Is it possible that “no one is legally responsible for the killings” which Jared Loughner implemented in Arizona, and that even Loughner, who pulled the trigger, has no actual culpability? Is “legally insane” the same as not culpable?
To begin, all accusations of connections between Loughner and Palin are Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacies; there is exactly no evidence that Loughner knew anything about Palin’s map. The accusations began immediately upon hearing the national news reports of Loughner’s killings. So the rational content, being based on zero evidence, was zero. Zero rational content = irrational. Further, the purported connection between Loughner and Palin was false, and is false. So the continuation of juxatposing Loughner and Palin is false, egregiously so, viciously so.
The general Leftist retreat from its Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc accusations was only to be remounted as specious attacks on the “violent atmosphere” created by Tea Parties and… of course… Palin. Never mind that the Left has actual direct connections between its rhetoric and political shooting. The Leftist fallacy in play here is the Fallacy of Overgeneralizatin, coupled with the Fallacy of Poisoning the Well.
Nearly a quarter of the video is devoted to praising Obama’s speech of caution and unknowability, a sentiment which is highly laudable, especially compared to Obama’s racial interference in other situations, including before and after the Loughner event. Obama here takes the proper stance of not making accusations without knowing the facts (why should that even be necessary?). That doesn’t stop the Left, which takes its venom directly and immediately to Palin. In spades.
Next, LiberalViewer’s video brings the mental state of Loughner into the spotlight early on, with an excited statement by Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, declaring Loughner to be schizophrenic, a “textbook case”. Who is Dr. Torrey? Dr. Torrey is a celebrity psychiatrist, focusing on schizophrenia. Unremarkably, he finds Loughner to be schizophrenic, even without an interview with Loughneer.
It has been documented by Dr. Szasz that Dr. Torrey originally was vehemently against the “insanity defense” for the reason that insanity is not an empirically detectable and treatable disease in the same manner as is physical disease. This means that opinion, not science, rules in psychiatry, and the avoidance of criminal charges is accomplished not on science, but on the biases of the “expert” called to testify.
The clash between Dr. Torrey vs Dr. Szasz is quite interesting.
Apparently Dr. Torrey now espouses covert involuntary incarceration based on his own opinion of the sanity of any given individual.
Of course, the criticism of psychiatry would not go unchallenged; here Dr. Szasz is critiqued by Dr. Kendell (unsuccessfully from a deductive point of view).
Here, then, are some concepts to consider:
Concept: there exist no objective observable empirical tests for insanity; the DSM is a compilation of symptoms, not actual causation by disease or biological malfunction.
Concept: without empirical evidence for causation, designation of “insanity” is merely opinion based on correlation as causation – an obvious logical fallacy.
Concept: Loughner was, in fact, the biological agent which pulled the trigger thereby causing the tragedy.
Concept: Was Loughner caused by Palin to be that agent (i.e. was Palin in control of his mind)? Was Loughner influenced by Palin to be that agent? More than two years later there is no evidence which supports those charges: none.
Concept: IF there is no evidence now connecting Loughner to Palin, THEN there was also no evidence then connecting Loughner to Palin.
But here’s what LiberalViewer wants to attack Palin for, specifically: referring to Loughner’s actions as “criminal”, when Loughner might use the insanity defense to avoid having the term “criminal” attached to his actions. Let’s see, is it proper to immediately adjudge the killings to mean insanity while also criticizing the immediate adjudging of killings to be criminal murder? Both sides in this matter prejudged Loughner to be “deranged” or to have some form of “mental instability”. But that diagnosis cannot be done without careful and prolonged analysis, and until it is done properly and by several qualified experts (preferably without the bias of a Dr Torrey), how can it be improper to adjudge a killing to be a criminal action? If it is not one or the other, then what is it? And why can it not be both, as is "criminally insane"? The fallacy in play here is the Fallacy of Appeal to Consequences.
Fallacy: Appeal To Consequences:
P leads to bad consequences (where the consequences are irrelevant to the truth or falsity of P); THEREFORE, P is false. (Or evil or morally wrong).
*********
Here are Palin’s speech references to Loughner:
(a) “single evil man”;
(b) “a deranged gunman”;
(c) “It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.”
(d) “this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal”;
(e) “random acts of a criminal”;
(f) “We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate.”
Palin did, indeed, refer to the agent causing the deaths as “a criminal”. That does not in any manner constitute a fallacy unless and until the actions of the agent are legally pronounced not to have been criminal – which is not a default position to take.
*************
Next, the Left, along with perturbed Jewish protests, adjudged Palin’s use of the term, “blood libel”, to be highly offensive. The term originated in anti-Semitism, and the Jews apparently own the term; so it is not to be used, regardless of the libel based on blood with which Palin was assaulted nationally.
Here is Palin’s blood libel reference:
” If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”Of course those guilty of defaming Palin would object to the term, “blood libel”, wouldn’t they; in this case, they can’t deny its applicability, so they reference the Jewish claim that the term is the sole property of Jews, and to use their property is somehow onerous. OK then, let’s change it for them, to be PC: the Leftists have used the BLOOD of Loughner’s victims to both LIBEL & SLANDER (i.e., DEFAME falsely, purposefully, and cynically) Palin and the Right in general (as references contained herein demonstrate). That would change Palin’s statement to this:
” But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood soaked defamation, both libelous and slanderous, not to mention false to its core, and cynically, politically motivated by blind worship of Leftist Narrative, that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”
That should be more politically correct as well as factually correct.
In a sense, the use of a term which is property of another group would be a fallacy, IFF terminology can be owned, wholly owned, by a select group. That concept seems absurd, yet it is a PC value used politically and racially by the Left, exclusively. (there are certain words, such as fuck, shit, cunt, etc that are disallowed by the government for use on public media; these are commonly used in Leftist media – especially movies - however).
Criticizing Palin for “casting herself as the victim, comparing herself to the medieval Jews of Europe,” is a highly prejudiced take on Palin’s use of the term “blood libel”. She made no such comparison. She was, however, libeled and slandered and defamed with the use of the blood of the victims of Loughner. She is responding as an actual victim of the insidious, odious false charges. And where in LiberalViewer’s law experience does it say that the words, “blood libel”, are property? That its use is tantamount to comparison to medieval Jews? Hint: it does not. The charge here is factually and legally fallacious.
**********
And, Palin on violence:
” As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, “We know violence isn’t the answer. When we ‘take up our arms’, we’re talking about our vote.” “And, Palin on intolerance of dissent and faux insult indignation:
” And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.”Here is the non-credible, fabricated “comparing herself to Muslims in this clip”:
” It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today.”This particular charge is maximally egregious; Palin is not attaching herself to Islam or Muslims in any manner, nor is she attacking them in any manner. She is addressing the trade-off between freedom and security, the national conundrum which arose after 9/11. LV has indulged in another false accusation.
LV has no memory of Palin’s position on loss of rights during 9/11/2001 aftermath? She was not a national politician at the time, she was a mayor of a small town; She was not a major politician until elected governor of Alaska in 2006; Libviewer is being just silly… Or is he trying to imply something evil to Palin, such as contradictory policy statements? Is he? Of course he is. He really does not remember, so why bring it up, unless it is to impute defamation?
Terrorists not worthy of American Rights? War criminals, like all criminals, forfeit their rights and freedoms. Palin is correct, logically and ethically.
LV claims “Sarah Palin may try to associate herself with post 9/11 victimization of Muslims and medieval persecution of Jews, but all she cares about is her own rights, even in the midst of a tragedy which is not about her”… leading to LV’s analysis of narcissism. His secondary analysis is that Palin’s political career has been “damaged significantly”.
Absurd, to the max. She is talking about terrorists, not general populations of Muslims. That is merely a smear being generated obtusely by warping Palin’s statements into unintended and non-literal meanings which are congenial to the Leftist Narrative which is being concocted here. The editing of Palin’s comments is suspiciously started in the middle of a sentence, obviously losing the context leading to her statement. However, she points it directly at terrorists in the second sentence. LV’s claim is absurd. Absurdity is a logical fallacy; it denotes internal non-congruity.
Further, Palin was victimized cynically and without regard to any facts. This tragedy was placed directly on her, and here she is responding to that. Criticizing her for responding to the assaults on her is as cynical as it can be imagined. The rights of war criminals are covered by the Geneva Convention, and the implementation of that is up to Obama; how is he doing on that, and how is the Left responding?
That Palin defends Americans’ rights over those of foreign war criminals is in no manner an indication of narcissism; LV makes no other psychiatric analytical case, and no further analysis than to imply that Americans’ rights should be equivalent to the rights of war criminals somehow, and that Palin is insane for thinking otherwise. That is demonstrably absurd. It was demonstrated after WWII that war criminals do not have rights, they have forfeited their rights. LiberalViewer’s charge is demonstrably false, because the historical evidence is clear.
************
Palin’s Conclusion:
” America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week. We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy. We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner, and to unite in the knowledge that, though our ideas may be different, we must all strive for a better future for our country. May God bless America.”
Now let’s view some of the Left’s response:
(1) Abdication of charges against Palin by the Left (absolving her while cursing her)
(search for actual evidence in dailykos)
(2) Generalization of the revised Fallacy:
(My indictment of Palin, Beck, and the paranoid fringe that they promote is much larger than Jared Lee Loughner: that they are feeding a climate of baseless hatred in this country, that it is seeping into the broken places in individual psyches and in our communities, and that if we let them get away with it, we may destroy ourselves.) The trick here is to call the Right’s position “baseless hatred” while ignoring the content of the charges; it is absolutely necessary to demonize those who call out the marchers who are in lockstep for unspecified “Change”, which actually means huge, uncontrollable government which asserts the Left’s self-endowed moral authority on the Other.
(3) Paul Krugman,
Krugman’s hate rant which is based on innuendo and without fact one is well received on the Left. It is apparent however, having been to Tea Party events, that the evil rhetoric amounts to this:
“liberty actually means being left alone by the government, and the tenth amendment to the constitution (part of the Bill Of Rights) guarantees this; the Left wants to void the constitution as not a firm law of the land, rather as a ‘living document’ which the Left interprets perversely inversely. The Left has an agenda of top down control, and considers those who demur, those who demand their constitutional right to be left alone, to be their enemies, enemies who must be Alinsky-ed and demonized under the cloak of faux moral outrage.”
For Krugman to claim that eliminationist rhetoric comes exclusively from the Right is absurd; the death threats from the Left are seemingly continuous and go back to the Leftist bombings in the 1960’s by radicals still on the loose in the Democrat Party. [Note 1] Tell George Zimmerman just how benign the Democrat Left is. Tell any of the whistleblowers.
Further, there is little doubt that neither Krugman nor any other Leftist has ever attended a local Tea Party event. Their analysis comes from their own paranoia at the threat to their Leftist, government domination dreams which the Tea Party represents.
Krugman claims that it is the hatred of government by the Right which caused the Loughner massacre and supports that with Loughner’s web rant against the government. It could not possibly be the constant governmental abuse and governmental malignant growth toward its totalitarian end which influenced Loughner; no, it is the criticism of that which is to blame. In Krugman’s world, if there had been no criticism from the Right, then Loughner would not have shot those people. There will be much more bloodshed by the Right, says Krugman, due to their hate (i.e. criticism of the Left). As always in the tolerant Leftist world, tolerance of everything does not include tolerance of criticism; that must be Alinsky-ized and eradicated.
Yet now Loughner is considered insane and beyond rational comprehension. Does the Left relent in its charges of hate against the Right? Of course not. The Left is never the problem (mass narcissim)-only the Right which wants to be left alone is the problem. But, no one can be left alone by the messiahs.
Messiahism has two main elements: personal attainment of narcissistic self-righteous perfection of morals and therefore personal innate morality for themselves and their designated Victim classes, and constant judgmentalism of designated Oppressor Classes even if the offenses must be manufactured and/or imaginary.
Here’s a real (not imagined)Leftist inspired shooting. (Corkins admitted to the SPLC link and to the environment of hate hysteria aimed at Chik Fil A and FRC). Amazingly, Corkins was stopped by an armed person. Who’d a thought it?
Finally he asks these prejudicial questions (“when did you stop beating your wife” type of prejudiced questions; Fallacy of Loaded Questions):
1. “Did Sarah Palin’s violent rhetoric before the Arizona shooting along with her self-centered finger-pointing after the shooting end up significantly damaging her career?
The imputation of violence to Palin’s speeches is more blood-related defamation, both libel and slander (speech and written); comprehension of metaphor seems beyond the Left, except when it is convenient for their own purposes (“choke to death on Chick Fil A; KillBush; hope Rush dies of his heart attack;” etc ad nauseum/infinitum).
Her self-centered finger pointing was actually this: after being falsely attacked in the form of blood-related defamation, both libel and slander, she defended herself. Part of her defense included the concept that an agent for evil is responsible for the evil he caused, even if “deranged”. This is apparently considered an evil concept by LV, who quotes a known aggressive, forcible-incarceration-for-mental-disorders advocate as evidence that loughner is NOT responsible for his actions under a probable insanity defense.
It seems odd for a person who claims to be a legal defender to claim that the insanity defense proves non-culpability, yet uses a pro-involuntary-incarceration psychiatrist to provide an admitted premature testimonial. And in actuality, the psychiatrist’s opinion of Loughner’s derangement coincides with Palin’s comments regarding loughner’s derangement. What is not supported is the Leftist accusation that Palin is somehow responsible for Loughner’s actions.
Her “self-centered finger–pointing”? She was forced to defend herself from the blood-related defamation, libel and slander being slung from all points Leftist; that definitely was about her, specifically her. The implication that she had no cause to point fingers is false. She correctly identified the Leftist ideological goons who cynically jumped to false conclusions, ideological conclusions based on nothing but their need to spew hate in promotion of their Leftist Narrative, which is that the ideologically deviant are responsible for all evil in the world, and that the Left is the repository of truth and moral purity, including salvation for the masses. This is easily verified by searching the dailykos site for such Leftist venom (always emotionally laden, and evidence starved).
At any rate, the issue of Palin damaging Loughner’s defense is ludicrous, as is the idea that he somehow is not the agent for causing the executions.
2. LV continues: “Regarding Sarah Palin’s claim she was unfairly accused… Isn’t there a certain amount of poetic justice in people making a simplistic connection between Sarah Palin and the Arizona violence given the way Sarah Palin’s rise has been based on simplistic fallacies like “death panels”, “drill, baby drill”, “don’t retreat, reload”, and Obama “palling around with terrorists”?
This is also ludicrous. Each of these “fallacies” deserves full treatment. But first, “poetic justice”? Here LiberalViewer attempts to justify – justify – the false Leftist attacks on Palin using further false attacks on Palin, as will be demonstrated next. This is merely a further smear, a continuation of the original Leftist smears, being based on a phony concept of eye-for-eye tit-for-tat "poetic" justice, and based on completely false “fallacies”, as will be shown.
First, death panels are now referenced by Democrats, who acknowledge their purpose, and who now want them eliminated. Is “death panel” a logical fallacy? Hardly. It is hardwired into the Democrat “sign before reading” ObamaCare Law travesty. A Fallacy in LV’s video analysis: Argumentum Ad Logicum.
Death Panels:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/democrats-obamacare-death-panel/2013/08/08/id/519422
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/08/death-panels_n_3726025.html
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/316045-obamacare-cost-cutting-board-faces-growing-opposition-from-democrats
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/08/democrats-obamacare-death-panels-howard-dean
http://www.infowars.com/democrats-crank-up-death-panel-talk-following-obama-win/
The fact of the “death panels” and their power to deny medical treatment to citizens is now undeniable; even the Left so acknowledges. This “fallacy” is a Fallacy Argumentum Ad Logicum, an error committed regularly in LV’s video.
Second, “drill, baby, drill”. This concept is odious only to those who believe, deeply, that the use of all carbon based resources should be stopped by stopping all access to new finds. The result of that would be economic failure, since all commodities are dependent upon carbon based fuel, including food distribution, medical distribution, 82% of electrical generation – meaning heating, cooling, lighting and appliances such as refrigerators depend on it, the building of new housing and the delivery of materials for construction, the fuel for importing goods and exporting goods, etc, etc. The environmentalist wet dream is an economic nightmare, which will adversely affect the poor unsymmetrically.
The phrase itself cannot be a fallacy of any sort, because as a conclusion, its premises are sound. Another Fallacy Argumentum Ad Logicam in LV’s video.
Third, “Don’t retreat, reload”; Palin is culpable here of using a metaphor in a society dominated by those who are opportunistic literalists if there is a chance to be one, and to use it to further the Leftist Narrative. She failed to see the utility which that statement would have for the cynical use of Leftist objectives.
Law Professor, Glenn Reynolds:
” When Democrats use language like this—or even harsher language like Mr. Obama's famous remark, in Philadelphia during the 2008 campaign,Demonizing Palin is a Leftist necessity. Her appeal, both ideologically and visually, is a threat. The potential “first woman presidents” from the Left cannot compete unless Palin is smeared into obscurity. So even the most innocuous of metaphors is called a fallacy, without any attempt to demonstrate fallaciousness. This is purely rhetorical dishonesty."If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"—it's just evidence of high spirits, apparently. But if Republicans do it, it somehow creates a climate of hate.
And, Professor Reynolds again:
”American journalists know how to be exquisitely sensitive when they want to be. As the Washington Examiner's Byron York pointed out on Sunday, after Major Nidal Hasan shot up Fort Hood while shouting "Allahu Akhbar!" the press was full of cautions about not drawing premature conclusions about a connection to Islamist terrorism. "Where," asked Mr. York, "was that caution after the shootings in Arizona?"
“Set aside as inconvenient, apparently. There was no waiting for the facts on Saturday. Likewise, last May New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and CBS anchor Katie Couric speculated, without any evidence, that the Times Square bomber might be a tea partier upset with the ObamaCare bill.
“So as the usual talking heads begin their "have you no decency?" routine aimed at talk radio and Republican politicians, perhaps we should turn the question around. Where is the decency in blood libel?
“To paraphrase Justice Cardozo ("proof of negligence in the air, so to speak, will not do"), there is no such thing as responsibility in the air. Those who try to connect Sarah Palin and other political figures with whom they disagree to the shootings in Arizona use attacks on "rhetoric" and a "climate of hate" to obscure their own dishonesty in trying to imply responsibility where none exists. But the dishonesty remains”.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071913818696964.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
The insinuation that Palin meant this literally is not accompanied by any evidence; therefore, the conclusion cannot be valid, so the fallacy in the LV comments is, yet again, Fallacy Argumentum Ad Logicum.
Fourth, Obama “Palling around with terrorists” is not in any way a logical fallacy, it is true, as in corresponding to fact. Obama’s long term relationship with William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn is fact; his huggy relationship with Hugo Chavez was sloppily jovial, until Chavez turned on him. Obama seems to channel Che Guevara in the sense that both of them seem to revel in their unchecked ability to kill their enemies with impunity from legal consequence; Obama references his trophy kill frequently. Obama seems to consistently favor Hamas:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/obama_and_hamas.html
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/tribune-covers-for-obamas-terrorist-friends/
So the imputation of these Palinisms to be “fallacies” is itself false. The “fallacy fallacy” is still Argumentum Ad Logicum. The statements by Palin are in no manner logically false. So the declaration that they are fallacies is either an artifact of not comprehending that which constitutes a fallacy (Note 2), or it is an artifact of prejudicing the questions toward answers which are desirable under the Leftist Narrative Fallacy of Loaded Questions.
Which is it? We want to know what YOU think! Is it intentionally prejudicial? Or is it merely ignorance of standard logic discipline? (See what I did there?)
I’ll use Prof. Reynolds’ comments to close:
”To be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?
“I understand the desperation that Democrats must feel after taking a historic beating in the midterm elections and seeing the popularity of ObamaCare plummet while voters flee the party in droves. But those who purport to care about the health of our political community demonstrate precious little actual concern for America's political well-being when they seize on any pretext, however flimsy, to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.
“Where is the decency in that?”
To be fair, some on the Left backed off of their accusations, and some even gave (strained and distorted) apologies for their behavior. But not all. Not even close to all. For most Leftists it seems clear that the attachment to their Narrative is more dear than any submission to truth, evidence, or even reliable logic. And besides, Palin is dangerous to the Left and its precious Narrative; she must be destroyed (Note 3). Even after their “apologies”, they did not relent, and they will not. Palin represents an antithesis to Leftism with potentialities beyond any which they can dredge up, at least without false charges, false promises, and false premises. And finally, the messiahs must assign Sarah Palin to the Oppressor Class somehow; she cannot be allowed any victimhood because her ideology and personal strength prevent it.
Lv's video is merely a continuation of the failed smear on Palin, this time time done in sotto voce, as if truth were conveyed thusly. It is not; actual truth requires disciplined logic and submission to whatever answers are produced by valid, grounded and tested logic. Palin's guilt is pre-assigned, and the reasons are subsequently fabricated and force-fit. That is the Fallacy of Rationalization.
Notes:
Note 1: Actually Democrat violence goes all the way back through the era of Jim Crow, Bull Connor’s dogs and the killings of the civil rights workers, to the early KKK lynchings and the slave trade. Modern Democrats are history revisionists and denialists and/or claim that the Democrat switch to the Left changed them somehow and therefore changed the Right also. The Right never changed, however, and human civil liberty progress has been totally Republican driven with the exception of Harry Truman who went against his own party (the Democrats, of course, filibustered their own president to try to stop his civil rights bills). The racism of the Democrats is now covertly administered via support for the continuation of black ghetto plantations and black abortion of their progeny, and demonization of the Right for its objections to that and for supporting equality of opportunity over race-biased denigration of black capabilities, which qualifies the Right as Oppressors.
Note 2. All fallacies are some form of non-sequitur (“it does not follow”). That means that a conclusion does not follow from the evidence given, a logic error that can be produced in many different ways. First there must actually be evidence given. Then the evidence must itself be both valid and true as indicated by specific deductive testing methodology. The conclusion also must be directly related to the evidence, and to nothing else (such as prejudicial opinion). Any falseness in the premise chain makes the conclusion false.
Note 3: The Left went berserk when Palin was nominated for vice president; bevys of garbage-diggers went to Alaska to root through her trash to try to find something smelly. All they could find was a challenged baby, so they attacked him and his mother. Without anything with which to attack Palin, they merely charged her with being a "cunt". They had nothing else then, and they had nothing else now. Palin has made some real gaffes. So has Obama and Biden. That sort of game, the Left cannot win.
No comments:
Post a Comment