Originally posted by: boomerang
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: boomerang
Originally posted by: eskimospy
You guys don't actually believe the stupidity contained in these emails, do you?
That's some kind of trick question .......... isn't it?
It's just a fervent hope on my part. Threads like this make me sad when I see how many people actually buy into this shit.
x2. Seeing people buy this idiocy is proof how unlikely our society is to get good voters from the many such people, how hopeless it is to get them informed of anything.
Do you think it's reasonable to expect people from all walks of life to have the same thoughts, attitudes and opinions on political matters? I'd say it's pretty naive to think that.
Of course not. What you're missing is that there are legitimate differences based on things like values and opinions, and there are differences based on worse reasons.
Take the 9/11 conspiracy theorists who claim the plane never hit the Pentagon, for example. When you see their fallacious arguments, should you point out the fallacies and not say that 'it's just two reasonable views of people who differ' - or should you say it IS just another reasonable viewpoint?
You are confusing reasonable different views and clear errors.
I know I don't have to remind you that this country wasn't founded as a Monarchy or an Oligarchy. A statement like "how hopeless it is to get them informed of anything" suggests that you feel your thoughts are the right thoughts. You have the right to feel that way, our constitution protects that. But you've got a long uphill battle ahead of you, one you're never going to win. The pendulum swings. It's swung extreme left now. Revel and rejoice.
So much confusion in your post, starting with the straw man that somehow my position wants a monarchy.
You are arguing against reason and logic, but pretending that your battle is with some tyrant who wants to arbitrarily dictate views to everyone. That's not honest behavior.
There is such a thing as fallacious propaganda, and you can deny that if you want, but you're wrong if you do.
You misuse the attack about 'claiming you're right'. That argument sometimes has a good point to make when people are reckless and/or wrong - but you don't bother to say why my post is wrong, the thing that would justify your attack - you just pretend my post is as your argument. That's a mistake.
Rest assured that the far right thinks your thoughts are full of just as much stupidity and idiocy - to quote some terms used in this thread.
I've long learned that the truth has its enemies, and when they aren't attacking, you're doing something wrong.
You are incapable, it appears, of discerning the merit of an argument, and merely able to use shallow references to the words used, as if they're equally justified by all sides.
Your argument is ultimately pointless and a dead-end that inhibits any progress to the truth. It's a variation of repeating what the other person said to try to discredit it.
Take the 9/11 claim I mentioned above. If after the evidence the plane hit the Peroagon is presented, and it's compelling, and the person just repeats their claim the plane never hit the Pentagon, then I might say their behavior is idiotic for a reason. It's a well considered and well justified attack matching the behavior. At some point an argument can lack the qualites to be a reasonable but different view, and does fall to the level of 'idiocy'. Some understand that, but you, if you are consistent, would just say they think the same about my position, because you are unable to discern why my position actually has a better basis than theirs, so to you the attacks are no different.
Unfortunately, I suspect the above is unlikely to get through to you much. So, we cna agree to disagree, as the cliche says. If I'm wrong about that, great, let me know.
Edit: I'll waste more time saying yet more on this.
There's a very basic form of propaganda using folksy stories' like this which are completely based on falllacies, such as straw men. I see many examples like this one.
If you look at the desriptions of propaganda, you will fin a few qualities recognized to work well, one of them is to not try to say anything very different than what people are inclined to believe, but rather to try to build on what they are inclined to beleive - with a little twist in your direction.
Indeed, a good summary was written by Goebbels. Here are some of his rules, that these right-wing e-mails fit:
6. To be perceived, propaganda must evoke the interest of an audience and must be transmitted through an attention-getting communications medium.
13.c A propaganda theme must be repeated, but not beyond some point of diminishing effectivenes.
14. Propaganda must label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans.
a. They must evoke desired responses which the audience previously possesses
b. They must be capable of being easily learned
c. They must be utilized again and again, but only in appropriate situations
d. They must be boomerang-proof
18. Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred.
On this particular piece, we could ask several questions.
One is why it has a 100% tax rate for the homeless, when the actual amount of taxation for the homeless, even with the most liberal policies, is very low?
The mail loses a lot of its effectiveness when the illution of that dishonesty is removed - if the little girl is asked if she would like to donate 75 cents of the $50 to help the man.
Then it suddenly looks like a good lesson for her on compassion, which is a lot closer to the actual societal issue - and indeed a condemnation of the right.
Another interesting twist might be to say the little girls wants the $50 work for herself at the expense of the homeless man, to express the inequality of opportunity problem.
Maybe have her hire him to do the work for $5 while she gets paid the $50, to say something about the 'exploitaion of cheap labor by the well connected'.
Anyway on and on, the point is that the e-mail distorts the issue for the purpose of reinforcing an ideology, and hardly is 'fair' or 'educational' in how it does so.
Facebook
Twitter