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.

TOWN HALL MEETING: U.S. SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN.

MAY12

New Bedford Town Hall with Elizabeth Warren

Public

 · Hosted by Elizabeth Warren\

• clock

  Saturday, May 12 at 11 AM - 2 PM EDT 4 days from now · 55–64° Cloudy

• pin

  Greater New Bedford Regional Vocational-Technical High School 1121 Ashley Blvd, New Bedford, Massachusetts 02745 Elizabeth Warren will be hosting a town hall in New Bedford on Saturday, and you are invited! She’ll be talking and answering questions about how she’s holding the Trump Administration accountable and fighting for Massachusetts families in the Senate. This is also a chance to meet our team and learn how you can get in this fight in 2018. Doors open at 11:00 AM, and the event will begin at 12:00 Noon. Admission is first come, first served. We're sorry, but signs/posters will not be permitted inside the event.

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.

FEATURE ARTICLES. THE DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS- WHAT THE FRAMERS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION UNDERSTOOD, AND WHAT MANY AMERICANS FORGET.

We have a great division in the U.S., and it is a tragedy of certain groups using religion as a tool to bend every American to their restrictive code of morality.  Too often, they listen to populist media outlets and self-serving political pundits, and suspend their ability to think critically.  

In past articles, I have reviewed the text of the U.S. Constitution and analyzed any sections that were related to religion.  As we have seen, this can be found in only two places; Article Six and the First Amendment.

From these passages, we can understand the place religious faith was meant to occupy in terms of public policy making and the creation of new laws.  Since that topic has already been covered, I will not repeat it here.  However, I would like to address a subject that is seldom discussed among students of American History: The role European History had in shaping the opinions of those drafting and creating the Constitution, in terms of what role religion would play in forming the new government.

The Framers of the Constitution were a product of the "ENLIGHTENMENT", a philosophical movement that emphasized the use of reason and intellectual reflection in solving social and political conflicts, with less emphasis on faith and traditional church doctrine. 

Too often, European Monarchs used the idea of the "Divine Right of Kings" as a justification for their throne. Throughout the middle ages, the average "Citizen or Subject", lived a life filled with disease, hunger, and physical hardship. Religion and the concept of "A Heavenly reward for the righteous" offered a promise that Death would bring what life couldn't:  Eternal Happiness.

It was under these conditions that European Royalty realized an important truth; To secure the Throne, and guarantee succession of their Bloodline, endorsement by a Religious Hierarchy would naturally lead to obedience from the faithful.  After all, who was going to tell GOD that the wrong person was on the throne.

Organized Religion also benefited, for while they claimed to have GOD on their side, there was no Martial Force to protect them from rival faiths who wished to compete for the souls of the citizenry.  However, put the right person on the Throne, and your opponents may suddenly become very quiet.  Cold Steel can be a powerful persuader, if it is pressed to your neck.

The Framers of the Constitution realized the inherent hypocrisy of this "European Tradition", and did not want it transposed to the new Constitutional Republic.  That is why the following words mean so much:  "WE THE PEOPLE...", no reference to a Deity or a Sovereign.  Perhaps, for the first time in history, intellect alone was the foundation for forming a Government.

Religious Faith can be a great source of comfort and relief to the faithful.  However, spiritually, it must come from within.  If it comes from a ruling class, and their ecclesiastical allies, then it is a case of might makes right.