This is the "world is going to end because we didn't plant grass today," argument. This fallacy often seems plausible. The slippery slope argument often hinges on worse and worse things until the world is basically ending. I most often see this when debating gay marriage and gender identity.
The argument with gay marriage is usually laid out as: if we have same sex marriage, what's next? Marriage between a man and his cow? Pedophiles marrying their victims? and so on and so forth. Generally speaking, this is absurd. The majority of people that say things like "people should be able to marry whomever they choose," are speaking of two consenting adults. Now, at the risk of falling prey to another logical fallacy, no, they don't always say it, but it is implied. "How is it implied?" you may ask. Well, I have never actually heard a logical, sane person argue for anything other than same sex marriage when they actually get into the argument. When pressed for more information on the policies they seek, they will argue for two consenting adults be allowed to marry regardless of gender.
The other way I see this fallacy is when people are discussing gender identity or sexual orientation. People will suddenly break in with something like "if I feel like a dog, that doesn't mean I am actually a dog." or "What next? people identifying as poodles." This is a bit extreme. From what I can tell, there are two basic genders, on either end of the spectrum. None of them come up with a whole new gender. There's male, female, gender fluid (both), and agendered (neither) for the main categories, and it may be somewhere in between for some. None of these are listed as poodle, duck, tree, or anything else. It's an extreme reaction to something the person doesn't understand.
This is the slippery slope. Neither of these things are really going to happen. We can even create laws to prevent them. The laws could state that marriage between consenting adults is legal, as long as all parties agree to the terms. It becomes less sexy then, but the government isn't very sexy to begin with. We also must acknowledge that separation of church and state means that there is no religious connotation of marriage under the legal definition. Churches may elect not to perform ceremonies, but they can for heterosexual couples as well. As far as gender, we can also limit this to only human genders. We can insist that people will choose a human gender. We don't have to acknowledge the ones who want to identify as a tree. Bathrooms should all be single stall unisex anyway, so don't get me started.
Don't fall down the slippery slope. Things that you do not approve of or understand may exist without the drama of thinking the worst will happen.
Monday, April 30, 2018
Tuesday, April 24, 2018
The Bill of Rights- The Tenth Amendment
The tenth amendment covers those things that should be left to the states.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Basically this one covers everything that the federal government should stay out of. People should govern themselves or the states should; the federal government should stay out of it. This is a debate between the Democrats and Republicans in many cases. One side wants more government control while the other wants less. There should be some common ground in this area, as what is best for the people may be different depending on each situation. No, I don't think the government needs to know everything I do always, but I do think that some consistency throughout the states would be good. I am not a lawmaker, however, so I cannot decide which of these things are better to be left to states and which should be federal. There are cases for both. The fact of the matter is, the constitution says that somethings should be left alone.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Basically this one covers everything that the federal government should stay out of. People should govern themselves or the states should; the federal government should stay out of it. This is a debate between the Democrats and Republicans in many cases. One side wants more government control while the other wants less. There should be some common ground in this area, as what is best for the people may be different depending on each situation. No, I don't think the government needs to know everything I do always, but I do think that some consistency throughout the states would be good. I am not a lawmaker, however, so I cannot decide which of these things are better to be left to states and which should be federal. There are cases for both. The fact of the matter is, the constitution says that somethings should be left alone.
The Bill of Rights- Ninth Amendment
The ninth amendment is a catch all.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
This amendment basically says that the rights of the people are not limited to those outlined in the constitution as it is written. We have more rights than are outlined here. The rights of the people to be free shouldn't be infringed upon, and the constitution felt the need to say that this document wasn't conclusive. There really isn't much to debate in this one.
I do feel that 2nd amendment supporters should actually use the 9th amendment instead. The wording of the second is unclear as to whether or not we should be armed to have a well regulated militia or if everyone has the right to bear arms for any purpose. This one says that the the amendments are not conclusive, so they could protect the rights of the citizens to protect themselves. Just my two cents worth, though. ;)
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
This amendment basically says that the rights of the people are not limited to those outlined in the constitution as it is written. We have more rights than are outlined here. The rights of the people to be free shouldn't be infringed upon, and the constitution felt the need to say that this document wasn't conclusive. There really isn't much to debate in this one.
I do feel that 2nd amendment supporters should actually use the 9th amendment instead. The wording of the second is unclear as to whether or not we should be armed to have a well regulated militia or if everyone has the right to bear arms for any purpose. This one says that the the amendments are not conclusive, so they could protect the rights of the citizens to protect themselves. Just my two cents worth, though. ;)
Logical Fallacies- False Dichotomies
False dichotomies are related to being black and white. They are also either or. It is a fallacy of limitations, though. Many people do not see the shades of grey in the world, and that is the fallacy of seeing things as black or white. There is also the dilemma of limiting one's choices. Like the example of conservative or liberal that was the black or white debate, this one is popular in politics as well.
During the last presidential election, people were hellbent on choosing between republican or democrat. Maybe they were the two most likely choices, or the ones with the most viable candidates, but they weren't the only choices. Many people believe that voters either voted for Hillary or for Donald. Well, that's simply not true. Many states have provisions for write in candidates (NC has restrictions such as you must be registered as a write in candidate) and almost every state has provisions for third party candidates. If a candidate files in a state prior to their deadlines, and following their rules, many parties may be represented on a ballot.
Take Randolph County for instance. There is an upcoming sheriff's election. There are two parties with candidates running before the primary. The Republican Party may choose from Greg Seabolt or Robert Graves. The Libertarian Party has Eric Hicks and Adam Brooks for candidates. Eric Hicks is actually a republican, but thought he would ensure his nomination by switching parties for the primary. This way he would make it on the final ballot in November, but Adam Brooks entered the race. Now, I am not sure why Hicks chose Libertarian, as I have not followed him that closely, but I imagine it has to do with the fact that it's not one of the "two major" political parties in the US, so he thought there would be less likely a challenger. We still have two parties to choose from, but they aren't the parties that most people would consider. It would seem that we only have two choices.
We have more than two choices now, as we did in November of 2016. In November of 2016 we could vote Democrat (Clinton), Republican (Trump), Independent (Johnson), Write-in (Stein), or not voting. See in NC, You have to register as an optional write-in candidate. Jill Stein was the only NC candidate to do so. BUT we still had more than two options. People kept complaining about the two options, but didn't want to take the time to actually vote for/ campaign for another option. People complain about there being only two choices, but there are not. It's a false dichotomy. Nothing will change because the democrats won't vote republican and vice versa. Well, What if people start electing not Democrats or Republicans? But they won't.... oops that's circular logic. We'll discuss that one next. We have limited ourselves by devising a dichotomy and living by it, when it doesn't really exist. We have more choices, but we can't see the forest for the trees.
During the last presidential election, people were hellbent on choosing between republican or democrat. Maybe they were the two most likely choices, or the ones with the most viable candidates, but they weren't the only choices. Many people believe that voters either voted for Hillary or for Donald. Well, that's simply not true. Many states have provisions for write in candidates (NC has restrictions such as you must be registered as a write in candidate) and almost every state has provisions for third party candidates. If a candidate files in a state prior to their deadlines, and following their rules, many parties may be represented on a ballot.
Take Randolph County for instance. There is an upcoming sheriff's election. There are two parties with candidates running before the primary. The Republican Party may choose from Greg Seabolt or Robert Graves. The Libertarian Party has Eric Hicks and Adam Brooks for candidates. Eric Hicks is actually a republican, but thought he would ensure his nomination by switching parties for the primary. This way he would make it on the final ballot in November, but Adam Brooks entered the race. Now, I am not sure why Hicks chose Libertarian, as I have not followed him that closely, but I imagine it has to do with the fact that it's not one of the "two major" political parties in the US, so he thought there would be less likely a challenger. We still have two parties to choose from, but they aren't the parties that most people would consider. It would seem that we only have two choices.
We have more than two choices now, as we did in November of 2016. In November of 2016 we could vote Democrat (Clinton), Republican (Trump), Independent (Johnson), Write-in (Stein), or not voting. See in NC, You have to register as an optional write-in candidate. Jill Stein was the only NC candidate to do so. BUT we still had more than two options. People kept complaining about the two options, but didn't want to take the time to actually vote for/ campaign for another option. People complain about there being only two choices, but there are not. It's a false dichotomy. Nothing will change because the democrats won't vote republican and vice versa. Well, What if people start electing not Democrats or Republicans? But they won't.... oops that's circular logic. We'll discuss that one next. We have limited ourselves by devising a dichotomy and living by it, when it doesn't really exist. We have more choices, but we can't see the forest for the trees.
Monday, April 23, 2018
Logical Fallacies- Genetic/ Origin Fallacy
This fallacy bases it's argument on the origin of the argument. This one is popular in political circles. Donald Trump said it; therefore we know it's crap. Hillary Clinton said it, so it must be evil. While I don't like to accept anything Donald Trump says at face value, it isn't wrong just because he said it. For example, like him or not, heck, like Hillary or not, he was kind to her back at the debates when he said she was a fighter and not a quitter. I don't necessarily agree with everything Hillary says or does either, but she is a fighter. I had definite reservations about her being president. This isn't about her politics, or his. What this is about is that no matter how you feel about someone, they may have a valid point. Dismissing a valid argument because the person with the idea is an enemy or you don't like them, is a fallacy in itself. His point, in this case, was valid and true. I cannot dismiss it just because he says it.
This one is difficult at times. Donald Trump, in my opinion, is a bigoted misogynist. I don't trust most of what he says. That said, I can't dismiss an argument just because he says it. I fully believe that we should validate, research, and explore his (or anyone's) arguments before believing them as fact. I also believe that we shouldn't believe anything based upon origin, either. People shouldn't believe everything anyone says. Not even our parents or friends. I mean, look at the whoppers our parents told us in childhood. ;) I love my dad, but basing an argument on things he says could be dangerous. He tells a great story. That doesn't mean they are 100%true.
People are often wrong, and often right. We are fallible, and should investigate all claims. Accepting or denying claims based upon the genetic origins is ill advised.
This one is difficult at times. Donald Trump, in my opinion, is a bigoted misogynist. I don't trust most of what he says. That said, I can't dismiss an argument just because he says it. I fully believe that we should validate, research, and explore his (or anyone's) arguments before believing them as fact. I also believe that we shouldn't believe anything based upon origin, either. People shouldn't believe everything anyone says. Not even our parents or friends. I mean, look at the whoppers our parents told us in childhood. ;) I love my dad, but basing an argument on things he says could be dangerous. He tells a great story. That doesn't mean they are 100%true.
People are often wrong, and often right. We are fallible, and should investigate all claims. Accepting or denying claims based upon the genetic origins is ill advised.
The Bill of Rights- The Eighth Amendment
This amendment keeps us from being held with excessive punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
This means we cannot be put to death for stealing a loaf of bread. We also can't be held on a million dollars bond for that same loaf of bread.
Most Americans agree that the punishment should fit the crime. Petty theft shouldn't carry decades in prison. Rape should carry more than 6 months.
Most of the time when this particular amendment is debated, we tend to be angry about the lack of punishment. We tend to be discussing how an accused rapist is later discovered to be wrongly convicted, but the accuser isn't charged, or the punishment is lighter.
Another debate is how one person of a certain race is given a lighter sentence than those of other races. Punishments must all fit their respective crimes regardless of skin color or gender.
This amendment is supposed to keep us from being punished harshly for a minor crime, though. There are other laws that are meant to handle punishments being different for groups based on gender or race.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
This means we cannot be put to death for stealing a loaf of bread. We also can't be held on a million dollars bond for that same loaf of bread.
Most Americans agree that the punishment should fit the crime. Petty theft shouldn't carry decades in prison. Rape should carry more than 6 months.
Most of the time when this particular amendment is debated, we tend to be angry about the lack of punishment. We tend to be discussing how an accused rapist is later discovered to be wrongly convicted, but the accuser isn't charged, or the punishment is lighter.
Another debate is how one person of a certain race is given a lighter sentence than those of other races. Punishments must all fit their respective crimes regardless of skin color or gender.
This amendment is supposed to keep us from being punished harshly for a minor crime, though. There are other laws that are meant to handle punishments being different for groups based on gender or race.
The Bill of Rights- The Seventh Amendment
The seventh amendment, again, is a little debated amendment.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
This is just saying that in civil suits worth more than $20, the defendant has the right to a jury trial. This doesn't mean that a jury trial is required, but people can elect to have a jury trial, rather than rely on the judge to determine whether or not the defendant must pay. That's basically this amendment in a nutshell.
We can't be forced to have just one person determine our fate in civil court. That's great news!
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
This is just saying that in civil suits worth more than $20, the defendant has the right to a jury trial. This doesn't mean that a jury trial is required, but people can elect to have a jury trial, rather than rely on the judge to determine whether or not the defendant must pay. That's basically this amendment in a nutshell.
We can't be forced to have just one person determine our fate in civil court. That's great news!
Logical Fallacies- Black or White
This logical fallacy seems to be a favorite on Facebook. It is also one of the dumbest arguments I see. Rarely is anything cut and dry, black and white. Just because I believe in one thing, doesn't mean I can't acknowledge belief in something else. Just because I like purple, doesn't mean I hate green. Two things can occur simultaneously. Not all liberals believe in banning weapons. Actually, very few people believe in an all out ban on firearms. Not all conservatives believe that everyone should be armed. Some actually believe in gun laws that work. Also, just because one has a conservative belief, doesn't mean that they are conservative in all their beliefs, nor vice versa.
This meme keeps going around:
Which irritates me either way. First, not all liberals believe in not owning guns, and higher taxes. I know more liberal gun owners than people obviously think. I also know more "conservative" potheads than not. Actually, most of the people trying to push for legalizing Marijuana on my social media networks are ultraconservative, anti-abortion, pro-gun, self-proclaimed rednecks. I rarely see middle of the road people advocating for any of this. Belief in one of these things doesn't make on completely liberal or conservative. Most of us have both liberal and conservative beliefs. The world is not black and white. Stop putting people in categories and trying to piss one another off, and actually start listening. Some conservatives have good ideas, and some liberals do too!
Very few things are cut and dry. People aren't entirely liberal or conservative a lot of the times.
Theft is wrong. Starvation is also wrong. There is a grey area where people sometimes justify theft because the thief was starving and was desperate. Others see theft as always wrong. The world is full of grey. Not everything is one or the other. I love George Jones. I also love Eazy-E. I cannot discount one genre of music because I prefer another. Each has its own merit. The world isn't black and white.
This meme keeps going around:
Which irritates me either way. First, not all liberals believe in not owning guns, and higher taxes. I know more liberal gun owners than people obviously think. I also know more "conservative" potheads than not. Actually, most of the people trying to push for legalizing Marijuana on my social media networks are ultraconservative, anti-abortion, pro-gun, self-proclaimed rednecks. I rarely see middle of the road people advocating for any of this. Belief in one of these things doesn't make on completely liberal or conservative. Most of us have both liberal and conservative beliefs. The world is not black and white. Stop putting people in categories and trying to piss one another off, and actually start listening. Some conservatives have good ideas, and some liberals do too!
Very few things are cut and dry. People aren't entirely liberal or conservative a lot of the times.
Theft is wrong. Starvation is also wrong. There is a grey area where people sometimes justify theft because the thief was starving and was desperate. Others see theft as always wrong. The world is full of grey. Not everything is one or the other. I love George Jones. I also love Eazy-E. I cannot discount one genre of music because I prefer another. Each has its own merit. The world isn't black and white.
Logical Fallacies-Bandwagon/ Fallacy of popularity
This fallacy hinges on the belief that if everyone is doing it/ believes it then it must be true. Think of lemmings. One jumps over a cliff and more follow. Many of our moms would say "Well, if Johnny jumped off a bridge would you do it too? I don't care what Johnny is doing."
There have even been a few social experiments that have proven that people will believe things just because others do. Telling people 74% of Americans believe XYZ can make some people believe it as well. For example, if I tell people that 84% of Americans wear green on Tuesdays, people will begin to believe that wearing green on Tuesday should be a thing. I mean 84% of people think it's okay. It must be. This is a simple belief that will not affect much other than laundry, but there are debates that can be much more significant.
Most of these revolve around belief in a deity or religion. "You can't tell me that 3/4 of the world's population is wrong. There is a higher power." Now, I am not actually going to debate whether or not God or a god exists. What I am saying here is that God doesn't exist simply because people agree that He does. To further that, I am not going to say that He doesn't exist simply because large numbers of people say that he doesn't exist. The world isn't round because lots of people say it is. The world is round because it can be scientifically proven to be round. I don't care how many flat earthers say that the world is flat. Their agreement doesn't mean that it is true.
Also, be careful about jumping on a bandwagon. Slavery was popular amongst Southern plantation owners in 1785, but that doesn't make it right. It was still wrong and harmed thousands of Africans and African Americans.
There have even been a few social experiments that have proven that people will believe things just because others do. Telling people 74% of Americans believe XYZ can make some people believe it as well. For example, if I tell people that 84% of Americans wear green on Tuesdays, people will begin to believe that wearing green on Tuesday should be a thing. I mean 84% of people think it's okay. It must be. This is a simple belief that will not affect much other than laundry, but there are debates that can be much more significant.
Most of these revolve around belief in a deity or religion. "You can't tell me that 3/4 of the world's population is wrong. There is a higher power." Now, I am not actually going to debate whether or not God or a god exists. What I am saying here is that God doesn't exist simply because people agree that He does. To further that, I am not going to say that He doesn't exist simply because large numbers of people say that he doesn't exist. The world isn't round because lots of people say it is. The world is round because it can be scientifically proven to be round. I don't care how many flat earthers say that the world is flat. Their agreement doesn't mean that it is true.
Also, be careful about jumping on a bandwagon. Slavery was popular amongst Southern plantation owners in 1785, but that doesn't make it right. It was still wrong and harmed thousands of Africans and African Americans.
The Bill of Rights- Sixth Amendment
The sixth amendment is mostly agreed upon in most circles. It reads as follows:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
This amendment protects citizens from long waits for trial, a "stacked" jury, traveling an unreasonable distance for trial, being charged and not knowing for what, being testified against without the ability to confront his or her accuser; and allows for witnesses of their own; and permits the accused to have a lawyer. Most people think this is generally a good thing.
The times I see this right imaginarily infringed upon, it is for heinous crimes. The person denying the rights feels that it is justified. Pedophiles should just be taken out back and shot, and have no need for a trial. While I don't disagree with the sentiment, it opens a dangerous can of worms. What if we take the rights of any accused pedophile, rapist, or murderer and throw them under the jail? What about the falsely accused? What about those acts of self defense (in the case of murder)? What about the jealous ex trying to get someone in trouble? We tend to agree that anyone who knowingly falsely accuses someone of rape should then be charged with a crime with equal punishment. If we take away the sixth amendment rights, the falsely accused would be killed or incarcerated under false pretenses.
For these reasons, the sixth amendment is necessary. I think most of us can live with that.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
This amendment protects citizens from long waits for trial, a "stacked" jury, traveling an unreasonable distance for trial, being charged and not knowing for what, being testified against without the ability to confront his or her accuser; and allows for witnesses of their own; and permits the accused to have a lawyer. Most people think this is generally a good thing.
The times I see this right imaginarily infringed upon, it is for heinous crimes. The person denying the rights feels that it is justified. Pedophiles should just be taken out back and shot, and have no need for a trial. While I don't disagree with the sentiment, it opens a dangerous can of worms. What if we take the rights of any accused pedophile, rapist, or murderer and throw them under the jail? What about the falsely accused? What about those acts of self defense (in the case of murder)? What about the jealous ex trying to get someone in trouble? We tend to agree that anyone who knowingly falsely accuses someone of rape should then be charged with a crime with equal punishment. If we take away the sixth amendment rights, the falsely accused would be killed or incarcerated under false pretenses.
For these reasons, the sixth amendment is necessary. I think most of us can live with that.
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
The Bill of Rights- The Fifth Amendment
I plead the fifth... do I really understand that?
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
This one is full of information, and most of it is not debated, but the phrase "I plea the fifth" isn't used properly most of the time.
Let's take this section by section.
1. You cannot be held without an indictment, unless there is an extenuating circumstance of war (exception here is for war crimes) or public danger (there's a serial killer on the loose, I think). I am not even clear on the two exceptions myself. I think that it must be the Summer of Sam or a War Crime to supersede the need for a formal indictment or charges. Not all charges require grand jury indictment, but you must formally be charged before being compelled to answer for crimes. We see this in crime shows frequently... they can only hold the perp for 24 hours for questioning before having to cut him loose or charge him. No, Law & Order is not the authority on constitutional law, but it is a reference point for this portion of the Fifth Amendment.
2. Double Jeopardy- you cannot be charged twice for the same crime. This one I don't quite understand the inner workings. For example, OJ was found not guilty of killing Nicole. Why can he not just admit now that he did and avoid prosecution. Jeopardy is attached to capital crimes such as murder. The state cannot appeal, so he could admit to it without going to prison. So why not just admit it? Did he not do it? Most of the court of public opinion feels he did. I do think that I understand he could be charged with other crimes such as obstruction of justice, lying under oath, and other such crimes. I do not believe those have the same penalty, though.
3. This is the part people use incorrectly. "or shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Witness against himself would indicate that he is guilty. If someone is called as a witness against someone else, it is to testify that someone or something did something wrong. It doesn't say that you can't be compelled to witness for yourself (which you aren't required to do either) but you cannot be forced to admit wrongdoing. Pleading the fifth is not refusing to testify it is refusing to incriminate oneself.
4. This part means that we (the police, city, state, etc) cannot seize property without just cause. No one can just take the property one owns for use of the state. You must be compensated fairly.
Think about how you use these phrases.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
This one is full of information, and most of it is not debated, but the phrase "I plea the fifth" isn't used properly most of the time.
Let's take this section by section.
1. You cannot be held without an indictment, unless there is an extenuating circumstance of war (exception here is for war crimes) or public danger (there's a serial killer on the loose, I think). I am not even clear on the two exceptions myself. I think that it must be the Summer of Sam or a War Crime to supersede the need for a formal indictment or charges. Not all charges require grand jury indictment, but you must formally be charged before being compelled to answer for crimes. We see this in crime shows frequently... they can only hold the perp for 24 hours for questioning before having to cut him loose or charge him. No, Law & Order is not the authority on constitutional law, but it is a reference point for this portion of the Fifth Amendment.
2. Double Jeopardy- you cannot be charged twice for the same crime. This one I don't quite understand the inner workings. For example, OJ was found not guilty of killing Nicole. Why can he not just admit now that he did and avoid prosecution. Jeopardy is attached to capital crimes such as murder. The state cannot appeal, so he could admit to it without going to prison. So why not just admit it? Did he not do it? Most of the court of public opinion feels he did. I do think that I understand he could be charged with other crimes such as obstruction of justice, lying under oath, and other such crimes. I do not believe those have the same penalty, though.
3. This is the part people use incorrectly. "or shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Witness against himself would indicate that he is guilty. If someone is called as a witness against someone else, it is to testify that someone or something did something wrong. It doesn't say that you can't be compelled to witness for yourself (which you aren't required to do either) but you cannot be forced to admit wrongdoing. Pleading the fifth is not refusing to testify it is refusing to incriminate oneself.
4. This part means that we (the police, city, state, etc) cannot seize property without just cause. No one can just take the property one owns for use of the state. You must be compensated fairly.
Think about how you use these phrases.
Logical Fallacies- Ad Hominem
This logical fallacy is easy to get caught up in. This fallacy is an attack on the character of your opponent rather than the merits of the argument. While I will never say whether I voted Democrat, Independent, or write in candidate in the last presidential election, it is a well known fact that I did not vote for Donald Trump. The reasons that I don't think he is the right candidate are almost all related to his character. That said, even a blind squirrel gets a nut sometimes. He may come up with a plan that has value and merit. He hasn't, in my opinion, as of yet, but that's not the point of this.
If I am debating with someone, for instance, Donald Trump, and I am opposed to his argument, or his stance, I cannot challenge his character as a good reason to be against this argument. For example, if he says that homosexuals should be married in civil ceremonies only, and I want to oppose that, I can't say that's a stupid plan because you're a womanizer who cheats on his wife, therefore you have no authority. His marital sexual escapades have no bearing on your knowledge of the law, constitutionality, nor feasibility of your plan. Let's face it, Bill Clinton was somewhat similar in his alleged escapades, and we let him stay president. Donald Trump has suffered the same allegations, it doesn't matter in terms of the argument at hand.
It's easy to attack a conservative or a liberal for holding beliefs you do not like. It is also easy to shut out a solution simply because you do not like the author of the solution. That is 99% of the issues in the US today. We don't like the other side, so we don't want to meet half way. IF you want your argument to be valid, refrain from attacking the other side's character. Attack, instead, the other side's argument.
If I am debating with someone, for instance, Donald Trump, and I am opposed to his argument, or his stance, I cannot challenge his character as a good reason to be against this argument. For example, if he says that homosexuals should be married in civil ceremonies only, and I want to oppose that, I can't say that's a stupid plan because you're a womanizer who cheats on his wife, therefore you have no authority. His marital sexual escapades have no bearing on your knowledge of the law, constitutionality, nor feasibility of your plan. Let's face it, Bill Clinton was somewhat similar in his alleged escapades, and we let him stay president. Donald Trump has suffered the same allegations, it doesn't matter in terms of the argument at hand.
It's easy to attack a conservative or a liberal for holding beliefs you do not like. It is also easy to shut out a solution simply because you do not like the author of the solution. That is 99% of the issues in the US today. We don't like the other side, so we don't want to meet half way. IF you want your argument to be valid, refrain from attacking the other side's character. Attack, instead, the other side's argument.
Tuesday, April 3, 2018
The Bill of Rights- The Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment reads as follows: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
This one, most people seem to agree on, for the most part. People do not want to be randomly searched, and they agree, generally that this is bad. There was a policy, I believe in NY, several years ago that met with controversy— stop and frisk. Many people were on board with stop and frisk, because it could prevent crimes from occurring. I don't know the statistics on this, so that is not what I am debating. The fact is, regardless of the effectiveness, it violates the constitution. It is unreasonable to search an individual walking down the street. The amendment says that citizens cannot be searched, nor their property taken by law enforcement without a warrant. We can't search people because we want to, we think they don't belong in an area, or it might stop a crime. We have to follow the constitution and obtain a warrant. There is the exception of probable cause. If an officer stops someone and they are truly acting suspicious or if they feel there is probable cause that a crime is occurring, they may be permitted to search you anyway. This is where the word unreasonable comes into play. Unreasonable means that you cannot be searched willy-nilly, but you may be searched if there is a good reason. If you appear to be hiding something or trying to obstruct the officer's view of something, you may be searched.
An officer may not enter your home and search it. They may not stop you on a traffic stop and just search you. They must a.) ask permission or b.) have probable cause. If an officer knocks on my door tonight and asks me if he can search my home, I am well within my constitutional right to say no. That said, the officer will often attempt to get a warrant at that point, making the search legal. However, if he has no justifiable reason, a warrant would be conceivably more difficult to obtain. The same is true for a traffic stop or for being stopped while walking down the street.
No one wants to be unnecessarily searched, and the constitution protects that.
This one, most people seem to agree on, for the most part. People do not want to be randomly searched, and they agree, generally that this is bad. There was a policy, I believe in NY, several years ago that met with controversy— stop and frisk. Many people were on board with stop and frisk, because it could prevent crimes from occurring. I don't know the statistics on this, so that is not what I am debating. The fact is, regardless of the effectiveness, it violates the constitution. It is unreasonable to search an individual walking down the street. The amendment says that citizens cannot be searched, nor their property taken by law enforcement without a warrant. We can't search people because we want to, we think they don't belong in an area, or it might stop a crime. We have to follow the constitution and obtain a warrant. There is the exception of probable cause. If an officer stops someone and they are truly acting suspicious or if they feel there is probable cause that a crime is occurring, they may be permitted to search you anyway. This is where the word unreasonable comes into play. Unreasonable means that you cannot be searched willy-nilly, but you may be searched if there is a good reason. If you appear to be hiding something or trying to obstruct the officer's view of something, you may be searched.
An officer may not enter your home and search it. They may not stop you on a traffic stop and just search you. They must a.) ask permission or b.) have probable cause. If an officer knocks on my door tonight and asks me if he can search my home, I am well within my constitutional right to say no. That said, the officer will often attempt to get a warrant at that point, making the search legal. However, if he has no justifiable reason, a warrant would be conceivably more difficult to obtain. The same is true for a traffic stop or for being stopped while walking down the street.
No one wants to be unnecessarily searched, and the constitution protects that.
Logical Fallacies- False Cause
One of the hardest fallacies to recognize is the false cause. So, what is a false cause? This is when people assume that two things are related that may or may not be, they just have commonality. Just because two things happen in close proximity (either in space or time), it does not mean they are related. For example, a study a few years ago said that women with PCOS were more likely to have a child with Autism. There were a few problems with this study, but the major problem was that it was small scale, and only looked at one factor PCOS. Not every child with Autism was born to a mother with PCOS and not every mother with PCOS bore a child with Autism. The study took place in only one country. This may mean that there are environmental factors, rather than physiological ones. The factors were not researched. The commonality of both conditions was cited. Just because many women with PCOS have children with Autism, doesn't mean that is a risk factor. It may be entirely independent of what causes Autism. People have searched for years for reasons Autism exists.
It doesn't really matter for this post WHAT causes Autism, but it matters that the link isn't solid. The fallacy here is assuming that because two things exist in close proximity that one must be the cause of the other.
A hypothetical example would be that the majority of mass murders happen in the South (I made that up and don't know if that is even remotely true), therefore since the South is warmer with more humidity, the people are more likely to kill. Well, it may be warmer and more humid, which can certainly make people miserable, but that doesn't mean that heat/ humidity creates killers. There are other factors to consider. Do these Southern mass murderers have other things in common? Race, socioeconomic status, gender, psychopathy, sociopathy? What caused the psychopathy/ sociopathy? Was that genetic or due to the environment of the killers? Simply assuming two things are related doesn't make them so. They may happen in the same span of time or with the same frequency, but that does not mean that one causes the other.
Often I see this with the violence debate. People often debate that violent video games cause violent behavior, but many studies have shown just the opposite. Here, here, here, and here are articles in mass media that contradict that. I know you can find many articles that say it's true, but it really isn't clear, and is often a false cause. We are linking two things together that aren't necessarily related. Gun violence isn't necessarily related to video game violence. If it were we would have more issues throughout the world. Many other countries actually spend more on violent video games and play them more frequently, but are not seeing mass murders. It may be the cause. I don't know. What I do know is current research doesn't support this, and we can't assume that because two things happen at the same time, or even together, that one causes the other.
That is the false cause fallacy or the fallacy of cause.
Sunday, April 1, 2018
Logical Fallacies- Argument of fallacy
This is an interesting one that I see from time to time. This fallacy hinges on a previous fallacy. Claiming someone's claim is wrong just because the argument contains a fallacy does not make the claim wrong. I realize that there are currently people who believe that the Earth is flat, but all evidence I have tells me that it is round. Now, if I argue that the world is round because only idiots believe otherwise, it's a bad argument, but not necessarily untrue that the world is round. I have attacked my opponents character, but I have not proven that the initial claim. Scientifically speaking, it may be a proven fact. It may be frustrating to me that people deny and doubt science. That does not mean that my argument that contains a fallacy is inherently false.
Some people will say that since I said something that was logically false (only idiots believe...) that my whole argument is wrong. You may have a harder time believing my claim when I use logical fallacies, but that doesn't make it untrue. I am guilty of this sometimes as well. If I see someone unable to form a coherent sentence trying to tell me something about language, I won't believe them until I hear it from a more credible source. I sometimes make grammar mistakes, even as a person with a master's degree in English, but I try to at least sound coherent. We need to stop and argue credibility rather than false claim when an argument contains a fallacy already. Rather than say that the world is flat because my claim that only idiots believe it is flat is a fallacy and therefore it cannot be round, we need to say that because the claim contains a fallacy, a new argument must be made without a fallacy. The argument is weakened due to the fallacy.
Some people will say that since I said something that was logically false (only idiots believe...) that my whole argument is wrong. You may have a harder time believing my claim when I use logical fallacies, but that doesn't make it untrue. I am guilty of this sometimes as well. If I see someone unable to form a coherent sentence trying to tell me something about language, I won't believe them until I hear it from a more credible source. I sometimes make grammar mistakes, even as a person with a master's degree in English, but I try to at least sound coherent. We need to stop and argue credibility rather than false claim when an argument contains a fallacy already. Rather than say that the world is flat because my claim that only idiots believe it is flat is a fallacy and therefore it cannot be round, we need to say that because the claim contains a fallacy, a new argument must be made without a fallacy. The argument is weakened due to the fallacy.
The Bill of Rights- The Third Amendment
The third amendment reads as follows: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
This amendment is not debated often, but as a scholar, it is still important to understand what it means. This amendment is the one that sort of gives us the right not to house soldiers if we do not wish to do so.
This amendment was included because the people did not want the government imposing on them and forcing them to quarter soldiers. This is great, but carefully read the final phrase—but in a manner prescribed by law. This gives the possibility to force us to quarter soldiers, but there must also be a law in place. I don't know if there is a current law, but it is also possible to create a law in time of need. We have not had a domestic war since the Civil War, and have had very few domestic attacks that lead to war. This doesn't mean that we couldn't be required to at some point, but it is not likely that we would have a need to house a soldier any time soon. Should it become feasible, I am sure that this will be a hot button issue.
This amendment is not debated often, but as a scholar, it is still important to understand what it means. This amendment is the one that sort of gives us the right not to house soldiers if we do not wish to do so.
This amendment was included because the people did not want the government imposing on them and forcing them to quarter soldiers. This is great, but carefully read the final phrase—but in a manner prescribed by law. This gives the possibility to force us to quarter soldiers, but there must also be a law in place. I don't know if there is a current law, but it is also possible to create a law in time of need. We have not had a domestic war since the Civil War, and have had very few domestic attacks that lead to war. This doesn't mean that we couldn't be required to at some point, but it is not likely that we would have a need to house a soldier any time soon. Should it become feasible, I am sure that this will be a hot button issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)