|A Totalitarian not “so good” God and Jesus! Hell or Heaven! [BLACK AND WHITE LOGIC]|
|Your life and “social status” is all in your capacity! Are we Mannequins all said and done!|
One of the best “totalitarian” drawings I could find!
Pre-destination, self-determination, free will, independence, basic rights, good life conditions !
Bread [B- ‘read’]; Grapes-wine [g-‘rapes’]…!
I.E. What the Bible is or a Dictatorship or cult or other!
 Fallacy of relative privation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the sociological term, see relative deprivation.
The fallacy of relative privation, or appeal to worse problems, is an informal fallacy which attempts to suggest that the opponent’s argument should be ignored because there are more important problems in the world, despite the fact that these issues are often completely unrelated to the subject under discussion.
A well-known example of this fallacy is the response “but there are children starving in Africa,” with the implication that any issue less serious than that is not worthy of discussion; or the common saying “I used to lament having no shoes, until I met a man who had no feet.”
The word whataboutery or whataboutism has been used to describe this line of argument when used in protesting inconsistent behavior. e.g. “The British even have a term for it: whataboutery. If you are prepared to go to war to protect Libyan civilians from their government, then what about the persecuted in Bahrain?”
First World problem
Think of the children
Thought terminating cliche
 Thought-terminating cliché
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Thought terminating cliche)
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism Thought Reform Lifton.jpg
Book cover, 1989 edition
Author Robert Jay Lifton, M.D.
Translator Richard Jaffe (Chinese)
Cover artist Shelley Gruendler
Country United States
Publisher Norton, New York (1961, first edition)
University of North Carolina Press (reprint)
1961, 1989 (UNC Press reprint)
Media type Paperback
Pages 524 (1989 reprint)
LC Class BF633 .L5 1989
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of “Brainwashing” in China is a non-fiction book by psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton on the psychology of brainwashing and mind control.
Lifton’s research for the book began in 1953 with a series of interviews with American servicemen who had been held captive during the Korean War. In addition to interviews with 25 Americans, Lifton also interviewed 15 Chinese who had fled their homeland after having been subjected to indoctrination in Chinese universities. From these interviews, which in some cases occurred regularly for over a year, Lifton identified the tactics used by Chinese communists to cause drastic shifts in one’s opinions and personality and “brainwash” American soldiers into making demonstrably false assertions.
The book was first published in 1961 by Norton in New York. The 1989 reprint edition was published by University of North Carolina Press. Lifton is a Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York.
1 Main points
2 Thought-terminating cliché
3 See also
5 External links
In the book, Lifton outlines the “Eight Criteria for Thought Reform”:
Milieu Control. This involves the control of information and communication both within the environment and, ultimately, within the individual, resulting in a significant degree of isolation from society at large.
Mystical Manipulation. The manipulation of experiences that appears spontaneous but is, in fact, planned and orchestrated by the group or its leaders in order to demonstrate divine authority, spiritual advancement, or some exceptional talent or insight that sets the leader and/or group apart from humanity, and that allows reinterpretation of historical events, scripture, and other experiences. Coincidences and happenstance oddities are interpreted as omens or prophecies.
Demand for Purity. The world is viewed as black and white and the members are constantly exhorted to conform to the ideology of the group and strive for perfection. The induction of guilt and/or shame is a powerful control device used here.
Confession. Sins, as defined by the group, are to be confessed either to a personal monitor or publicly to the group. There is no confidentiality; members’ “sins,” “attitudes,” and “faults” are discussed and exploited by the leaders.
Sacred Science. The group’s doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute. Truth is not to be found outside the group. The leader, as the spokesperson for God or for all humanity, is likewise above criticism.
Loading the Language. The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand. This jargon consists of thought-terminating clichés, which serve to alter members’ thought processes to conform to the group’s way of thinking.
Doctrine over person. Members’ personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group.
Dispensing of existence. The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not. This is usually not literal but means that those in the outside world are not saved, unenlightened, unconscious and they must be converted to the group’s ideology. If they do not join the group or are critical of the group, then they must be rejected by the members. Thus, the outside world loses all credibility. In conjunction, should any member leave the group, he or she must be rejected also.
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism popularized the term “thought-terminating cliché”. This refers to a cliché that is a commonly used phrase, or folk wisdom, sometimes used to quell cognitive dissonance. Though the clichéd phrase in and of itself may be valid in certain contexts, its application as a means of dismissing dissent or justifying fallacious logic is what makes it thought-terminating.
The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis.
In George Orwell’s 1949 novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, the fictional constructed language Newspeak is designed to entirely eliminate the ability to express unorthodox thoughts. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World society uses thought-terminating clichés in a more conventional manner, most notably in regard to the drug soma as well as modified versions of real-life platitudes, such as “A doctor a day keeps the jim-jams away”.
In her 1963 book Eichmann in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt described Adolf Eichmann as an intelligent man who used clichés and platitudes to justify his actions and the role he played in the Jewish genocide of World War II. For her, these phrases are symptomatic of an absence of thought. She wrote “When confronted with situations for which such routine procedures did not exist, he [Eichmann] was helpless, and his cliché-ridden language produced on the stand, as it had evidently done in his official life, a kind of macabre comedy. Clichés, stock phrases, adherence to conventional, standardized codes of expression and conduct have the socially recognized function of protecting us against reality, that is, against the claim on our thinking attention that all events and facts make by virtue of their existence.”
“It works in theory, but not in practice.” (Base rate fallacy)
“Why? Because I said so.” (Bare assertion fallacy), “It makes sense to me, and that’s all that matters.”
“I’m the parent, that’s why.”, “When you get to be my age you’ll find that’s not true.” (Appeal to authority).
“Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.”
“This is the exception that proves the rule”
“Rules are rules.”, “You just don’t do that.”, “Because that is our policy.”
“It’s just common sense.”
“Everything happens for a reason.”
“Who do you think you are?”/”Who are you to…”
“You don’t always get what you want.”, “You win some, you lose some.”
“Ah well, swings and roundabouts.”
“We already had this conversation.”, “It’s not worth discussing.”
“We all have to do things we don’t like.”
“Such is life.”, “It is what it is.” , “Whatever will be, will be.”
“You are not being a ‘team player’.” (Ignoratio elenchi)
“Can’t everybody just drop it and get along?” (used as an attempt to stop an ongoing debate or argument)
“Whatever.”, “Who cares?”
“Be a man and…”
“It’s a matter of opinion!”, “It’s all relative.”, “That’s just your feelings.”
“You only live once.” (YOLO)
“We will have to agree to disagree.”
“Don’t be silly.”
“There’s no smoke without fire.” (used to convince others that a person is guilty based on accusation or hearsay and to discourage further examination of evidence)
“Me thinks thou dost protest too much.”, “The more you argue, the less we believe you.”
“People are going to do what they want.”
Thought-terminating clichés are sometimes used during political discourse to enhance appeal or to shut down debate. In this setting, their usage can usually be classified as a logical fallacy.
Thought-terminating clichés are also present in religious discourse in order to define a clear border between good and evil, holiness and sacrilege, and other polar opposites. These are especially present in religious literature.
“The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away.” Job 1:21
“Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!” (opposing same-sex marriage)
“That’s not Biblical.”
“God moves/works in mysterious ways.”
“God never gives you more suffering than you can bear.”
“Only God can judge.”
“God has a plan.”
“The Lord works in mysterious ways.”
The religious or semi-religious ideas of cults, heretics, and infidels are also often used as thought-terminating clichés, e.g. “Do not listen to him, he is an infidel,” (a guilt by association fallacy) or “That line of thought sounds like a cult” (also a guilt by association fallacy).
As an autological phrase The statement “that is a thought-terminating cliché” can itself function as a thought-terminating cliché. Once the stator has identified a first statement as a thought-terminating cliché, they may feel absolved of needing to determine whether that first statement is indeed a thought-terminating cliché, or provides useful insight, in the context under discussion.
 Appeal to Force [ and/or menace !]
Alias: Argumentum ad Baculum
Translation: “Argument from the stick” (Latin)
Appeal to Consequences
Students stormed the stage at Columbia University’s Roone auditorium yesterday, knocking over chairs and tables and attacking Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the Minutemen, a group that patrols the border between America and Mexico. Mr. Gilchrist and Marvin Stewart, another member of his group, were in the process of giving a speech at the invitation of the Columbia College Republicans. They were escorted off the stage unharmed and exited the auditorium by a back door. … The student protesters…booed and shouted the speakers down throughout. They interrupted Mr. Stewart…. A student’s demand that Mr. Stewart speak in Spanish elicited thundering applause and brought the protesters to their feet. The protesters remained standing, turned their backs on Mr. Stewart for the remainder of his remarks, and drowned him out by chanting, “Wrap it up, wrap it up!” … On campus, the Republicans’ flyers advertising the event were defaced and torn down.
Analysis of the Example
Source: Eliana Johnson, “At Columbia, Students Attack Minuteman Founder”, The New York Sun, 10/5/2006
The name “argumentum ad baculum” alludes to the use of a stick, or club―a “baculum” was a walking-stick or staff―to beat someone. As a logical fallacy, “ad baculum” or “appeal to force” applies to the use of force and, by extension, the use of threats of force to “win” a debate.
There are two types of logical error that may be involved in appeals to force:
Some appeals to force may be appeals to the consequences of a belief. What sets the appeal to force apart from other appeals to consequences is that the bad consequences appealed to―that is, the use of force―will be caused by the arguer. Attempts to change people’s minds by threats of punishment are appeals to consequences, since the bad consequences appealed to are not consequences of what is believed, but of the belief itself. As such, they are irrelevant to the truth-value of the belief.
However, because it is impossible to read a person’s mind, the attempt to use force or threats to change minds is usually ineffective. Instead, threats are more commonly reasons to act, and as such can be good reasons to do so if the threat is plausible. People are sometimes intimidated into pretending to believe things that they don’t, but this is not coming to believe something because of the fear of force. So, appeals to force which are appeals to consequence may fail one criterion of a logical fallacy, namely, that it be a common type of bad argument.
When force or the threat of force is used to suppress the arguments of one side in a debate, that is a type of one-sidedness. Governments are always tempted to use police powers to prevent criticism of their policies, and totalitarian governments are frequently successful in doing so. Extremists use threats or actual violence to silence those who argue against them. Audience members “shout down” a debater whom they disagree with in order to prevent a case from being heard. This is, unfortunately, common enough to qualify as a logical fallacy.
However, force or the threat of it is not an argument, which means that appealing to force is not a logical fallacy. Since hitting someone over the head with a stick is not an argument at all, a fortiori it is not a fallacious one. However, withholding relevant information can lead people into drawing false conclusions.
For these reasons, calling the appeal to force a “logical fallacy” is misleading. More accurately, it is a logical boobytrap, that is, a way of tricking someone else into reasoning incorrectly.
David Hackett Fischer, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (Harper & Row, 1970), pp. 294-296.
John Woods, “Appeal to Force”, from Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, edited by Hans V. Hanson and Robert C. Pinto (Penn State Press, 1995), pp. 240-250.
 Emotional Appeal
Type: Red Herring
An appeal to emotion is a type of argument which attempts to arouse the emotions of its audience in order to gain acceptance of its conclusion. Despite the example of Mr. Spock from the original Star Trek television series, emotion is not always out of place in logical thinking. However, there is no doubt that strong emotions can subvert rational thought, and playing upon emotions in an argument is often fallacious.
When are appeals to emotion appropriate, and when are they fallacious? No student would attempt to prove a mathematical theorem by playing upon the teacher’s sympathy for the long hours of hard work put into it. Such an appeal would be obviously irrelevant, since either the proof is correct or it is flawed, despite the student’s best efforts. In contrast, if the teacher attempts to motivate the student to work on proving the theorem by invoking the specter of a failing grade, this appeal to fear is not irrelevant.
So, one distinction between relevant and fallacious appeals to emotion is based on the distinction between arguments which aim to motivate us to action, and those which are intended to convince us to believe something. Appeals to emotion are always fallacious when intended to influence our beliefs, but they are sometimes reasonable when they aim to motivate us to act. The fact that we desire something to be true gives not the slightest reason to believe it, and the fact that we fear something being true is no reason to think it false; but the desire for something is often a good reason to pursue it, and fear of something else a good reason to flee.
Even when appeals to emotion aim at motivating us, there is still a way that they may fail to be rational, namely, when what we are being persuaded to do has insufficient connection with what is arousing our emotion. For instance, a familiar type of emotional appeal is the appeal to pity or sympathy, which is used by many charities. Photographs of crippled or hungry children are shown in order to arouse one’s desire to help them, with the charity trying to motivate you to write a check. However, there may be little or no connection between your check and the poor children you wish to help. Certainly, your money will probably not help the specific children you see in such appeals. At best, it may go to help some similar children who need help. At worst, it may go into further fundraising efforts, and into the pockets of the people who work for the charity.
In such cases, what is needed is an argument that there is a causal connection between the action motivated by emotion and the circumstances that arouse that emotion. Will writing a check help the pitiful children? Will voting for this candidate help prevent frightening circumstances? If all that a charity or candidate does is arouse emotions, that is no reason to give them money or votes. When we feel strong emotions, we want to do something, but we need good reasons to believe that the something we do will be effective.
Appeal to Envy (AKA, Argumentum ad Invidiam)
Appeal to Fear (AKA, Argumentum ad Metum)
Appeal to Hatred (AKA, Argumentum ad Odium)
Appeal to Pity (AKA, Argumentum ad Misericordiam)
Appeal to Pride (AKA, Argumentum ad Superbiam)
So dear reader, At best the Bible appeals to fear, legal menace as it is on paper, which my Book does not! And also the Bible appeals to offer a prize, like the “carrot to the donkey” fallacy to convince the logic!
This of course is different than the Laws of a Civilized Country! Which aim at ruling, but do not offer prizes! They only impose discipline! And are mainly for some kind of control, so that others rights are not violated and/or to avoid barbarianism!
p.s.: I find it hard to mix up friendship, with beliefs and logic and intelligence! I do not have to leave others because they do not believe better logic, even though they do! I do have to appeal to other bigger reasons for being with my wife and family! For example, my brother’s wife’s family has many that are not “born again Christians”, and they do not exclude them in family gatherings! Only Religions exclude!
AGAIN RELIGIONS “EXCLUDE”…! Those of free thought and free will…!!!