Discussing the Last Post's Article

Why Obama is right: In this blog, the question of healthy rhetoric is posed. The cool thing about positivity and positive rhetoric is the extent of the performative truth and placebo effect.

Not to mention positive rhetoric empowers people. When people feel powerful, they work better.

In other words, truth is created, and also flows into other stuff. This is Existentialism at its finest.

Another Existentialist riff (riff is a rock guitar pattern) going on here is if you prime yourself to see something some way, to some extent you will see it that way. Consider our Pragmatic Maxim a couple of posts back which says that our conception of something is included in that thing.

This is exactly where our "Can you think of a thought you haven't had?" stuff comes in. If you prepare yourself to see issues in black and white, yes or no, you are going to see more issues in terms of black and white, and yes and no.

Obama is exactly right to consider this world as a complicated place because it is complicated.

On the other hand, issues do not always come down to two options. This proposition seems silly even writing it. The Analytic School of philosophy even allows for different systems of truth (Dialethism is I think what it's called).

There are not two choices for every problem. The reason that we think there are two choices is complicated. Off the top of my head, I think the fact that we have 2 parties in power in the United States, is one reason. Another reason is the polarizing effect that Lobbies and constituents have on government and politicians.

There's something about the availability heuristic: we only notice the fundamentalist positions. Giving out condoms seems way less controversial than killing babies (Pro-Lifers) versus sending doctors to jail (Pro-Choicers). Take gun rules: getting rid of assault weapons is sort of inconsequential compared to altering the Constitution (pro-Gun activists) or giving guns to children (anti-Gun activists).

This speaks to, I think, human nature as well. Some of us can just have one cookie; and perhaps see the complete tree branch diagram of every yes or no choice every time they have that one cookie.

first cookie y/n (if yes go on to second choice)
second cookie y/n (if yes go on to third choice)
third cookie y/n (if yes go on to fourth cookie)

After Gretchen Rubin, I recognize that some of us are Moderators and some of us are Abstainers. Some of us need to give up cookies all together, and some of us need to moderate our intake. (Still others of us have no problems at all, but they are beside the point for moral restraint).

In other words, Freedom and Autonomy are complex things.


Why Obama is wrong:
Sometimes these aren't false choices.

In the article it says that Obama is obscuring discussion using a Straw Man argument.

A straw man could have easily come from the 3 pigs and the Wolf Story, where the Wolf can easily blow the straw house down, but has a hard time blowing that brick house down.

In other words, just like the straw house, the straw man argument is a weaker version of the counterargument.

So for example, if Obama wants to defend himself against Anti-troop surge in Afghanistan, he might say something like, "It's a false choice to have America choose between security and freedom." Well beg pardon, Professor, but you just completely distracted us from the real issue, of whether the troop surge is right or wrong.