FEATURE ARTICLES. THE MOST DANGEROUS ONE OF ALL. PT 4.

So what are some of the Categories of Hypocrites that cause so many problems for Society, and how can we limit the Damage they are capable of?

First, ALL HYPOCRITES, Regardless of the Category we place Them in, have several things in common:

1)  They Concentrate on how the Decisions made by the Political/Legal System will affect Their Chosen Position. Possible Outcomes to Others, or PRECEDENTS SET, hold no Value to them, only WHAT THEY WANT COUNTS. 

2)  Their Belief that They Have a Monopoly on Moral Behavior.-  However it is Derived, the HYPOCRITE KNOWS WHAT IS RIGHT, AND WHAT IS WRONG. JUST ASK THEM.

3)  "RIGHTS" are something  to protect Them and Their Allies, and are not to be extended Universally to everyone else.  THIS, OF COURSE, NO LONGER MAKES THEM RIGHTS, BUT PRIVILEGES.

4)  That They have No Obligation to anyone else, Either Morally or Legally.

5)  Lying and Deception are sometimes Necessary Evils, to help ensure that the ULTIMATE GOOD, WHICH IS TO SEE THEIR AGENDA ACCEPTED INTO LAW,  BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE FABRIC OF SOCIETY.

6)  That They hold a Special Place Within the Given Political System, which Should Exclude Them from CRITICISM OR EVALUATION BY OPPOSING OFFICIALS, NEWS MEDIA, OR ANY ORGANIZED POLITICAL GROUP THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT THEIR GOALS.

LOOK FOR AN ANALYSIS OF THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF HYPOCRITES IN PART 5.

FEATURE ARTICLES. THE MOST DANGEROUS ONE OF ALL. PT 3.

I would like to make one thing clear: The HYPOCRITE IS BY NO MEANS FOUND IN A SINGLE POLITICAL PARTY, OR REPRESENTS A PARTICULAR POLITICAL, MORAL, OR RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY.  

They may be more Prevalent on One Side of a DEBATE OR DISCUSSION,but the LACK OF A COHERENT LINE OF REASONING IS NOT FOUND ON JUST ONE SIDE OF THE AISLE.  It is Vital to Identify Hypocritical Thinking as soon as possible, before it has a chance to take hold and become Entrenched in the Minds of Those who may not realize the Inherent Irrationality of what it Truly is.

On a Personal Level, I have found it More Discouraging when it Happens Among Those I Think Should Know Better.  

On one Hand there are Certain Types of Public Figures, Politicians, Decision Makers etc., I have come to expect it from. Calling out Their Self- Centered and Egotistical Thinking Processes is not a surprise, because They Rarely come up with a Well- Reasoned Line of Argument.  They don't change, and Those who Support the same Agenda could care less anyway.

What is Really Troubling, is when I see Intelligent, Insightful, and Focused Individuals Toss out Critical Thinking and Logic, when it Doesn't Lead Them to the Conclusions They Expect, or more likely, Desire.  For Some, it is Difficult to Understand that:

LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING ARE MENTAL PROCESSES, AND DON'T HAVE A PRECONCEIVED AGENDA THAT WILL LEAD YOU DOWN ANY PATH YOU DESIRE.  THE ARGUMENTS YOU MAKE, THE PREMISES YOU USE, AND THE CONCLUSIONS YOU DRAW ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME RULES THAT YOUR OPPONENT  MUST OBEY.

This leads us to DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF HYPOCRITE; WHAT THEY HAVE IN COMMON, WHAT SEPARATES THEM, AND THE PROBLEMS EACH PRESENTS TO FINDING SOLUTIONS AND ANSWERS.

Date-  10/10/2016.

Scroll down for future posts.

WHAT A SHAME- A look at the low points in the modern media. PSEUDOSCIENCE ON TELEVISION- THIS IS ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE: MY STORY. PT 1.

I have used this term: ANECDODTAL EVIDENCE many times when referring to testimony provided by those who have used it to support such pseudo-scientific subjects as Bigfoot, The Loch Ness Monster, Alien Visitation, Demons., etc. Often, it is the only evidence offered in many cases.

ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE IS, ( MY DEFINITION)-  Individual Testimony, regarding a Personal Encounter with a Specific Phenomena. It can be Sight, Sound, Smell, Touch, Taste. In other words, the five senses. From this Event, the individual draws conclusions about the Identity of said Phenomena.

Unfortunately, such an encounter that is not backed up by any corrorborating evidence that can be properly observed, studied, or analyzed, to Identify the Reality or True Nature of the Subject under Speculation, leaves Science with little choice but to characterize the PHENOMENA AS UNKNOWN, WITH FURTHER STUDY NEEDED.

Now , I am not going to talk about previous incidents in which I was asked to offer an opinion, or investigate the experiences of others.  This is MY CASE OF OFFERING ANECDOTAL TESTIMONY.

Date- 10/11/2016.

Place- My Home. Specifically: Dining Room and Back Yard.

Time- Approximately 12:15pm. Weather- Partly Cloudy.

Sitting down at my Dining Room Table to eat lunch , I glanced out to the Back Yard, and saw a Large Bird alight upon a Bird Bath located about Ten feet from the Dining Room Window.  Although, by no means an Ornithologist, I had worked for a company that Manufactured, among other things, High Quality Binoculars, considered to be among the best in the World. (SWAROVSKI). So, I had developed a Mild Interest in Identifying Birds found in North America. Well, the appearance of this one surprised me...

See part 2.

QUICK HITTERS. POST #2. STATISTICS AND POLLS; PAY NO ATTENTION. PT 1.

Perhaps the two most misleading and least understood campaign tactics, used by candidates to win an election, are numbers reported through surveys, and conclusions drawn from statistical analysis of previous outcomes regarding certain subjects.

Both of these are easy to manipulate

as the following examples indicate;

WORD THE SURVEY QUESTION IN SUCH A WAY TO ENCOURAGE A CERTAIN RESPONSE;

Example- "Given the poor state of the economy, do you think Incumbent Candidate X can be trusted to fix the problem?"

See the real problems(s)?

#1-  The question does not in any way show justification for concluding that the economy is in "Poor" condition.

2) That there is a question of the "Trust Worthiness"  of Candidate X, yet there is no evidence given that there has been dishonesty in the past.

It is clear, that in cases such as this, that the wording of the question presumes a negative view of Candidate X.  Even answering the question could be construed as agreeing with its assertions.  LOOK FOR PT 2.

Date-  9/4/2014.

Perhaps the two most misleading and least understood campaign tactics, used by candidates to win an election, are numbers reported through surveys, and conclusions drawn from statistical analysis of previous outcomes regarding certain subjects.

Both of these are easy to manipulate

as the following examples indicate;

WORD THE SURVEY QUESTION IN SUCH A WAY TO ENCOURAGE A CERTAIN RESPONSE;

Example- "Given the poor state of the economy, do you think Incumbent Candidate X can be trusted to fix the problem?"

See the real problems(s)?

#1-  The question does not in any way show justification for concluding that the economy is in "Poor" condition.

2) That there is a question of the "Trust Worthiness"  of Candidate X, yet there is no evidence given that there has been dishonesty in the past.

It is clear, that in cases such as this, that the wording of the question presumes a negative view of Candidate X.  Even answering the question could be construed as agreeing with its assertions.  LOOK FOR PT 2.

Date-  9/4/2014.