Political Fallacies: Yes, Virginia, We're All Hypocrites

I have bad news for you.  You're a hypocrite.  Yes, the epithet Jesus consistently applied to his enemies also applies to you.  Think I'm wrong?  Consider this:

• If you're "Pro-Life" on abortion, odds are you support the Death Penalty
• If you're "Pro-Choice" on abortion, odds are you oppose choice when it comes to Gun Ownership

"But," You shout, "You're oversimplifying these issues!  These are complex problems that can't be completely covered by a label!"

Exactly.

If you've spent any time at all in the politics of late, you see one kind of story shared and re-shared relentlessly, whether it be on social media, blogs, or traditional media.  The basic template is this:

1. Such-and-So said this about a political issue
2. The same person also said the opposite about a different political issue
3. This proves they are a hypocrite
4. Therefore, you should ignore everything Such-and-So says

This technique combines three different kinds of logical fallacy:

1. Genetic Fallacy:  Discrediting an argument by going after a person instead of addressing the ideas they raise.
2. Straw Man Fallacy:  Discrediting an argument by presenting an oversimplified and incorrect version of it.  
3. Whataboutism:  Discrediting an argument by raising another issue that is irrelevant but alarming, instead of addressing the ideas they raise. 

Make no mistake.  The originators of these posts know exactly what they are doing.  They are trying to get you to stop listening to their opponent and walk away.  It's the laziest way to win an argument.

What is the problem with this?  

1. A confidence artist convinced you to turn off your brain.
2. It's impossible to convince an opponent you never engage with.
3. It's impossible to learn anything unless you engage those you disagree with.

My challenge to you:  STOP WORRYING ABOUT WHETHER YOUR OPPONENT IS A HYPOCRITE AND ENGAGE THEIR IDEAS.  YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE; YOU JUST HAVE TO LISTEN HONESTLY.  You may be surprised to learn your opponent has a point... or you may find an opportunity to show them your side of the issue.

Is CBS surprised by offended viewers?

I am not sure how many Mod-Blog readers have seen posts by the Twitter feed "#### My Dad Says", but it is a darkly funny feed of intensely politically-incorrect and profanity laden quotes from one man's father. Many were surprised when CBS bought the rights to turn the feed into a Sitcom. Now CBS is acting surprised that some viewers are offended by a show with a profanity right in its title.

CBS will promote the show verbally with the word "bleep" instead of the profanity in ads -- as in, "Bleep My Dad Says."

But the network doesn't need to spell out of one George Carlin's famous Seven Words You Can Never Say on TV for viewers to decode the the title. Having a broadcast network air a comedy with a semi-quasi-it's-there-but-not profanity may also make it tougher for the network to wrangle advertisers...

CBS maintains that the show itself will be perfectly suitable for family viewing.

CBS knows exactly what it is doing, and is gambling on hooking the profitable 18-25 year old demographic based on this stunt. My guess? Endless meddling as the network tries to thread the needle on this one will doom the show to a single season, despite the talents of William Shatner.

Sidestepping Statues of Limitation via DNA

There is an aspect of American law which is not often covered in Law-and-Order type shows - the statute of limitations. Most crimes have a length of time in which they must be prosecuted. If the State is unable to try a suspect by that time limit, it is out of luck.

Defense attorneys argue that statues of limitations exist for a reason -- if a person is charged with a crime after too long a period, it may be difficult to defend against the charges. "People’s memories fade" and "witnesses move and can’t be found," Bauer reports at the KC Star.

This is an important protection in our system where any suspect is "presumed innocent until proven guilty". (Please note, capital crimes like murder have no statute of limitations.) But a new disturbing trend is beginning to emerge. Prosecutors looking to get around the law by charging the DNA found in crimes in absence of an actual person. This allows the search for an actual person to go on indefinitely, and effectively removes a critical protection in our legal system.

Citizenship revoked after 29 years as an American

We are often quick to point out the holes in keeping out illegal immigrants in the current system. But the fact is that the U.S. Immigration system is just as broken in dealing fairly with LEGAL immigrants. Consider the case of Angela Boneva, who was granted citizenship in 1981 only to be told now that she "was never a citizen". And all of her attempts to get clarification have come to naught as she faces an implacable, uncaring bureaucracy.

After she sought to renew her U.S. passport in 2003, the State Department informed her that a consular employee's decision to give her citizenship in 1981 broke a rule dictating that her father had to have lived in the U.S. for 10 years before she was born. His time in the U.S. before moving to Bulgaria totaled only six years.

But the letter pointed out, that same residency requirement was reduced in 1986 to five years, so someone in her position would be eligible for citizenship today — though not her.

Boneva received a form letter in 2003 saying "it does not appear" that she qualifies as a citizen anymore. She has made repeated but vain attempts to get a definitive answer from U.S. authorities. But just last month, she was sent the very same form letter again — this time with another woman's photograph stapled above her name. That letter recommended Boneva contact another U.S. agency, which had already turned her away.

Immigration turned out to be a "third rail" issue for President George W. Bush. But we need to bite the bullet and come to grips with a system that is short on justice and long on outrage

House Guidelines: You can't call the President a Liar

The "You Lie" fiasco was in horrible taste, simply wrong, and bad strategy. But it has been amusing seeing the Democratic Party falling all over themselves to condemn the outburst, after having spent most of the last 8 years calling President George W. Bush a liar on the floor of the House over the Iraq War. The latest is a new "primer" which specifically admonishes congresspeople to NOT call the president a liar. Here's hoping the same rule is put forth by the Democrats when a Republican is president. But I doubt it.

Was the Lockerbie Bomber freed for oil?

It is said that Lord Palmerston once said, "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests." His words seem trenchant in light of new allegations out of the United Kingdom that the Lockerbie Bomber was freed, not for compassionate reasons, but in order to advance Britain's oil interests.

Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards...Two letters dated five months apart show that Straw initially intended to exclude Megrahi from a prisoner transfer agreement with Colonel Muammar Gadaffi, under which British and Libyan prisoners could serve out their sentences in their home country...Straw then switched his position as Libya used its deal with BP as a bargaining chip to insist the Lockerbie bomber was included.

The exploration deal for oil and gas, potentially worth up to £15 billion, was announced in May 2007. Six months later the agreement was still waiting to be ratified.

It is this kind of intermarriage between ethics and business that makes so many distrust government. How can we trust faceless bureaucrats with our health, education, and wealth when we can't even trust them to punish the guilty when justice become inconvenient to business interests?

Do as I SAY not as I do!

A major disconnect between the Right and Left on the issue of Health Care Reform is our relative trust of government. The Left tends to see government as made up of well-intentioned activists, looking to do what is right without regard to personal profit. The Right tends to see government as a necessary evil, run by people who ultimately do what we all do - look for ways to make their own jobs easier, even at the expense of others. This is, in my opinion, the source of the "Death Panel" quote that has been attributed to Sarah Palin. She is not talking about what has been proposed, but the logical extension of many of the proposals, once bureaucracy has gotten ahold of them.

For those on the Left who do not understand this attitude, consider this story about the State of California. The State, in the middle of a financial crisis of historical proportions, had put off its debt holders with IOUs which promise payment at a future date. This allows the state government to spread out payments to manage its cash flow. Seems reasonable, right? The problem is, they have one set of rules for themselves and another for the People. If you have been paid with an IOU, you are expected to pay Income Tax on the IOU. But the State won't take their own IOUs as payment!

Consider if you are a company whose only customer is the State of California. You may now be shut down for non-payment of taxes because the government won't pay you!

These are the kinds of "Hypocrisy Overload" scenarios that create nightmares in the minds of Health Care Reform opponents.

Manliness

From The Doghouse Diaries.

Who Chooses the Church?

The news about the Episcopal Church formally lifting the ban on ordaining practicing homosexuals as bishops makes me wonder if Americans are losing their ability to sense hypocrisy. Americans demand the right to customize everything to our tastes. Don't like a black or white iPhone? We can recolor it. Don't like the standard burger? Have it your way! Don't like the way your house looks? We can match any color you do like! But when God makes a claim about how He wants His Church to work, we feel a right to contradict Him and decide He can't have it the way He wants.

I am sick of debating the biological/psychological origins of homosexuality, the political implications of it, and the comparative studies of homosexuality in ancient Israel versus today. They are beside the point. The Bible is quite clear on how God wants the Church to work.

Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being am overseer [a pastor or elder], he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.
1Timothy 3:1-7

Please note, heterosexuality is not the only qualification in this list. A pastor must also be shown to be gentle, not a big drinker, a good father, a long-time believer, and must have a good reputation (which even disqualifies anyone who has a bad reputation that is NOT EARNED). But heterosexuality and monogamy are clearly qualifications. Ordaining practicing homosexuals is ignoring this prescription (as would ordaining an alcoholic or someone with a child who is a criminal or even someone unwilling to entertain in their home).

But does God really care about this "fringe issue"? Doesn't He give people a lot of latitude in their styles of worship? The Bible shows Him giving latitude to the masses, and not to those who would be leaders. Consider the death of Aaron's sons who God killed for worshiping Him in a way other than He had prescribed. It was not that they were being disrespectful, not that they were worshiping other gods, not that they were even coming with some unconfessed sin. They simply worshiped in a way other than God required. Or in the New Testament consider Ananias and Sapphira who were killed for lying about the offering they gave to God. It was not that the offering was insufficient, it was not that the money offered was in any way "bad", it was not even that there was some other defect in them. They simply lied about the offering, presenting it in a way that was other than God required.

The ordination of bishops is the selection of leaders for God's church. Doesn't He have the right to decide who gets to serve and who does not?

Heads I Win, Tails You Lose

Honestly, I have been having this same thought. From here.

Did PETA save animals or kill them?

For years, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have set themselves up as the ultimate spokespeople for animals in their interactions with humans. They have attacked celebrities who wear fur, they have criticized pet owners, and they have lambasted meat-eaters as mass murderers. Now, a new report is questioning this stand by noting how few pets turned over to PETA survived the experience.

According to public records from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, PETA killed 2,124 pets last year and placed only seven in adoptive homes. Since 1998, a total of 21,339 dogs and cats have died at the hands of PETA workers.

Despite having a $32 million budget, PETA does not operate an adoption shelter. PETA employees make no discernible effort to find homes for the thousands of pets they kill every year. Last year, the Center for Consumer Freedom petitioned Virginia’s State Veterinarian to reclassify PETA as a slaughterhouse.

It should be noted this release was NOT from an uninterested third-party, but rather an organization that has attacked PETA in the past. Still, the report appears to be quite damning.

You cannot serve two masters

Hat-tip to Sean for posting this one on twitter. Apparently, there is an Episcopal priest in Seattle who is being defrocked for a simple reason. She has converted to Islam. And yet, apparently she is fighting the move.

Ann Holmes Redding, who marks the 25th anniversary of her ordination on March 25, says she believes she can practice both faiths and should not have to recant her Muslim beliefs...

Wolf has told Redding that her conversion to Islam constitutes an abandonment of the Christian faith and she must recant by March 30 or lose her status as a priest.

Jesus spoke to this pretty directly in Luke 16:13, "No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other."

Hartford finds a bargain

Working in the Financial Services industry in Connecticut, I hear a lot of scuttlebutt about the Hartford (formerly the Hartford Insurance Group). I have even gotten several job inquiries from them (though I always turn them down because of the rep). I keep hoping they'll surprise me and show a good side. They always disappoint me.

Now, the Hartford is playing Bailout Bingo by buying a bank for $10 million, in order to transform themselves into a company eligible for up to $3.4 billion in bank bailout money.

Here is hoping the regulators are smart enough to recognize this blatant money grab for what it is. I am sure the Hartford's execs are eager to get that cash to pay off their large bonuses.

Who is this guy?

I just have to ask. Is there ANY relation between the guy who ran for President in 2000 and 2004, and the one who is allowing the mutating bailout to continue without any controls? It is like invasion of the body snatchers.

Irony approaching Overload!

Original from Townhall.Com.

Reminder: We are in a Democracy!

I have been saddened and angered by recent reports of people shouting "Kill!" regarding Obama at McCain/Palin rallys. It is also becoming more and more common to hear disappointed or angry Republicans (or Libertarians or Green Party people) saying something to the effect of "Obama won't be *MY* president." There seems to be some sense going around that the choice for President is a personal issue, and that if your preferences are not met, then you have no obligation to offer respect and support to the man in the office. This site has up an excellent write-up that reminds us we that under our system, the man with the most (electoral) votes wins, and thus ends the argument.

And whether Obama wins – if he wins – by one vote or millions shouldn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if you believe the reason he won was because the press was in the tank for him, or ACORN cheated, or McCain didn’t get a fair shake, or any other legitimate or illegitimate reason you can think of. At the very least, Barack Obama will deserve our acknowledgement that he is the legitimate elected president of the United States.

That doesn’t mean we have to slavishly follow him or join his cult like groupies. What it means is that where what he proposes to do is reasonable and doesn’t conflict with our principles, he should expect our support. It means that we don’t have to delegitimize his presidency to oppose him either. People of good will and good conscience can disagree without tearing each other and the country apart. And in this day and age, such an outcome would be unbearable.

I hope to hear statements from both candidates decrying and condemning the "Kill" shouts at the rallys. And I hope that people on both sides can tone down their personal rhetoric and realize that if Obama is elected, he is the President and is due our respect. Even Nancy Pelosi stood behind President Bush on 9/11. If, God forbid, there is another attack during an Obama presidency, we need to stand behind him then.

City to Church: STOP Feeding the Homeless!

There are times when it makes sense to speak up. And there are times when it is wisest to say nothing and look for your own solution. Take, for example, this case where a town had asked local churches to help with homelessness. One church began feeding the homeless, and now the town is asking them to stop.

Peace Lutheran Church has been delivering breakfast items like cereal and juice boxes every Thursday to homeless people in Jubilee Park.

But city council says the free food is also drawing in drug dealers and addicts, who have taken to congregating on the front steps of a seniors' centre next door.

The church says it won't stop.

The town needs to realize that they need to address the underlying causes of these issues, and not attack the church for making the problems visible.

Irony, thy name is "Internet"

Hypocrisy at its finest

And by "under sniper fire", I meant "they gave us flowers"...