Search the Community

Let's play the Where's Waldo: Fallacy Edition! Article Link: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/loves-evolver/201103/sexual-monogamy-does-not-lead-happiness

I wanted to follow up with @PatrickC on this which came up on an unrelated thread. So I'm creating a new (and probably lengthy) thread. Here are the quotes from that thread to catch anyone who's interested up to speed. I've cut out a lot of the bulkiness... hopefully it still makes sense what is going on: I said: Patrick replied: First, know that it's been a while since I've studied logical fallacies, and when I did, my mind wasn't in the right place to absorb what was being taught. Must have been because I was used to engaging in conversations riddled with fallacies and thought that was normal. So I had a hard time stepping away from that to analyze it critically. Alright, so I think I see where you identified a straw man... but it took me quite a while to figure out if it truly is a straw man. The straw man would be that "someone who is downvoting has the same malicious intent as an abusive father." However, I didn't intend it that way, so I should have been clearer. What I was trying to convey is that I feel similarly when I get a downvote sans explanation to when someone makes me guess why they are upset or disapprove of something I've done. What results from this kind of interaction (or lack thereof) is only two possibilities--right or wrong. There's no discussion or negotiation... no opportunity to learn. So that is why I related the two scenarios. They are not related through abuse, because giving someone a downvote, even without an explanation, is not abusive I don't think. Key words here would be that "I feel"... this leaves it open enough for me to consider if it is a personal problem/baggage (which it probably is) or if my feelings are justified (which is also possible, I'm not sure yet). So I'm allowing myself to assess this further by talking about my feelings rather than making claims. I see that my original post may have been seen as a claim, but it wasn't my intent... just bad writing. So in order for it to be a straw man, I must have an opponent whose argument I've deconstructed and reassembled into something that is no longer the same, then I start attacking that invention. Now that I've clarified my intent, do you still consider my original post to be a straw man? Feedback is greatly appreciated. And patience is also greatly appreciated. Thank you!

So, captain Phillips, the movie!!!, has grossed over $70 million USD so far. I'm a sailor, and I've seen it. It is a great movie, made entertaining by Tom Hanks. Great, great actor. I just thought I engage in some confirmation bias, and propaganda bashing. In real life, the peak of piracy kidnapping in Somalia was around 2008, with over 1000 sailors kidnapped that year. The Maersk Alabama was hijacked in 2009. I was the there a few days before on a passenger ship, and I can tell you that there was a lot of activity. And it is almost impossible to identify a pirate until he starts shooting at you, since all of the local fisherman are armed for self defence as well. There has been some controversey in the New York Post regarding the competency of the real life captain Phillips. As a mariner I'd just like to point out two things, which may be of interest to those of you who know a bit about the Admiralty Law Vs Common Law, Straw Man trickery dating back to the great fire of London. Firstly, sea captains are not Captains. Their proper legal title is 'Master'. The contract between a ships crew is literally a 'Master', slave relationship. Secondly, the 'Master' is the shipowners representative on board, however since the East India Company days, almost all ships are individually owned by dummy corporations, LLCs. So, somali piracy was caused by governments, destroying somali fishing grounds etc, and governments are responsible for the violence in somalia. Merchant Vessels are heavily regulated by the state and the UN, and have been disarmed decades ago by states, who wish their Naval Boarding parties safe access to board ships for 'customs checks', etc. Easy. The movie however, is a sneakily quiet bit of propaganda. And as Stefan Molyneux has often pointed out, 'when a problem is close to being solved by the free market elements, the state is always there to take credit.'. After 2009, the International Association of Classification Societies capitalised on raised public awareness of the Somali problem for seafarers. Vessels transitting the horn of africa were allowed to start employing private security firms whilst transitting the Horn of Africa. Self Defence from a ship is very easy if you have a few assault rifles, etc. One ship I was on employed 4 Israeli guys, to protect a 700ft passenger ship, with 1000 people on board. This has now become common practice. A little self defence goes a long way. from over 1000 sailors kidnapped per year in 2008 / 2009, there have been NO HiJackings in 2013. ZERO! There are still 250 people and 8 vessels held captive right now in Somalia, according to the ONI weekly bulletin. Allowing self defence again, and letting private firms find the optimal solution, have completely solved the problem in a matter of a couple of years. So cue the Propaganda to justify the massive Naval presence in the Middle East, Africa & Indian Ocean. So, time the release of the Captain Phillips movie, which presents the military as the all powerful defender of freedom, to coincide with the end of the problem. Here is a video that will make your skin crawl. Overview%20Piracy%20Incidents%20CN%2030%20Apr%2013.pdf