in any governance model. Take any set of governing belief systems or rules and push the boundaries to absurd extremes and that governance model will break down and be ineffectual. Oftentimes to the point where it can be distorted to give results which are directly contrary to the purpose of the governance model.
For example, reputable media sources have been going through a bit of an existential crisis. The goal of reputable media sources is to inform its consumers about what is happening in the world. To do this, reputable media uses a governance model that tries to remove as much personal bias from the content created. This is easy when dealing with facts ("Just the facts, ma'am"), but when presenting opinions, the governance model directs reputable media to give equal time to alternative opinions. People like Trump take advantage of this type of governance model by blurring the difference between a fact and opinion. For example, in scientific circles it is pretty much a given fact that the actions of mankind have affected the climate of earth. However, all someone has to do is pretend that this isn't a scientific fact, and that there is some controversy and it is instead an opinion. Therefore according to the governance model of reputable media sources, these nutty alternative theories (which have zero basis in science) deserve equal coverage.
This renders media sources that try to be reputable to become ineffectual. It gets caught up trying to figure out what is fact, what is opinion, and most media is not qualified to tell the difference, so it defaults to presenting "both sides". As a result, most media sources that try to be reputable when covering mankind's effect on climate end up being near useless and ineffectual. They do not inform their consumers about the world. They confuse it. The governance model that reputable media tries to follow has been pushed beyond its limits.
2.) In my undergraduate years, I was a computer science major. I flirted with getting a minor in philosophy. As a computer science major, I was drawn to the logical argument aspects of philosophy. My favorite class was a logic course. During that course we would build more and more logical arguments (If A exists, then B. A Exists so therefore B exists as well). We also learned various logical fallacies and when they applied and when they didn't, etc. I learned a lot. However, one of the biggest things I learned about that material happened outside of the classroom. Both I and the Professor that taught the class played volleyball. So we would often see each other at various tournaments. When we were at these tournaments, we would have lots of time to discuss various things when waiting to pay in the games. Given that I had taken his class, I always tried to inject "logic" into our discussions by using phrases and keywords that I learned in the class.
One day he called me out on it. He correctly pointed out that there were severe limitations to the philosophical logic when applied to the real world. Basically the two biggest problems are that such discussions either end up getting lost in the details of the given logic (i.e. how many angels can dance on the head of a pin), or it runs into the same problem that science has; you cannot prove something true, only false. There is always alternative logic.
3.) I understand what you mean and why you are saying what you are saying in the part I quoted of your post above. I even agree with it in most situations. Ad hom arguments are not logically sound arguments, therefore they shouldn't be recognized or given any type of credit. When I am making logical arguments in order to convince someone of my viewpoint, I would never use an ad him type of argument. I have had disagreements with Albaby1, Mungofitch, and a host of other luminaries on this board as well as the old Fool boards. Never used ad homs in those situations.
What you fail to realize is that I wasn't intending to make a logical argument in the post you replied to. The poster and I are beyond that. There are some posters who are immune to logical arguments (i.e. teaching pigs to sing). I was pointing out repeated stupid behavior (touching the hot stove for the 999th time and wondering why they got burned, using poor sources of information that regularly misinform them). Stupid is as stupid does.
4.) As a logical scientist, I know you want arguments to be decided by logic, reason, and evidence. You like to think that the most supported, logically sounds argument should win. So your governance model drives to you only accept and credit logically sound, evidence supported views. That is fine in academic settings, but I think there are some areas where that is rendering you (and others like you) ineffectual.
The U.S. (and therefore the world) is in a crisis. As a metaphor, as a nation we are in a wooden boat that has taken on some water. There is discussion on what to be done about it. Some people (let's call them the MAGAdrillers) think it would be a good idea to drill holes in the bottom of the hull and let the water drain down into the ocean. Numerous people have explained why that is a bad idea. That the weight of everyone on the boat would just push the hull deeper into the water and the drilled holes would no longer allow the hull to provide buoyancy and keep us afloat. Instead it would accelerate the rate that we sank. People have tried explaining the physics of the forces involved. Others have demonstrated what happens with miniature model boats. Others have explained why alternative options are better (bailing the water out with buckets). Nothing is getting through. They just keep saying that putting holes in the bottom of the hull will drain the boat. They start drilling holes and the boat starts sinking faster with each hole drilled. Finally people try and move the discussion beyond drilling holes in the bottom of the hull by calling the idea stupid, dismissing those who advocate doing it, and moving on.
Point is the U.S. and what made it such a great country is being destroyed by idiots who still can't figure out why they burn their hands when they touch a hot stove. Due process has gone by the wayside, corruption is become the norm. Rule of Law means nothing. Debt is exploding. Rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Americans are directly being made poorer by those in charge (look at the dollar). People are literally dying unnecessarily due to the administration in charge.
I think one of the reasons this is happening is that the governance systems of the institutions that protect the country have been rendered ineffectual. The majority of the country that disagree with what is being done is ineffectual because they keep getting hung up on trying to reason and not show bias to the people who disagree with them despite the fact that those concepts are meaningless to them.
There are many reasons non-MAGA people have a problem getting their views through to the populace. However I think one of the major reasons is that they allow themselves to get tripped up by their governance systems and follow concepts that might be a good idea in normal times but are ineffectual now.
Sometimes it is better to call a stupid idea stupid and move on rather than explain to the non-capable, stupid person for the 82349829 time why their view is not logical and doesn't work.
