There is this great Imgur album that makes me smile and is a fun reference for when you need to explain why an argument doesn’t work.
Just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside for some reason, and I don’t even really like Ed Hochuli. Anyway, I want to point your attention to this image:
I’ve thought about this for much of this election cycle. There has been a lot of talk about how two candidates in particular are not part of a large machine, blindingly condemning all the other candidates awful because they are part of the machine.
Maybe I should be railing against that, too, but I see a more egregious problem. And also, just because somethings is a logical fallacy doesn’t not mean the evidence won’t prove it. Thoughts for another day.
The problem I see is another fallacy that isn’t “officially” a logical fallacy but seems to happen quite regularly right now: the belief that someone is innocent simply because they are dissociated with the problem group.
“Donald Trump is not a politician, so obviously he isn’t the problem.” “Bernie Sanders is an outspoken independent and truly radical so he’s the only good option.” Do you see how they both are lifted up by the dissociation from mainline politics? Has nothing to do with their politics, just that they aren’t obedient cogs in the political machine.
Dissociation is not proof of innocence. I’m not saying anything about the guilt or innocence of anyone, just that this is not proof of anything.
The frustrating thing with logical fallacies is that they preclude something from being used as proof but don’t actually prove something untrue. It may be quite true that Donald Trump is going to do something good because he isn’t beholden to anyone, or that Bernie Sanders radicalism is the cure to all the county’s ills*. Just because the conclusion is come to through a logical fallacy doesn’t make the conclusion untrue.
Am I the only one that sees the problems rising here? Do you see how broken our political system is that outsiders are lifted up as messiahs? I realize Christ was an outsider, and a radical, but his actions were chosen by being correct, not by what would make him radical or different.
That’s my problem. I took me writing this whole thing to figure this out. We are voting for people because they are outsiders or radicals and judging them solely based on that. Or also because they are doing things that we want, not what would actually be best for the country and all the people.
Just…stop choosing politicians like a 19-year-old rebel and start choosing them like hiring managers and call committees. Who is actually qualified to do the job? Who will seek to serve the will of the people and the needs of the people? Who will actually serve the country and the world instead of serving themselves? And who will do that in a way that is effective?
I don’t see an answer yet, and maybe that’s just me.
Breathe in, breathe out, lunch time!
* Please, in the name of all that is good and holy, do not read this to say I actually believe either of these things – I don’t – but an example of how logical fallacies actually work in terms of proof. The answer: they literally prove nothing without additional work. No accusing me of being a Trump/Sanders 2016 ticket support….