Errors in moral reasoning

Events occurring and how they relate/affect Anabaptist faith and culture.
haithabu
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:11 pm
Affiliation: MennoBaptist

Re: Errors in moral reasoning

Postby haithabu » Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:04 pm

Szdfan wrote:I honestly find it a bit jarring for an American conservative to compare himself to the victims of the holocaust. To me, this analogy seems like an error in moral or logical reasoning and its own example of moral panic. I'm not sure exactly why, but this doesn't feel like a solid comparison.


I'm referring to the tactic of using the wrongdoing of a misguided individual (the car attack) to fuel a propaganda offensive against a whole group.
0 x

Bootstrap
Posts: 2302
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Kingdom Christian

Re: Errors in moral reasoning

Postby Bootstrap » Tue Aug 22, 2017 9:08 am

haithabu wrote:
Szdfan wrote:I honestly find it a bit jarring for an American conservative to compare himself to the victims of the holocaust. To me, this analogy seems like an error in moral or logical reasoning and its own example of moral panic. I'm not sure exactly why, but this doesn't feel like a solid comparison.


I'm referring to the tactic of using the wrongdoing of a misguided individual (the car attack) to fuel a propaganda offensive against a whole group.


Well, obviously, the white supremacists, KKK, and Nazis did not all commit murder. But I can't think of anything to praise them for. The governor estimated that 80% of them had semiautomatic weapons and many were better armed than the state police. Swastikas and KKK uniforms were not chosen to express peace and love. So I think they are accountable for their own wrongdoing.

And I really don't think most of the counter protesters were Antifa. Have you seen United We Stand: Charlottesville says No to Hate?

The Unite the Right rally left three people dead and countless injured, both physically and psychologically. We, too, share the sorrow, despair and disgust from being slimed by hate.

But here’s one thing we know: Despite the murder, the assaults and the terror inflicted upon this community, Charlottesville said no to hate. And the world, it turns out, has our back.

We sent six reporters and two photographers out to document the August 12 rally at Emancipation Park, the community events taking place around it and the weekend of infamy. Here’s a timeline of what we saw and what we felt. Because this? This is our town.


This paints a picture of a Charlottesville uniting against hate, with the clergy playing an important role. And it also portrays violence coming from Antifa and some others - that part is mostly portrayed as just more of the violence. And I think that's the right way to view it.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?

haithabu
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:11 pm
Affiliation: MennoBaptist

Re: Errors in moral reasoning

Postby haithabu » Tue Aug 22, 2017 2:38 pm

I think the attempt of the pastors to bet between the two sides was admirable.
0 x

haithabu
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:11 pm
Affiliation: MennoBaptist

Re: Errors in moral reasoning

Postby haithabu » Tue Aug 22, 2017 2:39 pm

Get, not bet. :)
0 x

Bootstrap
Posts: 2302
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Kingdom Christian

Re: Errors in moral reasoning

Postby Bootstrap » Tue Aug 22, 2017 3:12 pm

haithabu wrote:I think the attempt of the pastors to bget between the two sides was admirable.


I also liked the initial response of coming together in prayer:

8pm: Hundreds of people pack into St. Paul’s Memorial Church on University Avenue for an interfaith prayer service to “shore up people’s courage to participate,” says Jennifer Hoyt Tidwell, who attended the service with her 12-year-old daughter. So many people attended that St. Paul’s reaches its legal capacity and has to turn people away at the doors.


And even that had its dangers:

9:56pm: Once the service at St. Paul’s ends, the clergy asks everyone in attendance to leave with a friend out the back doors and not the front, which faces University Avenue, in full view of the Rotunda.

10pm: Everyone at St. Paul’s is asked to return to their seats. They remain in the church for another hour, until the white supremacists with torches have left.


Even if they had chosen to do nothing else, a public prayer service seems like a really good move. On the other hand, some of what was said at the service got into things I wouldn't consider biblical, influenced by leftist politics. I think we need to stay within our own world view.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?

haithabu
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:11 pm
Affiliation: MennoBaptist

Re: Errors in moral reasoning

Postby haithabu » Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:27 am

Here is a very good article which covers the issue of choosing sides and whataboutism. It also introduces the concept of another error in moral reasoning: the false choice.

"One has to take sides," Shuja Haider wrote at Jacobin, echoing other voices on the left. "There is a side that asserts our common humanity and fights fascism, racism, and hate. It was represented in Charlottesville by the leftist groups who took to the streets to confront the far right. The other side is the one that took innocent lives on those same streets."

Take a side? You bet. But Haider and company are trying to force a false choice. They'd have you believe that advocates of free speech, open society, tolerance, and peaceful political change have to pick between fascists with tiki torches and masked "anti-fascists" clashing with them in the streets. But advocates of a free, open, and liberal society are a side—the correct side—and the left-wing and right-wing thugs battling in the streets are nothing more than rival siblings from a dysfunctional illiberal family.





http://reason.com/archives/2017/08/22/c ... a-and-fasc
1 x

temporal1
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:09 pm
Affiliation: less than the least

Re: Errors in moral reasoning

Postby temporal1 » Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:57 am

haithabu wrote:Here is a very good article which covers the issue of choosing sides and whataboutism. It also introduces the concept of another error in moral reasoning: the false choice.

"One has to take sides," Shuja Haider wrote at Jacobin, echoing other voices on the left. "There is a side that asserts our common humanity and fights fascism, racism, and hate.

:arrow: It was represented in Charlottesville by the leftist groups who took to the streets to confront the far right.
:arrow: The other side is the one that took innocent lives on those same streets."

Take a side? You bet. But Haider and company are trying to force a false choice. They'd have you believe that advocates of free speech, open society, tolerance, and peaceful political change have to pick between fascists with tiki torches and masked "anti-fascists" clashing with them in the streets.

But advocates of a free, open, and liberal society are a side—the correct side—
:arrow: and the left-wing and right-wing thugs battling in the streets are nothing more than rival siblings from a dysfunctional illiberal family.

http://reason.com/archives/2017/08/22/c ... a-and-fasc
largely agree.
not sure why it was necessary to exaggerate, "The other side is the one that took innocent lives on those same streets."
from what i understand, 1 life was lost, and, in all honesty, it was more of a "flip of the coin" about "which side" caused the death.

2 deaths were from a helicopter accident, which could have happened during routine training.
it's tragic, but the stated evil ones did not cause this accident; the stated good guys, by aggressive counter protesting without permit to be present, caused the need for helicopter presence.
no one shot the helicopter down.

the 1 car death was not planned by either side, emotions were high, bad things happen.
sure, everyone wants the driver to represent one side or the other - but, in all honesty, he could have been either - circumstances created were as culpable as anything else.

circumstances were, the stated evil ones had a permit to be present, the stated good guys did not.
in this case, the scales tip against the stated good guys - but that's not the PC narrative, so, the PC "compromise" is, both are equally at fault. Trump's stand is diplomatic.

frankly, the stated evil ones have been social outcasts all-along, they are watched carefully for any miss-steps, they are not honored or encouraged or funded by government. the suggestion this is not true is a bald-faced PC lie.

for an opposite group, supposedly well-educated, to take up their hateful tactics, then demand to be given a pass for doing the same, "only justified" .. is, worse-than.

"when you know better, you do better," if not, you are worse-than. :(

but, that's not PC. the truth hurts. it always has. it always will.

Jesus did not say,
"now you know better, go ahead and continue as you were," or,
"go ahead and behave like those guys to force your way."

appleman is correct. nothing sadder than a hateful heart. prayers needed, all sides.
0 x
formerly Temporal1

“The past is never dead. It's not even past.”
William Faulkner, Requiem for a Nun

haithabu
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:11 pm
Affiliation: MennoBaptist

Re: Errors in moral reasoning

Postby haithabu » Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:26 pm

I'm pretty sure that the car attack wasn't in the script as far as the Unite the Right was concerned, though it may suit other parties to claim that it was. The reason I don't think so is because the attack frustrated the WS propaganda objective of garnering sympathy from other white people. But they didn't take into account that if you heat kernel corn in a frying pan, sooner or later one of them is going to pop.

That's one beef I have right now; there are a lot of people on both sides turning up the rhetorical heat without considering the consequences if the process gets away from them.
1 x

temporal1
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:09 pm
Affiliation: less than the least

Re: Errors in moral reasoning

Postby temporal1 » Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:35 pm

haithabu wrote:I'm pretty sure that the car attack wasn't in the script as far as the Unite the Right was concerned, though it may suit other parties to claim that it was. The reason I don't think so is because the attack frustrated the WS propaganda objective of garnering sympathy from other white people. But they didn't take into account that if you heat kernel corn in a frying pan, sooner or later one of them is going to pop.

That's one beef I have right now; there are a lot of people on both sides turning up the rhetorical heat
without considering the consequences if the process gets away from them.
this is where i question today's education standards.

your point is not new! it's established fact based on world history.
ignorance is no longer an excuse. it's nothing short of scary.

WS are often accused of being ignorant .. hillbillies, and other ..
what is the excuse for those holding college degrees? what does a college degree represent?
as costs rise, evidence is, quality has not been maintained.
0 x
formerly Temporal1

“The past is never dead. It's not even past.”
William Faulkner, Requiem for a Nun

Bootstrap
Posts: 2302
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Kingdom Christian

Re: Errors in moral reasoning

Postby Bootstrap » Thu Aug 24, 2017 3:41 pm

haithabu wrote:Here is a very good article which covers the issue of choosing sides and whataboutism. It also introduces the concept of another error in moral reasoning: the false choice.

"One has to take sides," Shuja Haider wrote at Jacobin, echoing other voices on the left. "There is a side that asserts our common humanity and fights fascism, racism, and hate. It was represented in Charlottesville by the leftist groups who took to the streets to confront the far right. The other side is the one that took innocent lives on those same streets."

Take a side? You bet. But Haider and company are trying to force a false choice. They'd have you believe that advocates of free speech, open society, tolerance, and peaceful political change have to pick between fascists with tiki torches and masked "anti-fascists" clashing with them in the streets. But advocates of a free, open, and liberal society are a side—the correct side—and the left-wing and right-wing thugs battling in the streets are nothing more than rival siblings from a dysfunctional illiberal family.


http://reason.com/archives/2017/08/22/choose-sides-you-bet-but-antifa-and-fasc


Yes, this is excellent.

And I am hearing a lot of reasonable voices from the left and the right criticizing both white supremacists and Antifa. This is a good thing to be united on, if we want to protect American democracy.

haithabu wrote:That's one beef I have right now; there are a lot of people on both sides turning up the rhetorical heat
without considering the consequences if the process gets away from them.


Amen. I think we have to be able to discuss things without trashing each other. If we can't do that, we lose the ability to make rational choices as a society.
1 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?


Return to “Current Events and Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest