A Facebook friend posted the above dishonest, fallacy and false-fact riddled meme as if it was discovered truth. I broke my recent rule of not responding to such garbage by saying, as nicely as I could, “You know, re-posting illogical appeals to emotion like this doesn’t help.” I almost wrote, “I know you’re smarter than this. Why did you post it?” I then listed a few of the logical and factual disconnects in the screed, but didn’t have the energy to be thorough.
I’m hoping one of you does. I think I count 14 factual and logical fallacies, but there may be more. This is how social media makes the public dumber and makes productive discourse impossible.
Another challenge: which is the most ludicrous of those statements? My vote, I think, goes to “If people being executed in the street is fine, it was never about pro-life.” It’s hard to make dumber statement than that.
Ethics Alarms 
Can’t “non sequitur” pretty much cover it?
Thank you, Jack, I am now 10% dumber from having read that meme.
Dear Jenny,
You can make strawmen of our principles all you want, and argue all day against them, but all that will gain you is a smug feeling and “likes” from your friends, and make absolutely no inroads with the MAGA crowd whatsoever. But I know that your entire intent is to make me waste my time answering you. So, perhaps foolishly, I will oblige.
To begin, a little groundwork. A dilemma is only a dilemma if you really only have the two options. If there is any other alternative, such argumentation falls apart. Second, if you are going to address our principles, maybe you should determine what those principles actually are. For example, being pro-Second Amendment is not about shooting people. It is about the right to bear arms against, especially, an overbearing, tyrannical government. Being pro-life does not mean that you believe that no one should die, ever. Third, in any given situation, there may be more than one principle in play, and to ignore that to score rhetorical points is arguing in bad faith. So let’s get into it.
Only a facile examination of the circumstances would equate Rittenhouse and Pretti. Yes, Rittenhouse fired a gun and killed. Pretti was killed by a fired gun. But Rittenhouse was defending a neighborhood against lawless rioters whereas Pretti was interfering with enforcement against lawless denizens of the neighborhood. Even the slightest deeper examination shows that support of Rittenhouse and support of ICE fall squarely under the same principle: defending the innocent from lawlessness. But you are right, neither instance was about the Second Amendment. We would support Rittenhouse had he defended himself with a lethal piece of hardtack, and we would support ICE if they inadvertently killed Pretti with a taser. The principle here, again, is fighting back against lawbreakers. Moreover, your dilemma fails. We can say that Pretti’s death was justified and not believe that he deserved to be killed. We could also accept a ruling against the ICE officers, that their use of lethal force against Pretti was completely unjustified. Our principles remain unchanged and your dilemma falls apart.
Comparing Good to January 6th seems to have, on the surface, a similarity of an unarmed rioter being shot dead. I am at least pleased that you acknowledge that the only person who died on January 6th was the unarmed Ashley Babbitt. But unfortunately, as is evidenced by the thousands of traffic fatalities every year, a vehicle can be a deadly weapon. But what about principles? We are absolutely in favor of the right to protest. We are also, very conditionally, in favor of a protest that, as a last resort, takes arms to overthrow a tyrannical government. We do not support directly interfering with officers in the course of their duty. Because at that point, we have left the realm of protest and entered into a realm of assault. And again, our justification for those very rare instances (cf April 1775) is based upon the clear and imminent threat posed by that which we protest. Protesting in favor of lawbreakers, and in this case, not just breakers of immigration laws, but also of laws against murder, rape, molestation, and abuse, does not rise to the level of taking action against law enforcement. However, I am pleased to state that like you, we find the January 6th riots reprehensible. On the other hand, that does mean that your dilemma, once again, breaks down.
Now for your next example, you do not even present a proper dilemma. A little boy in a bunny hat could be detained, and even detained by immigration enforcement agents without even touching our support of deporting illegal aliens. On the one hand, we would be properly outraged were this an abuse of power or some sort of malicious action by the officers involved. On the other hand, we could take a mere minute to research the details of the circumstances and realize that only a deliberate, gross twisting of the facts could oppose this situation with arresting illegal immigrants. Certainly, one of our principles here, which fits hand in glove with the pro-life principle we’ll address next, is the proper care of children. And frankly, we see the ICE agents taking better care of this particular boy than his parents. But if you are concerned about a boy, who is a legal citizen, being deported with his parents, I would also remind you that we would prefer children to stay with their parents if at all possible, because that is better for the child, unless further evidence shows the parents themselves are a danger to the child.
For your next case, we need to dredge a little deeper into an understanding of pro-life. Pro-life principles state that in the case of a conflict one does not have to meekly surrender his own life at the hands of an unjust aggressor. Just defense of life can, at times, require the use of lethal force. If someone is trying to kill me and the only way to stop that person is through the use of lethal force, I am justified in using that force as there is an innocent life, namely mine, that I am protecting. Now I know that nuance is the last thing you desire, because it doesn’t fit neatly into pithy slogans, but I might also point out that not every death is an execution. A murder of passion, death in a gang shootout, and being shot because you assaulted a law enforcement officer are not executions. Heat of the moment responses, split second decisions made entirely based upon the perceived risk in a highly hostile environment cannot be called executions. Actual executions require premeditation. Where we would agree with you is if we had evidence that said someone was deliberately and with forethought taken into the streets and shot in cold blood. We would be duly outraged. Anyone who is condemned to die should only be executed after all manner of due process has been exhausted. Pro-life principles do not condone the death of innocents. Nothing you have said here even begins to call that principle into question.
Now I would like to believe that I have adequately demonstrated that, contrary to your uncivil, insipid tripe, all our principles remain consistent and strong, but I also know that this was never about demonstrating inconsistencies in our principles. All this was about was to force me to spend time on the defensive, because accusations take very little effort, and defenses take a great deal of time. I will conclude with my own brief accusations.
You are on the side of lawlessness. You support rioting, looting, murdering, and raping if it destabilizes your opponents. Your only beef with Rittenhouse is that he was not useful to you. Your only care for Good and Pretti is that they were useful dupes you could turn into martyrs. Your support of power by any means necessary created the conditions that made Rittenhouse into a hero, and likewise sentenced Good and Pretti to death.
Aaaaaaaand I botched the Billy Madison quote…
Ditto…. both Chris and Bill.
Great job Ryan.
A guest post!
Masterful, and exactly what I was hoping for.
Excellent, Ryan! It might be noted that Rittenhouse was also actually defending himself at the point where he shot his attackers after considerable efforts trying to avoid engaging with them. The leftist press fabricated all manner of misinformation trying to blame him for the situation rather than the rioters who attempted to murder him.
Yes… outstanding, Ryan…as usual.
Dear Jenny …
Dear readership of Ethics Alarms:
https://youtu.be/tcbqXmncCwM?si=O901If-UDL5qjHz4
What is curious is that though I do not know if I can trust Mr Blumenthal or Hedges fir their declared politics, they deal on issues that ABSOLUTELY should be thought about and discussed.
Or am I deceived?
I would agree that Ryan did a good job explaining why that silly meme has many logical errors. But fighting against a literal dimwit, and winning, does not help much in gaining clarity about “what is going on in our present” which is harder and more ideologically demanding. Simply because one cannot really get behind Donald Trump and still remain morally and ethically coherent. But certainly neither can one defend the previous regime nor the platform of the Democrats which (as far as I can tell) has no coherency. Indeed it has no coherent platform.
One might come up with a meme based on this statement:
“You have been totally and completely sold out. Demonstrate that you understand how and why. Or explain why this is not the case and things are going in a good direction under Trump’s leadership”.
Alizia,
When you write, “[O]ne cannot really get behind Donald Trump and still remain morally and ethically coherent,” I do agree with you to a certain extent. Donald Trump is a flawed man, perhaps fatally flawed in the classical sense of the tragic hero. He may accomplish a great many tasks we hope he does, but his flaws may destroy him and his legacy while he accomplishes them.
However, the point I would make in rebuttal is that in the final binary choice between Trump and Harris, Trump stood (and still stands) as the lesser of the two evils. I agree the state of the United States is very sick. Both parties are infected, but the infection in the Democratic party is far worse, both in magnitude and kind. So it seems our options are either a swift death or a slow death, and at the moment, it seems ethically better to choose the slow death, for maybe something will ultimately change, and that stems from the virtue of hope.
So for your statement in bold, I would return to the basics of logic. You present a false dilemma, as there is myriad gradation between “completely sold out” and “things are going in a good direction under Trump”. Certainly I believe things are going in a good direction when we consider Trump’s enforcement of our immigration laws, which is the topic of the original meme above. When it comes to Iran, I am withholding judgment, because I am not privy to the many details that convinced Trump that a military strike at Iran was the prudent choice. Does this attack betray Trump’s promises to keep us out of wars? On the surface it seems that way, but there are two realities that temper this. First, wars will come regardless, and we will end up embroiled in some of them, because we do have enemies in the world that seek to destroy us. War will come eventually. Second, we deter greater wars by demonstrating that we are willing to fight. The only way we can demonstrate that we are willing to fight is to actually fight. If we draw a line in the sand and do not respond when our adversaries cross the line, we project weakness and embolden our enemies. It is like training children: if you say there will be consequence for misbehavior, but then fail to enforce those consequences, your children will learn they can misbehave with impunity. If instead you discipline them for the misbehavior, they will hopefully learn (though there is no guarantee) that they should not misbehave. Obama and Biden presented to the world a soft United States that would not really retaliate against our enemies crossing lines. Trump is doing the opposite: showing a willingness to engage in major military action to show that when the United States is peaceful, it is a matter of restraint, not weakness. Will it work? I don’t know. This might be a blunder on Trump’s part. We’ll find out.
The last statement is indefensible, and would, in a more casual forum, prompt me to resort to, “Oh, grow up!”
Leaders are elected to use their best judgment and skills as the facts are revealed, opportunities unfold and situations evolve, not to feel bound by statements and promises made in the imaginary world of political campaigns where the public is incapable of following or appreciating greys and nuances.
Trump’s over-arching mission had been “Make American Great Again.” He has not “sold out” regarding that. “Great” for the US means acting like the #1 world power it is, and not being a patsy, a sap and a weenie. Trump’s use of the nation’s military strength to signal to allies and enemies alike that “FAFO” is real–the tariffs, the removal of Maduro, the slapdown in public of Zelinskyy and the Iran actions all embody that message, to which I say, “Great.” Trump’s statements against “forever wars” was not breached by the way way overdue action to take down Iran, and I suspect that seeing another popular uprising brutally stopped by that government was a tipping point for Trump. Obama’s weak and feckless non-response to “Arab Spring” was the essence of American weakness.
“Totally and completely sold out”? The open boarders closed. Illegals deported, with many more on the way out. Major crimes down in major cities. DEI exposed and declining. The trans propaganda countered. The Deep State, if not rooted out, exposed. The fake Presidency and the auto-pen government exposed. The partisan corrupt judiciary exposed and crumbling. The Woke rot in the military excised. University indoctrination and anti-Semitism strongly condemned, addressed and punished. The unaccountable administrative state challenged. The Axis media exposed, and losing power and influence. The Left forced to side with villains, anti-Americans, criminals, enemies and outrageous policies, revealing its corruption. Insane “Climate-change” policies blocked. The Federal bureaucracy shrunk; the USAID woke slush fund cut. The Education Department…finally…sterilized. PBS and NPR defunded. NATO forced to pony up.
For once, Trump’s boasting and hyperbole are close to correct: He had the most daring, significant, transformative, bold and successful first year of any POTUS in history with the exception of FDR, and I’m not sure Trump doesn’t win that comparison as well. Almost all of the changes were in the directions his voters wanted.
A “sell-out’ because he decided to ignore the polls (as true leaders should) and take action against an enemy that has been killing Americans, calling for our nation’s demise and funding terrorism since the 70s? Truly: ridiculous.
Probably the most significant thing I’ve heard Trump say: “I don’t care about polls.”
Leaders are elected to use their best judgment and skills as the facts are revealed, opportunities unfold and situations evolve, not to feel bound by statements and promises made in the imaginary world of political campaigns where the public is incapable of following or appreciating greys and nuances.
The argument that I largely accept is, I would imagine especially for you and people like you (with your knowledge of US government) is that the nation of Israel has gained, perhaps through blackmail (Epstein style) or by influence of ultra-rich Zionist Americans (many who are Jewish) over US policy. If this really is true (it definitely looks that way and there is sone evidence beyond appearance) then this complicates everything enormously. I also am aware that this question is one most completely avoid. For various reasons. One, they believe it false. Two they are Zionist Christians with an obligation (spiritual-historical?) to “bless” the Jews and since prominent Jews are Zionist madmen, to oppose Israeli machinations is described as antisemitism, though it is not. The proof? All the best arguments about Israel as a dangerous, even psychotic state, cone from coherent Jews. I could list twenty and then more.
Trump is said to be “afraid” of Netanyahu and Israeli power, and beholden to those who bribed him with enormous contribution by Israeli Zionists and American Zionist billionaires.
These are obvious and undeniable facts. They are irrefutable. And they should be recognized and talked about.
Therefore, his campaign promises cannot now be reneged because he has chosen to violate their entire spirit. He lied in extraordinary ways. And I regard it as a severe ethical issue that this is not called out by “centrist Republican” sorts like yourself.
Iran was not, by any measure, an immediate threat (immanent threat). This war, with our nation in dire condition economically, cannot afford an enterprise that cannot benefit the voter base that elected him. His objects have now become starkly different. And his actions (really a decision by a power structure) will likely make domestic life worse. That endangers by weakening the probability of continued Republican governance (mid-terms, etc).
I meant to write:
The argument that I largely accept is very difficult to accept, I would imagine especially for you and people like you (with your knowledge of US government) is that the nation of Israel has gained …
Thank you for taking the time to clarify this remark. But I had to laugh because the overall effect of your writing is emotional confusion. Which makes “These are obvious and undeniable facts. They are irrefutable.” – very humorous in my view. It follows “Trump is said to be…” So, it’s an obvious an undeniable fact that people said something about Trump that may or may not be true, for which there is no meaningful evidence, and that has no bearing on military decisions currently being made or that need to be made on an ongoing basis. Even funnier, perhaps, is “(And in no way is my view based in “antisemitism”. Absolutely not).” That follows “and since prominent Jews are Zionist madmen, to oppose Israeli machinations is described as antisemitism, though it is not. The proof? All the best arguments about Israel as a dangerous, even psychotic state, cone from coherent Jews. I could list twenty and then more.” I cannot diagnose a mental state remotely, but this nonsense almost makes me feel that I can. A few minutes ago I wouldn’t have thought this impossible, but the recently-discussed post by Jenny Carter seems more logically consistent and tonally balanced.
Don’t let your own projections deceive you, Kawaii. It is tempting but I recommend avoiding that temptation.
I do not feel emotionally confused, but I am ideologically confused (more like hesitant.
And many Israeli intellectuals that I respect and whose work I rely on define the Zionist State as nearly fascist (or fascistic) and also as deranged bordering on social psychosis. These are facts (that they have these views). Israeli society (again according to Israelis) is being torn and is in a dangerous, damaged state. About 250,000 have left Israel (and this is not a minor number).
No, my friend, I assure you that my concerns are legitimate; not tinge with unreason; and are shared by many others.
You could examine your own stance of resistance (to those views and the people who express them) and offer better counter arguments. You’ve done very little in that arena.
Maybe do more open minded research?
In case the above did not appear right:
https://youtu.be/KUFhuSCtFvc?si=2cCAXPJD5zwChRwy
I cannot comment logically to a post that is written so, to put it gently, confused, muddled, disjointed, contradictory, dogmatic, baseless. You’re the one making bizarre claims and then suggesting (but not showing) that you have so many examples to prove your claims. Yet the claims seem to be coming from Plan 9 from Outer Space, so I’m not sure I need to see any evidence to support them. Now, of course, I have a personal letter from Donald saying he’s afraid of Netanyahu, terrified in fact, and that he’s acting entirely in accordance with that fear. But I’m not going to show you that letter because then you might start calling for the complete destruction of Israel. And people will listen to you because you’re a very clever and convincing writer. So, that is the real reason I can’t offer proof. It would only show you’re right, right? And I also have proof that every other unsupported claim you made, albeit rather hysterically, is actually true beyond any shadow of doubt. Of course, I can’t be responsible for what all that proof will do to your writing. So I responsibly withhold it for now.
You’re the one making bizarre claims and then suggesting (but not showing) that you have so many examples to prove your claims.
They are not bizarre claims, but they are controversial claims. If you take dome time to watch a few of the videos I submitted you will have a better sense of what ‘supports’ the views I am influenced by (Israeli scholars).
I do not propose to offer “proofs”, and so I offer ways that you and others can get more information about views and opinions that are forming within the intellectual, political, and opinion community.
At your core you are a one-trick, “it’s-all-about-the-Zionists” and “blame the Jews” pony. There are a great many other songs in the political hymnal…try singing a different tune once in a while.
Your insinuation is 1) unfair to me (because my views are not singular or uniform) and 2) are prejudiced (i.e. contaminated with your own projected bias.)
There is a third factor which I believe to be a religio-political position (Christian Zionist). I regard Christian Zionism as particularly dangerous because it is religious belief and you cannot argue against).
If you are interested, the views I hold are held (and better defined) by Israeli scholars. I would very much appreciate it if you’d let me know your thoughts on the following:
https://youtu.be/AKzAzbjKNF0?si=d8X0RHFxboCkTViI
Totally and completely sold out”? The open boarders closed. Illegals deported, with many more on the way out. Major crimes down in major cities. DEI exposed and declining. The trans propaganda countered. The Deep State, if not rooted out, exposed. The fake Presidency and the auto-pen government exposed. The partisan corrupt judiciary exposed and crumbling. The Woke rot in the military excised. University indoctrination and anti-Semitism strongly condemned, addressed and punished. The unaccountable administrative state challenged. The Axis media exposed, and losing power and influence. The Left forced to side with villains, anti-Americans, criminals, enemies and outrageous policies, revealing its corruption. Insane “Climate-change” policies blocked. The Federal bureaucracy shrunk; the USAID woke slush fund cut. The Education Department…finally…sterilized. PBS and NPR defunded. NATO forced to pony up.
Personally, and considering my own vote, I am happy with these results. And it is very good and useful that you list them.
But what complicates these gains is that about fifty percent of a rising America demographic will soon ‘roar’ again when Trump’s present policies endanger continued Republican governance. Trump did not “win back America” from the precipice and if we are truthful (in any case this is my intuition) the sickness of America was not dealt with and perhaps cannot be dealt with.
Still, I do believe that you bring up many positive accomplishments. My largest apprehension is that this war enterprise will become just one more fiasco. And as you see I will not stop stating that I believe subservience to the nation Israel is a very bad choice and will be seen perhaps sooner than later to result in detriment. (And in no way is my view based in “antisemitism”. Absolutely not).
You mentioned Chris Hedges in one of your comments. Do you think he is accurate in this interview (providing you have the time). Perhaps he is just another “anti-American” left winger?
Lead in to video: “Trump, who is not very bright, has fallen into a very deadly trap, says Chris Hedges. The Israelis tricked him into the war on Iran that they’ve been lobbying for over three decades.”
https://youtu.be/iJAGYkh1qzo?si=ucyupjgQ3NntCzA5
You mentioned Chris Hedges in one of your comments. Do you think he is accurate in this interview (providing you have the time). Perhaps he is just another “anti-American” left winger?
I am uncertain frankly. And though I think Max Blumenthal is intelligent, observant, serious and I think oriented toward ethical ends, it is not impossible that he and Hedges are caught up in “anti-American” views.