...Jerry: So all you have to do is make an
unsubstantiated claim that the president is a criminal and pursue him with a
baseless FBI investigation that can’t produce evidence to prevent him from
picking a Supreme Court nominee? What’s to stop politicians that don’t like the
next president from doing the same thing they are doing to Trump?
Glen: Well Jerry, read through these 94
articles and watch a few videos before we have a discussion. Trump’s character,
the people who surround him, and the investigation are well
substantiated: https://teacherpoetmusicianglenbrown.blogspot.com/.../dru...
TEACHERPOETMUSICIANGLENBROWN.BLOGSPOT.COM
Jerry: No, How about I avoid the 94
articles of stupidity that got you to here and just stick with my own critical
thinking skills?
Jerry: Remember critical thinking
skills? The thing most every educated person relied upon to decide for
themselves what is and what isn’t relevant inside of a normal news cycle?
Granted there’s nothing normal about reading 94 articles to get at one simple
political solution to use when considering the nomination of a Supreme Court
Justice.
TEACHERPOETMUSICIANGLENBROWN.BLOGSPOT.COM
“How exactly are Trump loyalists
psychologically or neurologically different from everyone else? What is going
on in their brains that makes them so blindly devoted?”—Bobby Azarian
Jerry: I take it you left out this
article. Didn’t you mean “Read through these 95 articles?” You said there
were only 94.
Glen: It is part of the 94.
Jerry: No contradictions in any of them
right? Not one of them pointing the finger at the other for spreading “fake
news,” right? Before the internet and social media if you didn’t agree
with the contents of a given article you formed an opinion based your own personal
critical thought, not 94 articles that were written to convince you that you
aren’t sufficiently informed until you “click on me.” It’s a news funnel that
you are trapped inside of where you’re just a receptor that regurgitates
filtered sewage designed to misinform. Again, I don’t like Trump. I just
don’t let my dislike for him rob me of my critical thinking skills to the
extent that I feel compelled to foist 94 articles designed to “prove my point”
onto my Facebook friends.
Glen: This is the type of “critical
thinking” I use before making my inferences: How do we know matters of fact?
What is the distinction between relationships among assumptions and matters of
fact? For instance, how often do we attempt to explain the occurrence of an
event by reference to antecedents which rendered its occurrence probable (as in
the fallacy of “Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc”)? How often do we mistake correlation
for cause (as in the fallacy of “Cum Hoc Propter Hoc”)? How often do we reduce
a complex causal inquiry to simplicity and confuse the necessary cause with the
sufficient cause (as in the fallacy of “Reductive Fallacy”)? Most people “Beg
the Question” (or assume as true what has yet to be proved empirically). Thus,
their belief is used both as a premise and as the conclusion of their argument.
Most people use the fallacy of "Wishful Thinking" (it must be true
because we want it to be true) to rationalize their beliefs and oversimplify
cause-and-effect relationships to establish their proof of argument. In other
words, people support their conclusions by choosing evidence or instances which
back them up and disregard evidence that does not support their belief. I do
not obtain my information from “fake news.” As a matter of fact, I watch “Fox
News” (and other news outlets) in addition to researching and reading books before
formulating my opinions.
Jerry: Go fuck yourself Glen. Now check
that against your stupid fuckin research to see if it makes perfect sense to
follow through on my advice.
Glen: It is anatomically impossible to
do what you told me to do, Jerry. Take my advice on this one too...
Anatomically impossible! Good one, Glen!
ReplyDeleteThanks for leading the moral battle. You're the best!