LOGIC. IT'S NOT JUST FOR VULCANS, AND VIEWERS OF "THE BIG BANG THEORY." #7. THE FALLACY OF INTOLERANCE. PT 2.

The Basis for much of this Type of Fallacy, is often ZEALOTRY being masked behind Specific Beliefs and Attitudes found in Religion and Nationalism.  These are used as Reasons to claim that Certain;

-  EXPRESSIONS OF FAITH. 

-  POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES.

-  CULTURAL AND SOCIAL ATTITUDES, BASED ON CLASS DISTINCTION.

Are Supported by Individuals who claim They want what is Best for Every Individual, which Includes Families and Friends, and the Country as a whole.  However, Upon Closer Analysis, we find that such Conclusions are not Based in Reality, and Often hide a SELF- SERVING AGENDA.

Unlike the SOCIOPATH, (See FEATURE ARTICLES) , most People don't want to Think that others are Being Cheated, Harmed or Treated Unfairly.  This is Especially True if They are Getting Benefits or Advantages Denied to Others.  This can become a Crisis of Conscience, unless they can RATIONALIZE THE INEQUALITY IN A WAY THAT LETS THEM OFF THE HOOK.  It may not take much to Alleviate any Feelings of Guilt, and POLITICS OFTEN OFFERS A CONVENIENT WAY OUT OF THIS EMOTIONAL DILEMMA. 

This is the FOUNDATION OF ZEALOTRY THAT IS FOUND IN MANY PARTS OF THE POLITICAL SYSTEM.  It Allows SUPPORTERS;

-  To Draw Conclusions about Entire Segments of Society, without providing any Real Evidence that All Members of such Groups Deserves to be Judged in the Same Light.

-  To Justify abolishing certain Government Programs Designed to Address Economic and Social Hardships, if there are any Problems in how they are Administered, while at the same time ignoring the Positive Affects on those who were meant to be Helped. Further, these Same Types of Problems are Given a Free Pass, and are not Addressed, if They Occur in Programs that the Zealots Benefit From.

-  To Claim Discrimination or Unfairness if New Laws or Judicial Decisions take away Their Privileged Status, and Offer Equality Under the Law by Legalizing Social Behaviors and Civil Contracts that will give all the same Status.

ZEALOTRY IS OFTEN THE FACE OF INTOLERANCE, JUST ANOTHER EXCUSE FOR IRRATIONAL THINKING.

AUDIO/VIDEO POST. Fiction- Stories, Myths and Legends. THE LEGEND OF THE VANISHING LIGHTHOUSE KEEPERS. PT 2.

QUICK HITTERS. POST #52. THE HORRIFIC IMPLICATIONS OF REFUSING TO MEET AND EVALUATE THE PRESIDENTS NOMINEE FOR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. PART 4.

(THIS IS PART 4 IN A SERIES OF ARTICLES I WROTE CONCERNING

THE CONTROVERSY CREATED BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTIES 

TREATMENT OF MERRICK GARLAND, BARACK OBAMAS CHOICE 

TO FILL THE VACANCY ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.)

In the End, the IMPLICATIONS OF NOT ALLOWING A SENATE HEARING FOR A PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE GOES EVEN DEEPER THAN MANY THINK, BUT I THINK THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS AWARE OF THIS, AND IS WILLING TO ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES. 

-  THE SEPARATION OF POWERS, (EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE, JUDICIAL), HAS BEEN USURPED BY THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH IN THIS CASE. HOWEVER, IN THE FUTURE IT MAY BE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH REFUSING TO NOMINATE ANYONE AT ALL, UNLESS CERTAIN CONCESSIONS ARE MET.

-  GIVEN THE COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, YOU ARE LEFT WITH A SYSTEM THAT ENCOURAGES THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO BEHAVE IN THE SAME MANNER, IF THE POSITIONS ARE REVERSED. DO YOU REALLY EXPECT ONE PARTY TO BE FAIR AND OPEN IN THE SELECTION PROCESS, IF THE OTHER IS JUST GOING TO DISCARD IT ANYWAY?  

-  IN ANY CASE, THE FUTURE OF OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM WILL BE PUSHED TOWARDS TOTAL CHAOS, WITH RANSOMING THE LEGAL SYSTEM A GIFT LEFT TO FUTURE GENERATIONS. NO LONGER WILL THERE BE A SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES, WITH NEITHER THE WHITE HOUSE OR THE SENATE CONTROLLING THE FATE OF OUR SYSTEMS OF LAW.

-  EVEN IF THE REFUSAL TO HOLD A HEARING IS SOMEHOW ALLOWED TO STAND, BUT A DEMOCRAT WINS THE PRESIDENCY, WE COULD STILL BE LEFT WITH THE SAME PROBLEM.  THEY WILL HAVE DONE IT ONCE, WITHOUT SANCTION, WHAT IS TO STOP THE REPUBLICANS FROM DOING IT AGAIN?

AND AGAIN...AND AGAIN...AND AGAIN.

SO THE BIG QUESTION IS: WHY?

QUICK HITTERS. POST #51. THE HORRIFIC IMPLICATIONS OF REFUSING TO MEET AND EVALUATE THE PRESIDENTS NOMINEE FOR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. PART 3.

(THIS IS PART 3 IN A SERIES OF ARTICLES I WROTE CONCERNING

THE CONTROVERSY CREATED BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTIES 

TREATMENT OF MERRICK GARLAND, BARACK OBAMAS CHOICE 

TO FILL THE VACANCY ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.)

What is Even More Frightening Than a Few MEGALOMANIACS IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY REFUSING TO UPHOLD THEIR LEGALLY SWORN OATH TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, IS THAT IF IT IS ALLOWED TO STAND WITHOUT A LEGAL CHALLENGE, WE MAY END GOING FROM AN "OLIGARCHY," WITH POLITICAL POWER RESTING IN THE HANDS OF A FEW, TO A "DICTATORSHIP," WITH POWER RESTING IN THE HANDS OF ONE.

Remember, the Nomination of a CANDIDATE FOR A SEAT ON THE SUPREME COURT, AND FOR NUMEROUS OTHER POSITIONS IN GOVERNMENT, RESTS WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN, IN PRACTICAL TERMS?

"...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for..."

Do you see it?  If Refusing to Act on a DUTY THAT IS PART OF THE OATH OF OFFICE ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION, IS ALLOWED TO STAND WITHOUT SANCTION OR PENALTY, A PRECEDENT IS SET THAT CANNOT COMPEL ANYONE TO BE LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO ACT IN A SIMILAR MANNER PROSCRIBED BY THE DOCUMENT.

THE PRESIDENT ALONE NOMINATES CANDIDATES, NO ONE ELSE.

What is to Stop a U.S. PRESIDENT FROM DELAYING, OR REFUSING TO NOMINATE, CANDIDATES FOR POSTS THAT ARE VACANT, IF THE SENATE DOES NOT CONTAIN A BODY OF MEMBERS THAT ARE SYMPATHETIC TO APPROVING THOSE NOMINEES THE PRESIDENT FEELS ARE THE "RIGHT CHOICES?"