Reason vs. Emotion.

[MSimon]

On the drug issue, its a moot point whether you consider the war over or not, the damage from the corrupting influence might be too great. I've noticed that no one wants to go near what I consider the elephant in the room full of blind men. As indicated, for over 50 years the Venice Beach Airport has been crawling with spooks, drug runners, and within recent memory, 911 terrorists. To attempt to eliminate the corruption could cause another civil war, and I don't think the good guys have much of a chance.

There are people inside the system who take this to heart and some of them are doing something about it:

Oakland City Attorney John Russo joined other law enforcement officials in front of Oakland City Hall today to declare support for the marijuana legalization initiative Proposition 19, which Russo argued would give Californians "a chance to take drugs off the street corners and out of the hands of children."

Joined by people working on the Proposition 19 campaign, a former community prosecutor, and a former deputy sheriff who is now a medical marijuana user himself, Russo said that Proposition 19 -- which would legalize, regulate and tax marijuana -- would improve public safety, ease the budget deficit and make it harder for kids to obtain marijuana.

http://oaklandnorth.net/2010/09/13/the- ... high-gear/

Of course very few will come straight out and say that drug laws are corrupting the system. But there have been a few.

[chrismb]

I submit that a healthy, correctly working mind will have the correct (IE logical) emotional response for any given circumstance if the circumstance is one in which humans evolved for.

I do not expect any one here to agree with me.

Oh! That's a shame! Actually, I do agree with you that your posit is logically consistent. It seems quite a sound thesis.

However, what I would suggest is that there may be more to be added to your thesis. A conclusion, of sorts.

My addition is thus; homo geekensis and homo musclehead are two evolutionary chains that have begun to bifurcate from homo sapiens. We, the enginerd types, have dragged homosapiens out of the trees, and then the mud, that they once dwelt in. I say that there is currently an actual social battle, of sorts, beginning to take shape between the 'neuro-typicals' and the 'Asperger types' as to who are actually the defective ones.

Your thesis fits right on in there, and so I am going to suck it all up. Because the less-emotional Aperger types are evolving in exactly the way you suggest they might - a more plainer and dead-pan response to the bizarre nature of modern society, the neuro-typical remainder of which feel gratification in reacting emotionally, yet Apserger's types still react strongly and passionately when the situation gets too extreme and/or too illogical [that is, react appropriately to perverse stimuli].

The other thing is that when neuro-typical homo musclehead gets into public office, they like to create confusion. Confusion comforts neuro-typicals because they like having emotional responses. They tell the Asperger's types "Ah! You are defective because you find the world a confusing place." This is nonsence - the world *IS* a confusing place, and anyone that holds the world as a comforting, ordered place is having an emotional reaction so that they do not have to face the reality of their perpetual cock-ups due to emotional behaviours!!!!!

[Diogenes]

It's a red herring but the pattern those words refer to do exist. Hadn't you said that emotionless people can reason, only not make choices hinged on personal import? E.G. can figure out how socks are woven, but not which ones they want to wear.

Either way, appeal to emotion is fallacious.

I agree with you on that point. Essentially people without reason can't choose: come to a conclusion.

On the rest of your argument - yes. An appeal to emotion only is an attempt to short circuit reason.

We are fortunate to be alive in the final stages of the Drug War. Once it is over a LOT of believer's heads will explode when they find out how bad it has really been.

Here is a fine example of the level of corruption we will find all around America:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... l_headline

How many times can a head explode? I'm saving my head explosion for when I realize how much debt the irresponsible\immoral idiots have saddled the nation with. The drug war is a pittance compared to less worthwhile things. +

[Diogenes]

...providing the jury [feel that they] have participated in the same nature of the crime themselves. If someone were to have been shown to do dastardly deeds to a small child before slaying it, then I hardly thing the "hey, my client may be guilty - but aren't we all guilty of something?" approach would go down very well as a 'perfect defence'.

At some level (below the level of reason) most people understand the difference between vice and crime.

Most people think they understand a lot of things, and even when they don't they claim to understand anyway. I have learned not to take people's word for what they claim to know.

A vice can be a crime. Lying that results in imprisonment for someone is a crime. Lying for many reasons is not. Drinking that results in the death of someone is a crime. Drinking that does not is not.

Telling a girl you will marry and take care of her in order to get sex is not a crime, even if you leave her and your child to starve to death in destitution. (Which the government prevents by artificially intervening.)
It ought to be a crime.


I long lament people's abilities to draw false boundaries where there are none.

[Diogenes]

At some level (below the level of reason) most people understand the difference between vice and crime.

Well put!

Yes, I think that is the distinct difference. 'Normal' folks are, indeed, prepared to forgive for vices, peccadillos and other bizarre and deviant behaviours that adds, let us say, 'colour' to society that doesn't add trauma and damage to it. The Authorities on the other hand seem to use people's weaknesses as an excuse to prosecute and keep the people subjugated.

I don't think I have really considered that before. I think it is right. Various 'crimes' fit that bill - speeding, getting drunk, being a bit offensive, throwing eggs at politicians... breaking into a bank and stealing money (!?) - do these *need* to be made out to be crimes?

Is it the French who have 'crimes of passion'? I suppose that heads towards such a distinction.

See my response to MSimon above. Vices can be crimes. It depends on the consequences.

[Diogenes]

On that subject, here in the UK there is a 'sex offenders' register, where they have to sign on and keep the police informed of their whereabouts and activities. We've fallen short of the 'Megan's Law' so far, but I understand a trail ('Sarah's law) of a similar arrangement to make the register public is to be coming in to force next year.

So I mention this because, to my understanding, to date there have been two individuals added for having sex with inanimate objects. Do such people really need to be added to a sex offenders register? In one case, a man was resident in a hostel. Cleaners heard 'strange noises' from his locked room, made their entry, and found him having sex with his pedal-bicycle. They called the Police who prosecuted him for some reason or another.

Now if that had been a female with a 'toy' and the cleaners were male, they'd have been the ones on the sex offenders register, presumably!!!

The only other man to have been added to the UK sex offenders register without it involving someone else was a man who had a passion for having sex with holes in the pavement. I guess I can see a logical reason for trying to stop that behaviour.

In one case [again, not unreasonably in the circumstances!!] a Court order was made out to a man in his 60's who liked to dress up as a school girl and stand outside school gates waiting for school to start. The Court, [very reasonably, I thought] made out an order that prevented him doing so before 10.30AM. Unfortunately, the urge to get to school was, clearly, too great for him and he broke the order.

There was a documentary some time back that followed this elderly coloured chap who kept saying he was related to the Queen. He did nothing else, made no threats, did nothing else particularly unusual, but he was 'sectioned'; forcibly taken in for psychiatric treatment and given drugs to 'fix' his view that he was related to the Queen.

Does society act act out of reason or emotion when it deals with such people? They may be beyond reason, but why does the State have to act beyond reason as well? I am now completely confused by the behaviour of both the majority of the world's people and also the world's State Authorities, and I reckon that means the majority act out of emotion because I can see no reason to most of it.

It is a long held human fear that people behaving in bizarre and unexplainable ways constitute a threat. John Wayne Gacy, Charles Ng, and Jeffery Dahmer come immediately to mind as to what people fear.

I am fond of using the Snake analogy. When you are walking through the woods and suddenly realize you are about to step on a snake, do you ponder whether it is harmless or do you jump back immediately?

You are safest if you don't take the chance. Same applies to unfamiliar crazies. Many are harmless. Not all are. This is the sort of problem people Don't want to deal with. They prefer to err on the side of caution and assume crazy (especially if there is some sexual component) equals "potentially dangerous". Examples abound on the internet.

[Diogenes]

There was a documentary some time back that followed this elderly coloured chap who kept saying he was related to the Queen. He did nothing else, made no threats, did nothing else particularly unusual, but he was 'sectioned'; forcibly taken in for psychiatric treatment and given drugs to 'fix' his view that he was related to the Queen.

Does society act act out of reason or emotion when it deals with such people?

People who have these kinds of delusions often also have hallucinations and because these are both so unpredictable, they need treatment. Generally such things have one of two causes: either the issue is morphological, in which case it can be seen with a scan--too many connections between the left and right hemispheres of the brain cause these things, or the cause is toxilogical--the person was poisoned with an hallucinogen. Either way, when someone is so separated from reality, helping them back with lithium or some such really is an example of paternalistic behavior that is warranted. Such a person can't ask for help because they don't know they're sick.

Ditto for Crack, Meth, Heroin and Opium users.

[Diogenes]

There was a documentary some time back that followed this elderly coloured chap who kept saying he was related to the Queen. He did nothing else, made no threats, did nothing else particularly unusual, but he was 'sectioned'; forcibly taken in for psychiatric treatment and given drugs to 'fix' his view that he was related to the Queen.

Does society act act out of reason or emotion when it deals with such people?

People who have these kinds of delusions often also have hallucinations and because these are both so unpredictable, they need treatment. Generally such things have one of two causes: either the issue is morphological, in which case it can be seen with a scan--too many connections between the left and right hemispheres of the brain cause these things, or the cause is toxilogical--the person was poisoned with an hallucinogen. Either way, when someone is so separated from reality, helping them back with lithium or some such really is an example of paternalistic behavior that is warranted. Such a person can't ask for help because they don't know they're sick.

We need to do something about mothers milk which contains significant amounts of endocannabinoids. Mothers who start their kids on breast milk are poisoning them with marijuana analogs.

There ought to be a law.

The marijuana is the analog. The mother's milk is natural, and supposed to be in the babies body. This is the whole problem. People mucking about with their biology and claiming that they have a right to f*ck themselves up!

[Diogenes]

It's a red herring but the pattern those words refer to do exist. Hadn't you said that emotionless people can reason, only not make choices hinged on personal import? E.G. can figure out how socks are woven, but not which ones they want to wear.

Either way, appeal to emotion is fallacious.

Fallacy has nothing to do with it. Fallacy, in many cases, is actually a feature, not a bug.

You just don't get it. Again you just say something and show no evidence or explanation. What evidence is there that "fallacy has nothing to do with it"? Why is appeal to emotion a fallacy, by anyone's but your standard, then?
Next, whether an argument is fallacious purposefully or not, it's fallacious.

Why am I wasting my time debating this or anything with someone who can't even tell the difference between correct and flawed reasoning?

You are apparently having trouble keeping up with the conversation. I am not suggesting fallacy works on people able to understand and possessing the self control necessary to use reason. I'm saying fallacy is not a problem for the vast bulk of people who are easily swayed by an emotional argument, such as the people who voted for Barack Obama because he was black.

People were caught up in the emotion of doing something "Historic" and "sticking it to those haters", so they pick an inexperienced lying sack of shit who can talk jive, and run him for President without even bothering to comprehend he can't meet the minimum qualifications.

The fallacies of doing such a thing were turned to advantages by declaring them to be the "lies and hatred spread by my enemies" etc.


Anyway, it is entirely your choice whether to continue this discussion or not. You can walk off the field any time you like.

(notice how I used the term "Walk off the Field" as though to imply you are vanquished? You can out smart me by feigning too much dignity to respond and simply ignoring me from now on! Win the argument by being silent! Otherwise I have to conclude that emotion can goad people into doing things when reason often cannot. (Actually, the way i've framed the argument, you will lose by doing either thing. If you respond, I can say it is because I goaded you. If you leave, I can say it is because I goaded you. ) )

Govt...

What it sounds like is that you'll take any halfway good opportunity to bloat govt some more, and elsewhere in your arguments simply don't see the USA's founding values as essential. What people like you ought to do is take your govt way of life and start a new country.

I am no advocate of Government beyond what is necessary. I recognize that there are tasks which are needful of an independent nation, and cannot be done by any other entity than the government. I regard preventing the spread of the drug disease as one of those legitimate tasks. You do not, yet you seek to use the emotional\fallacy argument that because I believe the government should do this, I'm in favor of excessive and tyrannical government.

Your words may claim to deny the benefits of emotion in an argument, but your actions put the lie to your words.

[Diogenes]

1) On Logic vs Emotion.

Evolutionary processes allow for things that make no sense as long as they do no damage. (Consider the duck's penis.)

A duck's penis makes perfect sense! You just have to understand the screwy logic behind it. The drake's penis is corkscrewed, and so is the ducks vagina is corkscrewed as well, but in the opposite direction. The current theory is that this system was evolved to guarantee the female retains the ability to select the father of her offspring. As the females cannot prevent the drakes from raping them, they simply let the drake try, but because of the mutual geometry, the female can't be fertilized unless she is willing and unclenches her muscles.

What doesn't make sense about that?


I deleted the rest of your post because the duck penis thing was the only thing you wrote that I thought was worth responding to.


You were wrong about that, so I figured you must be wrong about everything else as well. How does that make you feel?

[Diogenes]

In so many words, emotional thinking is just another way of connecting the dots. What you think, rationally or emotionally motivated, is accurate if it matches reality. If you wake up tomorrow and punch someone because in the previous night's dream he punched you, it's not a well-founded motivation. Replace dream punch with something personal and intensely visceral, and still the emotional reaction on first sight of that someone the next day is not founded on reality.

The OP came about because appeal to emotion is considered by Diogenes to not be a fallacious appeal. Because crying children and relatives of drug junkies overrule, he argues, the plain truth of personal responsibility. The kind of plain truth that the USA was meant to foster and epitomize.

I'm right here. You can take that ventriloquist dummy off your lap, you don't do a very good imitation of me anyway. You obviously are having a difficulty grasping the concept. I do not support fallacious reasoning, I point out that it works anyway, when dealing with most members of the public. I cite the election of Obama as the most obvious example. I further point out that you were using the strawman fallacy by intentionally (or because you can't understand it. You pick which one.) misstating it.

As for the plain truth that the USA was meant to foster, this is like Jesus, and why he's so popular among different people of different beliefs. Each one sees him as they want to see him. I've been in many homes where he is black, I 've been in many homes where he is blond and blue eyed. I've heard that he advocates all sorts of things diverse and contradictory, yet everyone loves him (well, not everyone) because they see themselves in him.

The argument that our founders intended for us to tolerate junkies who unwittingly spread their poisons to the innocent, is simply not credible. You are suffering from a zeitgeist problem if you believe that.

[Diogenes]

1) On Logic vs Emotion.

Evolutionary processes allow for things that make no sense as long as they do no damage. (Consider the duck's penis.)

I was just messing with you man, I actually did find other bits of your response interesting, I just wanted to make a point by showing you how emotions come unbidden when confronted with certain stimuli.


The Pecking order is extremely important to humans, (as it is to every other animal) and the biggest part of the social dynamic is figuring out where everyone lies in the ever changing pecking order. We all strive to achieve as high a social status (within whatever group we find ourselves in) as we can. Sometimes we achieve status by accomplishments, but it is usually easier to achieve status by climbing on others and pushing them down. Insults, mockery, disdain, contempt, all these things play a role in establishing who is dominant over whom. Unleashing wit to a poor response gains the witty, points, while the unwieldy of thought suffer the loss of status to the other.

It is an automatic and visceral reaction to perceive someone who has "dissed" you as an enemy, needing to be confronted, and at minimum repulsed, and if possible, beaten. Often times the most important thing you can do to accomplish this is to realize early on that you are in a conflict, and take appropriate steps to counter it. (En guarde)

Anyway, to get on with your points.

However, they do not allow for things which get in the way of survival. To my mind this would include most emotional behaviors. Which is to say that most (though not all) emotions must have a logic behind them which favors (or, at least, does not get in the way of) the survival of the genes they are attached to. They are, therefor, logical and rational in and of themselves.

However, an emotional response has a place. It is logical, for example, to feel scared while standing next to a cliff. But it is not logical to feel scared of the outdoors in general. The emotion is the same but the circumstance is not. And, in general, when an emotion emerges in inappropriate circumstances, it is considered a crazy or sick response. "That's what shrinks are for."

I submit that a healthy, correctly working mind will have the correct (IE logical) emotional response for any given circumstance if the circumstance is one in which humans evolved for. And that this *must* be true because the evolutionary processes will follow the path of reason and logic if given enough time for those algorithms to work out what that path is.

I would suggest that a "Healthy, Correctly working mind" will have some qualifying parameters. There are some idiot savants who can exceed the capabilities of mundane minds, and there are ordinary people who can achieve extraordinary things. I assert that there is a wide range of "mind types" that fall within the range of "Normal", but have quirks that many will perceive as odd.

I am fond of saying "I don't know any SANE people."

It is therefor not emotion that causes people to make incorrect (illogical) decisions but the lack of time for human emotions to have evolved the proper responses to human society. Which is to say, it's not that emotions are illogical it's that they are not evolved for the environment in which they find themselves.

One need no more example for the evolution of emotion over time and its inability to cope to human society than one's own visceral reaction to the following sentences:

"He was killed with a club."
"He was killed with an ax."
"He was killed with a sword."
"He was killed with a boomerang."
"He was killed with a pistol."
"He was killed in an explosion."

Notice in yourself that the more ancient the weapon, the more emotional the reaction to those statements. Why? Because emotional evolution has had long enough to learn what a club, ax and (to an extent) a sword is. But boomerangs, pistols and explosions really haven't been around long enough for that emotional knowledge to be wired in. Indeed, english has specific words to use with the more ancient of weapons: bludgeoned, hacked, sliced. Have we verbs specifically for the other three? I can't think of them. Maybe they're exist. But I doubt they have the same deep emotional reaction the other three have.

I am thinking this is a subjective reaction. Perhaps it is common to most people, but I didn't feel any appreciable difference (that I could tell) when I thought about the difference between a club, a sword, ... Pistol, explosion. Actually, I thought a person could be killed with a club in a fairly bloodless manner simply by hitting them in the head hard enough. An explosion actually blows blood and guts everywhere.

It is directly because emotional reactions have been around so long and done such a service to the genes of our ancestors that they are more persuasive than the (relatively) new method of rational thought. Your brain and nervous system has evolved to trust the emotional algorithms for much longer than they have evolved to trust the rational algorithms.

Emotion works on the reptile brain. That's why people have to struggle to overcome it. It is a more basic level of understanding, and the reptile brain can be convinced quickly (fight or flight is evolutionarily advantageous) of something, while the higher functioning brain is trying to work it out.

It is possible to overcome these predilections, but it takes training that is beyond the capabilities of our current educational system.

2) On the War On Drugs.

I live in the "Emerald Triangle" of Northern California. This is an area well known for its growing of high quality Marijuana. I have experienced the loss of friends and loved ones, young and old, to the addictions of various drugs, from meth and cocaine, to alcohol and tobacco. If there's anything I've learned from these experiences its that a person will either survive these trials by fire or they will not and nothing can be done from the outside to help. No program, no loved one, no nothing. If the addicted person does not want quit or is unwilling to spend the effort necessary to quit, they will die of their addiction. "Being there for someone" and/or drug programs are only for those who have already decided to climb their way out of their addiction. And for those who have made that decision, friends and programs are extremely helpful. Yet utterly useless for those who have not.

This is beside the point. I consider much of the diseased to be already lost. The interest here is to prevent the spread to the uninfected, and the only way to do that is to prevent a transference of the infection by keeping the uninfected away from it. A lot of people keep repeating that it's about preventing people from having fun and screwing themselves up because it's their choice. I keep repeating that those people who are genetically susceptible to the effects of the drugs have not nearly enough information to make an informed choice, (till it's too late) and that they injure other people by drawing them into the disease.

I have also experienced, first and third hand, what happens to law officers who are inducted into drug enforcement: They quickly learn how much money is involved on both sides, that these amounts have corrupted their superiors and they can either be corrupted as well or quit. Those that quit have a conscience. Those that don't do not. I have yet to see a counter example. Drug enforcement is corrupt from top to bottom. They steal it, use it and deal it.

A vast accusation. It might be true, but it is a fact not yet in evidence. It might be true of your experience, but it is not necessarily true of Law Enforcement in other cities with different demographics.

Furthermore, my experiences, and those of this area in general, are that those of drug enforcement who last any length of time are steely eyed monsters of no conscience. In one well publicized incident, a helicopter landed in a private grassy field, the dog shot and the owners of the property --mother, father and children-- held at gunpoint for hours while the neighbors pot-garden was raided. Why? Because it was the only grassy field near the intended raid. When the raid was done, the enforcers got back in their 'copter and left. The owners sued the agency in question (CAMP) to no avail. Bureaucratic tape kept anything from happening for years. And when it looked like they were finally going to have their day in court, they (the owners) dropped the suit. Exactly why has never been publicized but it's widely assumed they were "convinced" to drop the suit by less than honorable means.

You are arguing that people in positions of power become dictatorial and abuse their positions of power? Sure, that's pretty obvious. Is it unique to the drug war? Not on your life.

And why should any of this be a surprise when it's exactly what happened in the prohibition era. Regular police became corrupt or turned a blind eye. And prohibition enforcers became either corrupt or monsters.

The abuse of drugs is a medical issue, not a civil or legal one. Those who have addictive genomes get addicted. Those that don't, don't. Those that are addicted will do whatever it takes to get more. It is my opinion that the creation or use of narcotics should not be legislated in any way. But its sale should be exceedingly illegal. You want to grow/create it? You want to use it? You want to give it away? Not our problem. You want to stop using? Here's a program to help. You want to sell it, goto jail. Remove the money and the criminals will gravitate to other crimes. (Same thing for prostitution: decriminalize prostitutes completely. Make Johns and Pimps illegal. IE, You want to hawk your own body? Not our problem. You want to buy or sell someone else's body, goto jail.)

This is the typical short sighted perspective of which I have been dealing for quite some time. It overlooks the fact that most people have genomes that code for addiction to certain drugs, and that if such drugs are unleashed upon to the populace, they will in short order addict virtually everyone, except those too stubborn to try them. I keep pointing out that China suffered 25% - 90% addiction (depending on which source you wish to believe) in the early part of the 20th century. I also point out that the much smaller island of Japan walked right in and took China without much of a fight. Coincidence? I don't think so.

You cannot argue that a 25%-90% addiction rate is NOT a threat to the survival of the nation and our civil rights. It is an occasion just BEGGING for a dictator. As I keep repeating ad infinitum "Look at the BIG picture."

3) Rant.

I do not expect any one here to agree with me. And I don't expect to change anyone's mind. That's fine. I don't mind. I've made my statement. I'll read the responses but, as seems to be true of most who reply to this thread, I've made up my mind already and I don't expect y'all can change it.

That's right. I said it. My mind is made up and I doubt there's an argument that will change it. I understand this is to be expected of someone older than 35, even if it's only a year older, as I am.

To those who read this post, thank you for your time.
To those who wish to reply, ditto.
To those who wish to change my opinion, good luck. I hope you succeed.

Don Quixote to the rescue!

[Diogenes]

On reason vs emotion, reason is based on logic, but it can be proven that logic can't explain everything. Consider this following sentence:

"This statement is unproveable."

This is used to demonstrate the limitations of Boolean logic. Another example, science can explain how the universe was created from the big bang, but it can't explain the why of the universe. Before the universe we start delving into metaphysics.

On the drug issue, its a moot point whether you consider the war over or not, the damage from the corrupting influence might be too great. I've noticed that no one wants to go near what I consider the elephant in the room full of blind men. As indicated, for over 50 years the Venice Beach Airport has been crawling with spooks, drug runners, and within recent memory, 911 terrorists. To attempt to eliminate the corruption could cause another civil war, and I don't think the good guys have much of a chance.

I think that it is just another symptom of a greater conflict, one which I fear will not be resolved bloodlessly. Just more reason to worry about the future.

[Diogenes]

On the drug issue, its a moot point whether you consider the war over or not, the damage from the corrupting influence might be too great. I've noticed that no one wants to go near what I consider the elephant in the room full of blind men. As indicated, for over 50 years the Venice Beach Airport has been crawling with spooks, drug runners, and within recent memory, 911 terrorists. To attempt to eliminate the corruption could cause another civil war, and I don't think the good guys have much of a chance.

There are people inside the system who take this to heart and some of them are doing something about it:

Oakland City Attorney John Russo joined other law enforcement officials in front of Oakland City Hall today to declare support for the marijuana legalization initiative Proposition 19, which Russo argued would give Californians "a chance to take drugs off the street corners and out of the hands of children."

Joined by people working on the Proposition 19 campaign, a former community prosecutor, and a former deputy sheriff who is now a medical marijuana user himself, Russo said that Proposition 19 -- which would legalize, regulate and tax marijuana -- would improve public safety, ease the budget deficit and make it harder for kids to obtain marijuana.

http://oaklandnorth.net/2010/09/13/the- ... high-gear/

Of course very few will come straight out and say that drug laws are corrupting the system. But there have been a few.

It is amusing to think that some people believe the system wouldn't be corrupt but for drug laws.

[MSimon]

It is amusing to think that some people believe the system wouldn't be corrupt but for drug laws

Not none: less.

There is a LOT of corruption money in drugs.

But I see your point. Since we cant stamp out all corruption why stamp out any?