Category Archives: Critical Thinking

Everyone Has the Right to Life, Yes?

Posted on by under Compassion, Critical Thinking

Me: I think the United States should express more concern and support for the thousands of innocent Palestinian lives lost in Gaza.

Other people: That’s antisemitic.

Me: What? Everyone has a right to life, yes? Isn’t it supporting human rights?

OP: No. You are not allowed to criticize the actions of Israel. That is antisemitism.

Me: Oh? I didn’t know that. So maybe the United States should not acknowledge any major loss of life due to state action to avoid upsetting any other countries. For example, maybe we should stop remembering Pearl Harbor Day on December 7 or the Nanjing Massacre on December 13. It might be seen as anti-Japanese.

OP: No that’s different. You’re allowed to remember Pearl Harbor Day and the Nanjing Massacre.

Me: But won’t the Japanese feel like it is a criticism of the actions of their country?

OP: I don’t know. Maybe. But it doesn’t matter. Any country can be criticized for its human rights record except Israel.

Me: Really? Why?

OP: Because it’s antisemitism.

Me: Who defines what it means to be antisemitic?

OP: Israel.

Me: Huh, very interesting. What if Japan decides that continued remembrances of Pearl Harbor Day or the Nanjing Massacre are anti-Japanese?

OP: They can’t do that.

Me: Why not?

OP: Because over 2,400 people were killed at Pearl Harbor and something like 300,000 in Nanjing. Such atrocities should be remembered.

Me: In that case, over 65,000 Japanese were killed when the US dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Should that be remembered?

OP: Maybe.

Me: And over 40,000 people have been killed in Gaza.

OP: No, that’s different. You are not allowed to talk about that.

Me: Why not?

OP: Because Israel cannot be criticized for its actions. That’s antisemitism.

Me: So you’re saying that the only country in the whole world that can declare itself immune to criticism is Israel?

OP: Yes.

Me: Fascinating.

America Throws Hissy Fit, Elects Class Bully President

Posted on by under Critical Thinking

In a temper tantrum over things not going their way, America chose an aged convicted criminal and bully as their chief executive.

Citing no valid complaints, Americans overwhelmingly opted for a chronic liar who utterly failed in his previous attempt at running the country, to run it again.

“Waaaaah! Border security! Waaaaah!” said a voter named Adolph, who withheld his last name out of fear that people would learn about his belief that White people are the Master Race.

When asked what policies Donald Trump would be effective at implementing, Adolph said “Waaaaah! No socialism! Waaaaah!”

Voters once again rejected a woman for president, citing sexism and misogyny. And racism. But mostly sexism, and some racism thrown in for good measure. But definitely sexism.

And racism. Yes, that too.

An average voter, who identified himself as Vladimir, said a woman cannot be trusted to run America.

When it was pointed out that women have successfully run Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Finland, Pakistan, India, the Philippines, Australia, and New Zealand, he said “Sure.”

When asked to clarify, Vlad said “America will never have a woman as president as long as a single man remains breathing.” He then commenced to flex his muscles for this reporter.

Polls show that Vlad, Adolph, and other average natural born Americans lean heavily toward a dystopian style of government, where guns are plentiful and civil rights are few.

Also, a majority of legal, registered voters said they are the downtrodden minority fighting against an overwhelming number of illegal noncitizens.

Plans are underway for the most spectacular inauguration of any president ever in the past or the future. Sources close to the planning, who have requested to remain anonymous due to threats from the dangerous radical left, have confirmed that the ceremonies will include detonation of a nuclear device.

We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ King

Posted on by under Critical Thinking

A few years ago I wrote a post that said, essentially, that in getting himself elected president in 2016, Donald Trump wanted to be the head of state. He wanted all of the adulation and ornamentation that accrues to heads of state, such as monarchs. But he did not want to be bothered with mundane things such as passing laws and governing.

I’m learning that there is a lot of agreement on this point.

Recently, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sent out mailers saying exactly that: No Kings In America. They don’t implicate Trump directly but it’s clear what point they’re trying to make.

I think it is worth noting that our Founding Fathers were very aware and very concerned about this new country devolving into a monarchy. They were breaking from a long tradition of people ruled by hereditary kings and they wanted to guard against the citizens of the United States running for the comfort of the familiar when things got tough.

The Constitution specifies that the chief executive is an elected position and that they are in power for only four years before being subject to reelection by the people. It also says that we have a republican (small R) form of government, i.e. not a monarchy.

More explicitly, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 69 took pains to point out exactly how unlike a king the office of president is intended to be, including the following: “The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for FOUR years; the king of Great Britain is a perpetual and HEREDITARY prince.”

America does not need a king. We are a republic founded on democratic principles, and we are admired for it.

Now is not the time to abandon the effort. I believe we can make our system of government work without a king. But we have to want to.

Because I Am Involved in Mankind

Posted on by under Compassion, Critical Thinking

As I said in a previous post, lies spread because people want to believe them. They need to believe because often it goes to their very identity. Without those lies, they would lose their sense of self.

And people are fed lies for related reasons. Primarily, it is to create an atmosphere of confusion, out of which power brokers, politicians, and cultural elites can solidify and reinforce their power.

I just read an insightful article on this topic, laying out the framework under which lies are used to seize and retain power. Written by Leo E. Strine, Jr., a law professor, and published by Harvard Law School, it says that “The utility of those [false and misleading] issues is to inculcate a sense of identity and fealty in the masses who serve as their power base.” (“Inculcate” means to impress upon the mind through frequent repetition–I had to look it up.)

Think about it: picture for yourself someone–either in person or online–who is vehemently defending the position that all abortions should be illegal everywhere, or that climate change is only accepted by those “indoctrinated” by the “woke”, or that vaccines cause harm and create no health benefits. When you try to present an alternative to their worldview–using facts, logic, or reason–what happens? They get angry, they get upset, they start name-calling, some even begin to issue threats.

Why? Because they are scared. Like a cornered wild animal, they are lashing out.

And why is that? Because your perfectly legitimate views–based on facts, logic, and reason–threaten their very existance.

Because those lies have created for them the equivalent of family, of The Team, of Us (versus Them). It is protection from the terrors of an uncertain future. It is where they feel most safe and secure, even when, paradoxically, they are actually embarking on a path toward their own harm (such as with the refusal to get vaccinated against preventable disease, or the refusal to take rational action to prepare for a changed climate).

What then? We have seen hints of what is coming: fanaticism, tribalism, dissolution, violence.

Would it not be in everyone’s best interest if those stoking the fires with their self-serving lies were to turn down the rhetoric? Show some humility? Show some humanity and acknowledge that all lives are interconnected?

Strine’s advice is this: “When someone denies fact, mainstream institutions should call that out and refuse to legitimize their misinformation tactics.  Lies should be labeled as lies.”

That’s as good a place to start as any.

Smoking Outside

Posted on by under Critical Thinking, Health Care

I acknowledge that smoking tobacco can lead to various health problems. This today is widely known. Anyone who claims to not know has not been paying attention.

Specifically, the bad effects of smoking arise from first hand smoke. As in, I choose to smoke a cigarette and I am inhaling the smoke into my own lungs of my own free will.

So let’s get to the other stuff.

It has gotten to the point where smoking anything is disallowed nearly everywhere. So I think we have unfortunately moved far beyond what is protective of public health and into a new phase of social disapproval.

Specifically, I wonder why smoking is explicitly disallowed in places where it won’t harm anyone other than the smoker. Outdoors is my primary example. Who is being protected when smoking is forbidden outside and away from other people?

There are legitimate concerns about second hand smoke when the smokers smoke all day in enclosed spaces such as a car or at home, and the nonsmokers have no choice but to regularly breathe the smoke into their lungs.

That is not the case outdoors. Smoke blows away on the wind, yes? It is dispersed, becomes less concentrated. So unless you are sitting outside within a few feet of a smoker who is blowing smoke directly into your face, I don’t see that there is a problem.

And if a smoker is blowing smoke directly into your face, that is extremely inconsiderate and you have every right to ask them (tell them?) to stop. It is basic manners and social intelligence.

So back to the ban on outdoor smoking. Why is that a thing? Perhaps it’s because those in charge of such outdoor spaces feel that people cannot be trusted to self-police their own smoking with civility.

Honestly, common courtesy does seem to be diminishing these days, as more and more people think it’s okay to issue death threats when they have a simple disagreement. Maybe making a blanket ban just removes the potential for violent dispute.

But we are dangerously close (if we’re not there already) of moving from legitimate social disapproval for the sake of public health* to a moralistic society where smokers are seen as flawed, dirty people.

Maybe that’s what was intended all along. I don’t know. But it’s never a good idea to make an entire class of people somehow less human. We’ve seen where that can lead and it’s nowhere good.

*Legitimate social disapproval for the sake of public health includes the disapproval of, among other things, poor personal hygiene (not washing hands, defecating outdoors, etc.), not wearing seat belts in motor vehicles, not wearing face masks to prevent the spread of infectious disease.