![]() ![]() By any objective standard, governments are morally worse than an average working person. For example, the authority the fear-shooters want you to feel morally inferior to are nearly always governments… a group that nearly everyone (including the fear-shooters) complains about daily. When you feel fear being shot at you, the odds are very high that the implications being made are flatly false. Fear cuts and intimidates it’s an attack on your mind and will. If you’ve ever been on the target side of this saying, you’ve almost certainly felt it. This fear is delivered indirectly – by implication – but that doesn’t make it less powerful. What we see here is multiple layers of applied fear: Fear that people will think you’re evil, that power will hurt you, and that you are morally inferior. Thirdly, it implies that the entity you are hiding from is supremely righteous and morally superior. Secondly, it is a threat to turn you in to the authorities. First of all, it is an accusation, implying that your hesitance is cause by your engagement in evil. We can start by considering the implications of the words if you have nothing to hide: To understand why this trick works, let’s deconstruct the “nothing to hide” slogan. It is, in a very real sense, a type of idolatry: a desire for a handy, accessible tool that will save us from having to deal with our very complex world. Latching upon a rule is to bypass reality. ![]() This is yet another reason to remember that when judging, we need to look at whole situations, not just at rules. And in those cases, hiding relevant information really may be unethical and evidence of bad dealing. Now, before we get too far, let’s be clear about the legitimate use of “if you have nothing to hide.” In commercial or contractual interactions, being transparent may be something agreed upon by the parties. That is what is implied by this question, which becomes clear when we consider that it is asked by or in support of a government… a government that’s spying on you and is eager to destroy terrorists.Īll of that is implied in the opening statement. The statement says that you won’t be hurt if you obey a person who claims the right to watch every move you make, and who begins the interaction with a weapon pointed at you. Let me state that another way for clarity: What’s assumed in this statement is the starting position: That it’s right or normal for someone to point a gun at you, to judge you according to their rules, and then to shoot or not shoot, depending on whether you do as they wish. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. The one we’ve been hearing a lot over the past twenty years has been this: ![]() Most uses of this fallacy, however, are not so obvious. So, this fallacy is really just a dirty trick, although it’s usually wrapped in something like justice-seeking. Whether you answer yes or no, you’re admitting that you’ve beaten beaten her in the past that is pre-supposed by the question itself. Paul Rosenberg – The loaded question fallacy is an attempt to win an argument by starting it with a question or statement that contains a false or misleading assumption. The usual example of this (and one that makes the trick easy to understand) is this question: ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |