Trash Reasoning and Political Extremism

[oldbadger]

Trash reasoning and political extremism.

@Sunstone , I did read all of your OP. I want an award for that before we start.

The trouble with any attempted connection with the above is thus:-
1.Political opponents often accuse the targeted group of extremism. This title can be tagged just anywhere.
2. Trash reasoning is to be discovered in the most moderate of minds.

The woman who sprayed Lysol on to somebody's was never a cause of trash reasoning. She would (or should) have been arrested, charged, tried for causing actual bodily harm. Here defence solicitor would have appealed on her behalf that her reasoning was trashy and not criminal. So you got that idea wrong.

The man who planned to bomb a hospital, if his plans extended to show a clear intention, he would or should have been arrested for either attempted murder or a terrorist offence or both. His defence counsel would have appealed to the court that his reasoning was trash, mental illness etc. So you got that wrong.

To propose that either act was trash reasoning is exactly a defence for the actions of both persons, and therefore your idea is quite wrong, unless you are teaching defence lawyers.

But will you see that? How is your reasoning?

 

[Sunstone]

Trash reasoning and political extremism.

@Sunstone , I did read all of your OP. I want an award for that before we start.

If there were a civilian equivalent of the Purple Heart Medal for being wounded in combat, I would put you up for it.

The trouble with any attempted connection with the above is thus:-
1.Political opponents often accuse the targeted group of extremism. This title can be tagged just anywhere.
2. Trash reasoning is to be discovered in the most moderate of minds.

The woman who sprayed Lysol on to somebody's was never a cause of trash reasoning. She would (or should) have been arrested, charged, tried for causing actual bodily harm. Here defence solicitor would have appealed on her behalf that her reasoning was trashy and not criminal. So you got that idea wrong.

The man who planned to bomb a hospital, if his plans extended to show a clear intention, he would or should have been arrested for either attempted murder or a terrorist offence or both. His defence counsel would have appealed to the court that his reasoning was trash, mental illness etc. So you got that wrong.

To propose that either act was trash reasoning is exactly a defence for the actions of both persons, and therefore your idea is quite wrong, unless you are teaching defence lawyers.

But will you see that? How is your reasoning?

I'm afraid you have misunderstood my point. I was not at all arguing that the woman or man themselves were engaged in trash reasoning. I was arguing that interpreting their actions as equivalent acts of violence was trash reasoning.

Thank you for your time and effort.

 

[oldbadger]

If there were a civilian equivalent of the Purple Heart Medal for being wounded in combat, I would put you up for it.

Wannit!
I was a awarded a bronze medal for something (on RF) and @Revoltingest got it confiscated because (he said) I cheated. So I will want my RF purple heart!

I'm afraid you have misunderstood my point. I was not at all arguing that the woman or man themselves were engaged in trash reasoning. I was arguing that interpreting their actions as equivalent acts of violence was trash reasoning.

Thank you for your time and effort.

What is an 'Equivalent Act of Violence'?
While you think about some kind of answer for that, let me explain something to you:-

'Trash Reasoning' is caused by 'Loss of Reason of the Mind' and anybody who demonstrates this condition is therefore 'by definition' an innocent person! Ask any legal defense team.

Both examples that you gave were not caused by trash reasoning, they were caused by deliberate or reckless intent whilst in full control of all senses. Otherwise the perpetrators get away with the offences.

What you did in your OP was actually provide a DEFENCE for both disgusting actions.

 

[Sunstone]

'Trash Reasoning' is caused by 'Loss of Reason of the Mind' and anybody who demonstrates this condition is therefore 'by definition' an innocent person! Ask any legal defense team.

Both examples that you gave were not caused by trash reasoning, they were caused by deliberate or reckless intent whilst in full control of all senses. Otherwise the perpetrators get away with the offences.

What you did in your OP was actually provide a DEFENCE for both disgusting actions.

Again, I fear you have not understood the OP. I am not making the claims you assert I am making.

 

[Stevicus]

Therefore, to suggest that the Lysol-spraying woman and the wannabe bomber man were equally motivated by their respective political parties is trash reasoning.

To sum up, trash reasoning is rampant these days in politics. All of us indulge in it some of the time, some of us indulge in it all of the time, but not all of us indulge in it all of the time. Those of us of good faith an intentions would do well to be on our guard against it. Being human, we will never be entirely free of it -- no matter which side of the political aisle we are on -- but I do think that by keeping our guard up, we can lessen how often we indulge in it.

Comments?

I think it might be a case where some people see "trash reasoning" - and observe that it somehow works on a large number of people. So, they think, "well, if they can do it, we can do it." That, in and of itself, might qualify as trash reasoning, or it may be a case of thinking that two wrongs might make a right.

What I've noticed a lot is that it's easier to attack or argue against another person's position than it is to positively argue for one's own position. Both sides seem hellbent on wanting to trash the other and make the other side look bad, as if that's far more important than actually arguing for something.

 

[Sunstone]

I think it might be a case where some people see "trash reasoning" - and observe that it somehow works on a large number of people. So, they think, "well, if they can do it, we can do it." That, in and of itself, might qualify as trash reasoning, or it may be a case of thinking that two wrongs might make a right.

What I've noticed a lot is that it's easier to attack or argue against another person's position than it is to positively argue for one's own position. Both sides seem hellbent on wanting to trash the other and make the other side look bad, as if that's far more important than actually arguing for something.

I wish I could give your post two "winner" ratings, rather than just one.

 

[oldbadger]

Again, I fear you have not understood the OP. I am not making the claims you assert I am making.

Your Thread Title destroyed your proposals from the start, because 'trash reasoning' is all about 'loss of reason of mind', so if you were not wanting to talk about forms of mental disability you messed up your title.

If you are wanting to tell us that political extremism is about mental disability then 'fair enough', but I would hate that idea as well because I need governments to think that political extremism is not about madness, but about deliberate intentional criminal terrorism, with no chance of acquittal.

 

[Stevicus]

I wish I could give your post two "winner" ratings, rather than just one.

I'll give you one, then.

 

[Stevicus]

Your Thread Title destroyed your proposals from the start, because 'trash reasoning' is all about 'loss of reason of mind', so if you were not wanting to talk about forms of mental disability you messed up your title.

If you are wanting to tell us that political extremism is about mental disability then 'fair enough', but I would hate that idea as well because I need governments to think that political extremism is not about madness, but about deliberate intentional criminal terrorism, with no chance of acquittal.

If I may, I think it may be about public perceptions of political extremism and the violence that comes with it. That is, the people who are ostensibly using "trash reasoning" are not necessarily violent terrorists or extremists themselves. It's their interpretation and analysis of these incidents which are being called into question.

In the case of the would-be hospital bomber, I would say that definitely qualifies as political extremism of the most heinous sort. Even among extremists, that seems pretty severe. I won't try to analyze the mind of the individual who was planning this attack, although I'm glad he was caught before he could carry it out. Whether it was due to his politics - or whether he's just a sick, mentally-unbalanced individual - that's hard to say.

In the case of the Lysol-spraying woman, it's more a case of impulsive and explosive anger at not being able to buy an extra can of Lysol. I think the latest euphemism these days is "microaggression," but of a more apolitical variety. Politics aside, we live in a capitalist society where whole generations have been raised in the Land of Plenty, with the belief that anyone is allowed to buy whatever they want in whatever quantity they want (although there are certain notable exceptions to this rule). So, when people are told they can't have something, they get upset.

Actually, we could probably expect more street-level incidents if shortages and rationing continue. My dad told me that, back during WW2, people accepted rationing with the idea that we all have to pull together. But now, today's generations just don't have that mentality; it's all "me first" and screw everyone else. I read about hospital employees having fist fights over a shortage of masks.

People are stressed out, anxious, and scared, and this will certainly take its toll on their ability to reason and think rationally. Sadly, I would expect more incidents like this. I don't know if I would call it "terrorism" or "extremism" or just plain "insanity" - although I suppose the terms could be associated with each other.

 

[Cooky]

When it comes to politics, none of us need be too proud of our intellectual prowess. To steal from Abraham Lincoln, "All of us are dumb some of the time, some of us are dumb all of the time, but we are not all of us dumb all of the time."

Having said that, I do believe it can be reasonably argued that we live in a day and age when being dumb is almost systematically encouraged by highly partisan media outlets such as Alternet, Fox News, the Huffington Post, the Drudge Report, and so forth. Those sources dumb us down -- and that's not just my opinion. Scientific studies have shown that at least some of them actually make people less likely to know the truth than those folks who consume little or no news from any media source at all.

In short, trash reasoning is rampant these days and often fueled by media outlets. Talking heads that cannot themselves reason well do not encourage their viewers to reason well. Most people do not learn how to reason in university courses in logic, general semantics, or some other such disciplines. They learn to reason by observing and aping the way other people reason.

In a very rough and approximate sense, the large group of people who reason like trash when it comes to politics can be further divided into at least two subgroups of people:

(1) Those folks whose reasoning about politics is trash but who cannot help it that their reasoning is trash, and

(2) Those folks whose reasoning about politics is trash but who can indeed help it that their reasoning is trash. ​

To the first group belong those who indulge in trash reasoning and are naturally dumb. To the second group belong the vast majority who indulge in trash reasoning and are naturally smart enough to do better, but who -- for one reason or another -- are not motivated to do better. The lazy thinkers among us.

Please allow me to illustrate:

One form of trash reasoning is to habitually see an equivalence between things that are not actually equivalent. We all do that now and then, of course, but some of us practically make a profession of it.

Take, for instance, a couple of news stories that both came out in late March around the 25th or so of the month. In one story, a woman sprayed Lysol disinfectant into the eyes of a grocery store check-out clerk. In the other story, a man planning to bomb a hospital in the hope of creating "massive causalities" was prevented from doing so. Clearly, it is trash reasoning to suggest that the two degrees of violence are more or less on the same level of significance or importance. Yet that is exactly how some people reason these days.

Let us assume for the sake of illustration that the Lysol-sprayer was a Democrat. We know for a fact that the wannabe bomber was active in at least two right-wing extremist organizations. With that said, it would be trash reasoning to assume that because both people were aligned with (different) political parties, both people were equally motivated by the ideologies of their respective parties to commit or attempt their crimes.

The right-wing extremist organizations that the wannabe bomber was active in openly support and encourage the use of violence to achieve political goals.

The Democratic Party does not support -- openly or otherwise -- the use of violence to achieve political goals. Indeed, the Democratic Party is actively and officially opposed to the use of violence to achieve political goals.

Therefore, to suggest that the Lysol-spraying woman and the wannabe bomber man were equally motivated by their respective political parties is trash reasoning.

To sum up, trash reasoning is rampant these days in politics. All of us indulge in it some of the time, some of us indulge in it all of the time, but not all of us indulge in it all of the time. Those of us of good faith an intentions would do well to be on our guard against it. Being human, we will never be entirely free of it -- no matter which side of the political aisle we are on -- but I do think that by keeping our guard up, we can lessen how often we indulge in it.

Comments?




___________________________________

With all due respect to Rule 3 section 2, and to @Sunstone himself, I feel like trash reasoning runs rampant among the CNN watchers as well, because if people "ape" those they see on TV, then what people learn from CNN is: "Trump, Trump, Trump is this, that and the other thing", and a very few other odds and ends, and we see that here, everyday, and that's what Rev and I have been complaining about.

So in a sense, you're our equal opposite in creating this thread, since you seem to be opposed to people developing their debate style from the mainstream media as well. So, hello over there...! Welcome to the peak.

But what I personally enjoy, is not unifying in knowledge, but creativity in individual exploration, and I invite everyone to try it without condemnation. Without ridicule. Without harassment, even if CNN or FOX news tell us it's "idiotic", "stupid", or "trash". Let's be creative and not be polly parrots.

‐---‐--------------------------------------------------

 

[Revoltingest]

I think it might be a case where some people see "trash reasoning" - and observe that it somehow works on a large number of people. So, they think, "well, if they can do it, we can do it." That, in and of itself, might qualify as trash reasoning, or it may be a case of thinking that two wrongs might make a right.

What I've noticed a lot is that it's easier to attack or argue against another person's position than it is to positively argue for one's own position. Both sides seem hellbent on wanting to trash the other and make the other side look bad, as if that's far more important than actually arguing for something.

I think that someone groks the Lysol thread.
A little performance art never hurt anyone.

I'm reminded of something Freud once said...
"Sometimes an assault is just an assault."
It's not right. It's just a way of seeing things.

 

[Cooky]

I think that someone groks the Lysol thread.
A little performance art never hurt anyone.

.

That's one of the qualities I like best about you, Rev. You're not a follower. You tend to forge your own ways, and it's done logically.

It's a quality I hope others adopt. But as long as people follow their favorite news casters, or pundits, regardless of tribe, they'll fail in that regard.

 

[Cooky]

...I'm a big fan of developing one's *own* conscience. And I tend oppose those who follow 'the script', out of my own principles.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's one of the qualities I like best about you, Rev. You're not a follower. You tend to forge your own ways, and it's done logically.

It's a quality I hope others adopt. But as long as people follow their favorite news casters, regardless of tribe, they'll fail in that regard.

I am just a pinball inexorably following the
trajectory assigned by the flippers of life.

 

[Cooky]

I am just a pinball inexorably following the
trajectory assigned by the flippers of life.

Yet unlike a pinball, you speak about what you see from your point of view as you move along. If every pinball did that, rather than just saying they're a pinball, then this forum would be very smart machine.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

(what a curious thread)

 

[Revoltingest]

Yet unlike a pinball, you speak about what you see from your point of view as you move along. If every pinball did that, rather than just saying they're a pinball, then this forum would be very smart machine.

You're very generous.
But how could I post other than I do?
As I see it, everyone posts as they believe.
If some share a perspective with many others, that's not
necessarily following any herd, ie, being a "sheeple" as
is oft said. They might be very thoughtful about how they
arrived at their beliefs & values.
My path is perhaps a bit bumpier & more scattered than
it is for some. (I'm also mocking the predestination vs
free will debate, which is much like counting angels on
the head of a pin.)

 

[Cooky]

You're very generous.
But how could I post other than I do?
As I see it, everyone posts as they believe.
If some share a perspective with many others, that's not
necessarily following any herd, ie, being a "sheeple" as
is oft said. They might be very thoughtful about how they
arrived at their beliefs & values.
My path is perhaps a bit bumpier & more scattered than
it is for some. (I'm also mocking the predestination vs
free will debate, which is much like counting angels on
the head of a pin.)

Well, that's an interesting thought I'd enjoy going into if I had the time.

 

[Stevicus]

I think that someone groks the Lysol thread.
A little performance art never hurt anyone.

I'm reminded of something Freud once said...
"Sometimes an assault is just an assault."
It's not right. It's just a way of seeing things.

I think some people are just screwed up in the head to begin with and act out on impulse. I don't think their politics, if they have any, would have anything to do with it. However, I can see where some might use it as a vehicle in order to find some excuse to do something they probably would want to do anyway.

This is why I tend to resist such terms as "radicalized," since it implies that someone who was otherwise normal, sane, and well-adjusted was suddenly transformed because they read some book or browsed some website. I tend to think they were already messed up to begin with, before they ever picked that book or came across that website.

 

[Cooky]

I think some people are just screwed up in the head to begin with and act out on impulse. I don't think their politics, if they have any, would have anything to do with it. However, I can see where some might use it as a vehicle in order to find some excuse to do something they probably would want to do anyway.

This is why I tend to resist such terms as "radicalized," since it implies that someone who was otherwise normal, sane, and well-adjusted was suddenly transformed because they read some book or browsed some website. I tend to think they were already messed up to begin with, before they ever picked that book or came across that website.

True, some are. But as @Sunstone pointed out, there really are people who can do better. For instance, I once was a triumphalist Catholic... It's no longer the case.

...But as @Sunstone also pointed out, there are others who would not be able to accomplish that goal, due to some internal predisposition.

Case in point, if some can come out of something radical, others can come into something radical.