|
Wednesday, May 9, 2018
Team Building Tuesday. CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE STEVE SEVIGNY.
Tuesday, May 8, 2018
LOGIC. THE FALLACY OF ANSWERING THE UNASKED QUESTION. #1.
This could be considered a form of the FALLACY OF MISDIRECTION, BUT IS OFTEN USED TO ATTACK THOSE WHO EXPOSE, OR REVEAL THE WEAKNESSES THAT ARE PRESENT IN THE POSITION TAKEN BY THE INDIVIDUAL WHO IS BEING INTERVIEWED, QUESTIONED, OR DEBATED.
To illustrate this particular FALLACY, let us create an example from Politics:
"Mr. Candidate, your Opponent says that the Economic Policies that are part of your Campaign Platform will lead to Increased Taxation on the Middle Class, while allowing increased Tax Breaks for the Wealthiest 2%. Further, that your opposition to an increase in the Minimum Wage will drive even more Families into Poverty, Due to Recent Changes in the Consumer Price Index. How do you Respond?"
Answer- "It is Well Known that my Opponents Economic Policies are Anti- Business, and will lead to Many Corporations Seeking to move Operations to other Countries. It is this Attitude, that has made Corporate America Very Hesitant to back his Candidacy. We must find more ways to encourage the Private Sector to Invest More Capitol in New and Expanding Technologies."
How about this one from the World of Finance.
"You claim that your Business Model will create great profits for all Investors, but your Critics say that the Bottom Line Depends upon Recruiting New Individuals to Sign Up, so that Their Membership will inject New Money into a Fund to pay off the Older Investors. Is this so?"
Answer- "When I first started my Company, attracting Initial Investors was Tough, because very few believed in my vision. However, for the Few who were Far-Sighted enough, an Investment of a Few Thousand Dollars has paid off more than Ten Fold. Don't Talk to my Critics, listen to Those who were here on the ground floor."
You can see the following:
While the Question is Direct, and asks for Specific Information,
the Answer Often:
- HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING THAT WAS ASKED.
- IS MEANINGLESS, BECAUSE IT IGNORES THE SUBJECT
MATTER CONTAINED IN THE QUESTION.
- IS VAGUE, AND BASICALLY AN OPINION THAT RELIES ON
SUBJECTIVE ASSERTIONS THAT AVOID ANY SPECIFIC DETAILS.
- APPEALS TO THE IRRATIONAL AND SELF- SERVING MEMBERS
OF THE AUDIENCE, WHO COULD CARE LESS ABOUT TRUTH, OR
ACCURACY, BUT ARE LOOKING FOR EXCUSES TO JUSTIFY THEIR
SUPPORT FOR THE PERSON ANSWERING THE QUESTION.
Monday, May 7, 2018
FEATURE ARTICLES. THE IRAN NUCLEAR TREATY- AVOIDING REALITY. PT 1.
(*IN THIS ARTICLE I USE THE WORD "TREATY" TO DESCRIBE
THE RESULTS OF THE NEGOTIATIONS. HOWEVER, TERMS SUCH
AS "DEAL" OR "AGREEMENT" COULD REPLACE "TREATY" WITH
NO LOSS IN MEANING OR UNDERSTANDING.
As the Debate over the Nuclear Treaty with Iran is still being Discussed in Congress, and the Media, we find that one thing Remains True:
SOME POLITICIANS STILL AVOID ANY REAL DEBATE THAT MIGHT RESOLVE THE CONTROVERSY.
WHY? IT WOULD INVOLVE INSIGHT AND THE ABILITY TO THINK BEYOND SIMPLISTIC SOLUTIONS THAT WILL ADDRESS THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION, INSTEAD OF REPEATING MEANINGLESS RHETORIC THAT PLEASES YOUR SUPPORTERS.
So, let us Step Back, Ignore everything that has been said, and look Beyond Bombastic One-Liners to see where the TRUTH MAY LIE.
First Question- WHAT IS A TREATY?
A TREATY IS BASICALLY A CONTRACT BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PARTIES;
THAT ARE USUALLY DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTS OR NATIONS, WHO ARE RECOGNIZED AS THE LEGITIMATE SOURCES OF AUTHORITY FOR A GIVEN GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OR POPULATION, THAT HAVE THE POWER TO CREATE AND ENFORCE ANY POLICIES, FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC.
A TREATY IS JUST LIKE A SIGNED BUSINESS DEAL. THE GOALS AND PARTIES TO IT MAY BE DIFFERENT, BUT THE PRINCIPLES ARE THE SAME.
What can we Safely Infer if Two or More Parties are Entering into Diplomatic Talks,
with the Outcome Eventually being a SIGNED TREATY FOR ALL PARTIES?
#1- EACH PARTICIPANT IN THE NEGOTIATIONS HAS SOMETHING THE OTHER WANTS.- No One Enters into These Negotiations Insisting that the Opposing Side Give Up Something, but will get nothing in return. Turning it around, No Side enters such Talks with the Idea of Giving Into Certain Demands, and Anticipating No Concessions From the Opposition.
That would be Unrealistic and Foolish.
#2- WHILE THERE MAY BE MANY POINTS OF CONFLICT OR DISAGREEMENT, ALL PARTICIPANTS HAVE ONE OR TWO MAIN GOALS THEY WANT THE TREATY TO ACHIEVE.- These are Usually So Prominent that They are Generally Apparent at the Outset of the Talks, and are in some cases THE ONLY REASON(S) THAT BROUGHT THE OPPOSING SIDES TO THE NEGOTIATION TABLE.
LOOK FOR PART 2.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)