[Vision2020] Fwd: Award Well-Deserved

[Donovan Arnold]

Joe Campbell writes;
 
"I know that I'm beating a dead horse but there. . ."
 
Better a dead horse than a live one. What animal beater came up with the line, "No sense in beating a dead horse." Do you think that jackass beat his horse? Please folks, if you are going to beat a horse, don't beat a live one, otherwise you are going to going to have to call Tom Trail to write a bill to make it illegal to beat live horses in Idaho, because it probably is still legal to do so.  It was just a few months ago that it was still legal to kick you dog across the kitchen in Idaho. 
 
Donovan Arnold

From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
To: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> 
Cc: Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fwd: Award Well-Deserved

I know that I'm beating a dead horse but there are some serious issues
here that need to be made clear. Here is the ONLY passage from
McHale's letter talking about Nazis.

"He [Dan] bemoans the lack of respect given for drivers and flaggers
who were 'just earning a living.' There were employees at Auschwitz
who were just doing their jobs too."

What exactly could the point be if the claim is that drivers and
flaggers are like employees at Auschwitz? I'm interested in hearing
the interpretation consistent with this passage. A better
interpretation is that McKale is merely noting that 'just earning a
living' is not an excuse; it provides no protection beyond those
afforded to every person.

The "lack of respect" refers to the protest activities, which McKale
notes were legal and relatively harmless, certainly not in need of
police protection. She goes to some length describing those activities
and noting their legality and civility.

In the end, there are three distinct points. First, there was no
suggestion in the McKale letter that the truck drivers are on a moral
par with Nazi guards. That is an extreme claim and one that McHale did
not make in her letter. Show proof otherwise -- point to the passage.

Second, there was no real lack of respect; there were just protestors
working within the bounds of the law and human decency conducting
legal protests. That is not a lack of respect.

Third, suppose that conducting protests does show a lack of respect.
Who is to say that the truck drivers didn't deserve it (it is not
OBVIOUS they don't). And you can't say they don't deserve it MERELY
BECAUSE they have a job to do. That reasoning is fallacious.



One nice thing about the letter is that it is full of passion and
emotion but the logic is very simple and clear, if you take the time
to read it carefully. You are wrong to think that we always are swayed
by emotion; sometime emotion is just along for the ride and reason
carries the day. And as I noted it can't be that emotion erodes
reason; either the reasons are there or not and that is independent of
the style of delivery. Passion, emotion don't add to argumentative
strength but nor do they detract from it. What emotional cues do is
often distract us from reasoning; but not always.

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Donovan Arnold
<donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Joe,
>
> I see your point, very interesting and insightful, and thank you for putting
> it more clearly. I am afraid still though, you are comparing to different
> things and arguing against a point never made. I am not arguing the
> statement is not logical, I am arguing it is not persuasive and the premise
> is wrong. They are not one and the same as you seem to be claiming. An
> argument can be more persuasive and less valid and logical at the same time.
> People are not logical in their behavior, attitudes, and beliefs even though
> generally they are logical and rational most of the time. There is a lot
> more going on in their heads than simple logical computations.
>
> Association of Nazi behavior with the behavior of truck drivers hauling
> megaloads plays negatively against them because of the strength of the word
> Nazi not the logic of the relationship you claim exists. It's evil  is
> so unmatched that anything connected to it is tainted psychologically. In
> fact, so much so, that it triggers a since of injustice has been
> done against the truck driver. That is where the argument becomes
> unpersuasive and works against the writer's efforts.
>
> It doesn't matter if it is a logically structured argument or not. The
> psychological association, not the logic, damages the persuasiveness of
> the argument. Never-mind the fact that the premise is completely
> false--Truck drivers never falsely argued in court to "just doing their
> jobs" after breaking international laws.
>
> Donovan Arnold
>
>
>
> From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> To: Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 4:59 PM
> Subject: [Vision2020] Fwd: Award Well-Deserved
>
> No.
>
> You should never use fallacies as you are using them: as proof of
> fallacious reasoning. Most fallacies are, from a logical point of
> view, very close to sound arguments. False dilemmas, for instance, fit
> the form of disjunctive syllogism: A or B; not-A, so B. All instances
> of begging the question are technically valid. Appeals to
> non-authorities is fallacious but not appeals to genuine experts, yet
> both have the same logical form.
>
> Thus, you can't just say "appeal to emotion" therefore it commits the
> fallacy of appeal to emotion. I am very emotional. It would be unwise
> to think I can't reason well.
>
> The real point is that an appeal to emotion adds nothing to the
> strength or weakness of an argument. Certainly you admit that it adds
> nothing to the strength! But how can it ADD to the weakness of an
> argument, make the conclusion LESS probable given the premises? It
> can't.
>
> That something fits the form of a fallacy is prima facie evidence that
> something fishy is going on. But sorry the logic of the real world
> doesn't come on a silver platter. You can't use superficial
> indications of fallacies to judge that an argument is actually
> fallacious. You have to do the dirty work and check it out case by
> case, e.g., do some logic.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> Date: Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 3:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Award Well-Deserved
> To: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>
>
> Joe,
>
> You are incorrect. You are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
> Emotional appeal is relevant when it comes to persuading an audience
> of the general public. If it wasn't advertisers wouldn't use it, and
> celebrities wouldn't be paid millions to endorse products. If the
> general public was completely logical, only then would you be right
> that emotional appeal isn't relevant.
>
> As far as logic goes, no, emotional appeal doesn't withstand its own
> weight. I agree.
>
> The degree is the emotional unappealing element of the argument. The
> morality of the professions and the law breaking is very different.
> The truck drivers were following their orders within the law. The
> Nazis were not following orders within the law. If truck drivers were
> drunk, running over people, hitting other cars, and running wildly
> over the speed limit, and then claimed to be following orders to get
> it there as fast as possible, there would be a more relevant argument.
> The professional drivers followed, local, state, federal, and
> international laws while doing their jobs. Nazis did not. They were
> unprofessional in the performance of their duties as soldiers and
> knowingly so. That is the fault line in your logical argument, your
> premise is completely wrong and it turns the argument into one less
> appealing to an otherwise willing and sympathetic ear.
>
> Donovan Arnold
>
>
>
> From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> To: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 1:26 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Award Well-Deserved
>
> Again, you are wrong. The emotional appeal carries no weight and makes
> NO difference. What matters is the example provides a counterexample
> to the validity of this inference:
>
> I did it because the boss told me to do it; therefore I'm not
> blameworthy for doing it.
>
> That inference is invalid. Nazi guards serve as an example
> illustrating this fact. Consider:
>
> Nazi Guard X says: "I did it because the boss told me to do it;
> therefore I'm not blameworthy for doing it."
>
> This is pretty clearly a bad argument. Arguments are good or bad (in
> this sense, in terms of their inferential strength) generally
> speaking. Thus, if the argument is invalid in one context, it is
> invalid in all contexts. That it is carries an emotional appeal is
> IRRELEVANT. Clearly it doesn't increase the strength of the point. Nor
> does it decrease the strength of the point. It is IRRELEVANT. Joe
>
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Donovan Arnold
> <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Joe,
>>
>> I agree with your technological analysis of logical reasoning in which you
>> are addressing and are able to exercise considerable expertise, just not
>> the
>> emotional appeal attempted by the writer, which is not the logical.
>> Arguments that are logical are not always persuasive, and ones that are
>> not
>> sometimes are--as you well know. The Nazi analogy makes an otherwise good
>> argument go flat, not because of flawed logical reasoning, but because it
>> is
>> emotionally repelling, intellectually unimaginative and lacking
>> originality.
>> Nazi comparisons are cliche and overly dramatize a situation beyond its
>> station.
>
>>
>> Donovan Arnold
>>
>> From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>> To: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
>> Cc: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>; Aaron Ament <aaronament at moscow.com>;
>> JimPrall <bermanprall at gmail.com>; Lois Blackburn <loisb at q.com>; Kathy
>> Judson
>> <ponysnpups at gmail.com>; BorgHendrickson <chicory at wildblue.net>; Friends
>> oftheClearwater <foc at friendsoftheclearwater.org>; Moscow Vision 2020
>> <vision2020 at moscow.com>; Jeanne McHale <jeannemchale at hotmail.com>;
>> FritzKnorr <fritzknorr at gmail.com>; Brett Haverstick
>> <bhaverstick at yahoo.com>;
>
>> Marilyn Beckett <marilynbeckett at gmail.com>; CherylHalverson
>> <basketmakeart at yahoo.com>; Linwood Laughy <lin at wildblue.net>; HelenYost
>> <helen.yost at vandals.uidaho.edu>; Dr. Dinah Zeiger <dzeiger at uidaho.edu>
>> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 12:42 PM
>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Award Well-Deserved
>>
>> That is irrelevant wrt the issue of validity, whether an inference is
>> valid.
>> But don't trust me. I've only been teaching logic for almost 30 years.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 27, 2012, at 11:37 AM, Donovan Arnold
>> <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> True, Joe, but a poor one at that. Comparing an ant hill to Mt. Olympus.
>
>>
>> Donovan Arnold
>>
>> From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>> To: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
>> Cc: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>; Aaron Ament <aaronament at moscow.com>;
>
>> Jim Prall <bermanprall at gmail.com>; Lois Blackburn <loisb at q.com>; Kathy
>> Judson <ponysnpups at gmail.com>; BorgHendrickson <chicory at wildblue.net>;
>
>> Friends ofthe Clearwater <foc at friendsoftheclearwater.org>; Moscow Vision
>> 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>; Jeanne McHale <jeannemchale at hotmail.com>;
>
>> Fritz Knorr <fritzknorr at gmail.com>; Brett Haverstick
>> <bhaverstick at yahoo.com>; Marilyn Beckett <marilynbeckett at gmail.com>;
>> CherylHalverson <basketmakeart at yahoo.com>; Linwood Laughy
>> <lin at wildblue.net>; HelenYost <helen.yost at vandals.uidaho.edu>; Dr. Dinah
>> Zeiger <dzeiger at uidaho.edu>
>> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 12:20 PM
>
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Award Well-Deserved
>>
>> It is not a comparison. It is a counterexample to an inference.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 27, 2012, at 10:20 AM, Donovan Arnold
>> <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I am aware of the remark's origin, Mr. Hansen, as is the entire educated
>> world. And it no less weakens the argument because it is a poor
>> comparison.
>>
>> Claiming the excuse, "I need to feed my family" from someone driving a
>> truck
>> to Canada to ship oil, a needed product, is not the same as claiming, "I
>> need to feed my family" from someone who helped slaughter millions of
>> innocent lives against international law and basic human morality. One is
>> far more legitimate than the other. Truck drivers are little more guilty
>> of
>> destroying the earth than you or me for the oil we demand by driving our
>> cars and polluting the Earth. Someday, truck drivers are going to park and
>> people will cry out for them as they run out of everything and anything
>> they
>> need from apples to toilet paper to removal of their own trash.
>>
>> Those that use the Nazi comparison weaken their argument. It cheapens the
>> lives that were lost in that great atrocity, nothing compares to it in
>> modern history. It also shows a lack of creativity in comparison and
>> visual
>> illustration when the Nazi comparison is made. It is way over used.
>> Certainly, there are other ways of making a point clear without bringing
>> up
>> Nazis all the time.
>>
>> The focus should not be the construction flaggers, truck drivers, the
>> mechanics that put the tires on the trucks, the police, the gas station
>> attendant that let the truck driver fuel this truck or the trees and wind
>> for not blocking their path. It should be on those in political
>> office that
>> allowed the megaloads up 95 and into Canada and corporations that yield
>> considerable power and influence over those politicians.
>>
>> Attacking the powerless for the actions of the powerful is a fruitless
>> venture.
>>
>> Donovan Arnold
>
>>
>> From: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
>> To: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>> Cc: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>; Aaron Ament
>> <aaronament at moscow.com>; Jim Prall <bermanprall at gmail.com>; Lois Blackburn
>
>> <loisb at q.com>; Kathy Judson <ponysnpups at gmail.com>; Borg Hendrickson
>> <chicory at wildblue.net>; Friends ofthe Clearwater
>> <foc at friendsoftheclearwater.org>; Moscow Vision 2020
>> <vision2020 at moscow.com>; Jeanne McHale <jeannemchale at hotmail.com>; Fritz
>
>> Knorr <fritzknorr at gmail.com>; Brett Haverstick <bhaverstick at yahoo.com>;
>> Marilyn Beckett <marilynbeckett at gmail.com>; CherylHalverson
>> <basketmakeart at yahoo.com>; Linwood Laughy <lin at wildblue.net>; HelenYost
>> <helen.yost at vandals.uidaho.edu>; Dr. Dinah Zeiger <dzeiger at uidaho.edu>
>> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 9:55 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Award Well-Deserved
>>
>> Mr. Arnold -
>>
>> Basic Logic 101
>>
>> "it was just my job" = "I was just following orders"
>>
>> The quote on the left was the repeated response, given by management (as
>> well as drivers), to the question "Why?" repeatedly during the past year
>> or
>> so, as the megaloads marauded their way up US95.
>>
>> The quote on the right was the repeated response to the question "Why?"
>> repeatedly during the Nurnberg trials, by those defendants charged with
>> crimes against humanity.
>>
>> Seeya round town, Moscow.
>>
>> Tom Hansen
>> Moscow, Idaho
>>
>> "If not us, who?
>> If not now, when?"
>>
>> - Unknown
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 27, 2012, at 8:44, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> "it was just my job"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120430/67319944/attachment-0001.html>