Aspiring PolyMathis

Wednesday, November 07, 2012

What will four more years look like?

What will the next four years of an Obama presidency be like?

To know the future one must investigate the past. In this case, the place to start is with his own words:

"Implicit in [the Constitution] structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth, the infallibility of any idea or ideology or theology or 'ism,' any tyrannical consistency that might lock future generations into a single, unalterable course..." (The Audacity of Hope, p. 93).

(continued here)

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Christian news perspectives on the Aurora movie massacre

I have a unique opportunity to write unfettered for a secular news source. As the Christian Perspectives Examiner, I pray that my past and future articles will glorify God through this horrid crime:

1. People seek God after Aurora movie massacre
2. Aurora theater massacre affects local Christians
3. Christians pray for Aurora theater massacre

Saturday, June 30, 2012

Post-analysis of Supreme Court's defense of Obamacare

1. Foxnews on Robert's non-existent rationale and the definition of tax.

2. A proposed non-political solution at the Wall Street Journal.

3. How the younger are adversely affected by this law at Reason.

4. Freedom from paying other people's murders is a concern forgotten by many.

5. Other social-impacting concerns (no law is an island), here.\

6. Summary of minority opinion's rebuttal, here.

7. Helpful summary of the underlining constitutional problem, the General Welfare clause, here.

8. From Judge Napolitano, here.

Monday, June 18, 2012

Family Integrated Church four-part podcast series

For those who prefer audio interviews, here is the entire four-part series:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Otherwise, check out the written series of related articles here.

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Part 3 of family integrated church podcast series

Continued here.

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

God strikes High Park

The outstretched arm of the God of heaven struck the mountains of Colorado. In an apparent lightning strike, fire broke out in High Park late last week, according to the Denver Post.

[continued here]

Thursday, June 07, 2012

Part 2 of family integrated churches podcast series

At Thatmom.com, here.

Logical Fallacies

* ** Frequently used propaganda techniques:

* Ad Hominem - Attack your opponent's person rather than the argument itself. Literally "against the man"

* Ad Hominem Abusive (Sub category of Ad Hominem) - An attack on the character or other irrelevant personal qualities of the opposition—such as appearance—is offered as evidence against their position. Such attacks are often effective distractions ("red herrings"), because the opponent feels it necessary to defend the self, thus being distracted from the topic of the debate.

* Ad Hominem Circumstantial (Subcategory of Ad Hominem) -A Circumstantial Ad Hominem is one in which some irrelevant personal circumstance surrounding the opponent is offered as evidence against the opponent's position. This fallacy is often introduced by phrases such as: "Of course, that's what you'd expect him to say." The fallacy claims that the only reason why he argues as he does is because of personal circumstances, such as standing to gain from the argument's acceptance.

* Appeal to Authority - Citing authorities or respected figures to support an argument or to discredit or negate an argument made by an opponent. This effectively thwarts the debate and the argument.

* Appeal to Fear - Fear is used to destabilize people so that they will be more likely to do or believe something that they would not otherwise choose under normal circumstances

* Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum) - Use of force and threats of force to "win" a debate. (baculum is a walking stick)

* Appeal to Ignorance (also Argument from Silence) -An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.

* Appeal to Prejudice - Using emotive terms and connotation to attach moral benefit or goodness to the argument. Attach the modifier "Biblical" to that which should not be questioned. "Cleanliness is next to godliness." It can also be used negatively. "The opinions and unrelated beliefs of a non-Christian cannot really be trusted, even regarding matters that do not relate to morality or Scripture."

* Argumentum Ad Nauseum - An idea is repeated relentlessly until it is accepted. Especially
effective when there is a great deal of milieu control.

* Argumentum Ad Populum - (also called the "bandwagon" and "inevitable victory") Persuasion based on social proof

* Big Lie - Create a message that is so complex but contains enough truthful elements so that people will not identify all the fictitious and fallacious elements. By the time it is recognized, many of the ideas are a part of the fabric of the debate and widely accepted.

* Black-and-White Fallacy** (also called the Either-Or Fallacy or False Dilemma) - Presents information so that there are only two possible choices, one of which is far more appealing than the other. Obsures the difference between that which is contrary vs contradictory.

* Common Man - Taking on of the characteristics of the target audience to make the message more palatable

* Flag-waving - Capitalizing on patriotic sentiments to further one's agenda.

* Glittering Generality - The use of positive connotation and vague statements to present an argument as very desirable without evidence to support glittering claims

* Intentional Vagueness (also "Fuzzy Logic") - Conclusions are not directly stated and the message may be intentionally vague so that individuals may draw their own conclusions, and the speaker does not have to be held directly accountable for the ideas. This works well in concert with other propaganda techniques.

* Oversimplification (also "Fallacy of the Simple Cause") - Very complex processes are described with trite explanations that do not provide a faithful perspective for the target audience. Trite explanations are used to reduce rationales into faulty causalities.

* Quoting Out of Context (type of "Straw Man" argument) - Selected quotes are extracted from a passage so that without the full context of the passage, the meaning is greatly distorted.

* Rationalization - Positive and unrelated aspects of something are offered as evidence for an argument's validity. "But they can't teach wrong doctrine because they have a lovely family"

* Red Herring - (large category of several fallacies) Irrelevant but compelling aspects of an argument are offered as a distraction from the core issues in order to derail the debate.

* Redefinition - Assigning new meaning to an old term, but this is a logical boobytrap because of the ease of equivocation and confusing meanings. "He who defines, wins."

* Repetition - A rhetorical or literary device that is lyrical and gets stuck in one's mind like an advertising jingle. It is akin to argumentum ad nauseum, but also has literary quality.

* Scapegoating - A single cause or element is identified and vilified as the source of all undesirable circumstances or outcomes. The scapegoat distracts the audience from other possible contributing factors.

* Slogans - Short phrases or motto used to make emotional appeals and support ideas. Slogans become "thought stopping" techniques quickly and become communication shortcuts that suspend critical thought.

* Steriotyping (also "Name Calling" or "Labeling") - Reduces people, events, practices or ideas to capitalize on prejudice to evoke fear or distain.

* Straw Man** - The Prince of All Fallacies (Subtype of "Red Herring") - Attempt to refute an opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the "straw man"—not held by the opponent. Argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" the arguer has set up, but misses the target. A common straw man is an extreme man. Extreme positions are more difficult to defend because they make fewer allowances for exceptions, or counter-examples.

* Unstated Assumption** - Beliefs are implied or stated indirectly because a direct statement would seem less credible. "Women's suffrage is outside the prescriptive will of God and Kingdom Architecture." As a woman and a voter, you now have been told that you are acting outside the will of God and willingly disobedient. Any Christian understands that willful disobedience of God and the Scriptures is sin. The speaker can imply that they have not accused anyone of sinning, skirting accountability; however their inference that voting for women is a sin is understood.