Satan does a great job of persuasion in spite of not using valid inferences. With Eve, he insisted; thou shall not die. That is a great argument but to their dismay they did die, and Eve blamed the serpent, and Adam blamed Eve. Eve was persuaded to eat of the forbidden fruit by an invalid inference: that the Law of God had no consequences. Oddly enough, Satan never brought up the law of sin because he knew the consequences of sin - death! He was wily because it suited his purpose better to use invalid inferences.
Because of their innocence, both Adam and Eve were foolish. Satan deceived them by using contaminated data to support his conclusion - it is okay to eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree. Wise people do not accept invalid inferences. Manipulators know how to make deception appear to be valid. Take for instance, Satan's conclusion that it's okay to abort babies. His invalid inference is that there is no penalty for doing that, just as with the forbidden fruit.
The Law of God says there is a penalty for sin - that is death. We all know God's stand on murder: "thou shalt not kill." God says it's not okay to take the life of another person. Most people understand that! Therefore, another invalid inference is needed to support the conclusion: that the unborn are not "persons'. Satan says that they are mere fetal tissue, and of course, scripture doesn't need to be that technical. That argument is juvenile.
At least Satan uses inferences, invalid or not! Most people, when they do not have a valid inference, and run out of ammunition, so to speak, they fire blanks. They resort to disparaging statements and name-calling.
The modus operandi of the left is name-calling because they don't need facts to make their case. The "spin" we hear of quite often are invalid inferences. Name-calling questions the credibility of the other person. For instance, calling everyone and everything "racist" is in vogue. The name-caller knows that by destroying the credibility of the other person, valid inferences will not be needed.
With the approval of eating the forbidden fruit, Satan inferred that God is not credible - that he will never punish his creatures. Satan, using the serpent, implied that God is a liar, and Adam and Eve bought into that tactic. They were deceived. Even Satan knew the authority, reliability, and trustworthiness of the Lord, but Adam and Eve were gullible. Eve ate, she did not die, so Adam ate. Being technical, God did not say when death would occur or even what death meant. Satan didn't bother to explain the what, when, and why. If he had spoken the truth that he knew so well, Adam and Eve would never have eaten the fruit!
God had a Plan for mankind. He was always forthright with it. On the other hand, Satan had an agenda - to undermine God. He never bothered to infer his own incredulity, only denigrated God's authority. Nowadays, those with hidden agendas create "narratives". They use invalid inferences for others to reach faulty conclusions. Notice how liberals always use the same inferences to push people to reach the conclusions which they prefer. Of course, name-calling and accusations at the same time belittle their opposition, and encourage naïve people to question their opponents credibility. Those invalid inferences beguile innocent people into buying into their argument.
Liberals have been known to say, never let a serious crisis go to waste. The valid inference is the serious crisis. The conclusion they propagate is that we need more of their type of government. In this case, the crisis is valid but it is not pertinent to the conclusion. Because a hurricane hits a certain area hard, has no bearing on who the leaders are! However, like the serious crisis of a school shooting, they use the turmoil for more gun control, notwithstanding the reality that more guns are correlated with fewer deaths by guns. Their inference is valid but misapplied. To help their conclusion that gun control will help, what do they do? They vilify the NRA and its members, and even disregard the purpose of the Second Amendment.
The invalid inference is that mostly criminals have guns. Another invalid inference is that killers honor the nation's laws. It's already against the laws: God's and the Government's, not to kill. Would another law add anything to reduce guns used in crimes? Nada. That is silliness, and foolish people are again deceived!
Yelling "racist" shuts off all dialogue. Who can argue with that because name-calling is counterproductive. Name-calling actually divides even further. Sooner or later, the one who was misaligned will get even. We are where we're at in this nation because haters prefer to call names. Indeed, when people call me names, it makes it difficult to love them. Fro my own spiritual well-being, my wish is that people would quit their name-calling.
Another name used to undermine the opponent is "Fascist" or "Nazi". Recently, liberals have changed Nazi to Fascist because people didn't buy into Hitlerism. Since "Fascist" is a little less autocratic, name-callers attempt to increase their own credibility by using more civil name-calling!
Ironically, it is the name-callers who seem to be the haters. While they bellow "racist" and "Fascist", I sense hatred. If a Martian walked into the State of the Union speech last week, who would be the haters in the Martian's perspective? You know the answer - those who would cut off their noses to spite their faces!
Let's examine the inference of "hater" in persuading a particular conclusion. "Hate" is of the heart. How can name-callers know my heart? Their inference may be valid or invalid. My contention is that "hater" is an invalid inference. Intelligent people should realize that! From my perspective, I don't like the name-calling from the left, right, or the middle. Yes, the middle name-call as well! I don't even like it when Trump said "Liar Hillary". I believe it, but it isn't a valid inference. It merely diminishes her credibility. Trump already has a good enough case with valid inferences. He doesn't need questionable ones. Let the audience look closely, and they will question her integrity without prompting.
Satan uses division to undermine God. Name-calling insures division, and divided we will fall. My wish is that we all use the Golden Rule even when we disagree. We should be civil with each other, and not be barbarians when we disagree. Name-calling can be as destructive as the mace. We should take caution when we wield the tongue.
1 Pet 2:1 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander.Debate honestly, and at least you'll be honored.
No comments:
Post a Comment