The fallacy of perfect-world logic.

I don't think there is anything that annoys me more than when someone begins a sentence with "We/they should just..." It's wonderful to have ideal situations and solutions based those ideal situations; however, we rarely never see that when facing the complex issues we have at hand. Our problems are too complex for simple solutions, and logic based off the perfect situation does not apply to imperfect realities.

I usually see perfect-world logic in political and socioeconomic debates, such as when debating welfare or entitlement programs. An extreme example of perfect-world logic was an LDS friend who argued that we should all just live the United Order. While this would be the perfect solution, it would not work in practice. The United Order requires that everyone involved willingly give everything, which is unlikely never going to happen as long as people are subject to greed.

While not all cases of perfect-world logic are as extreme or obvious as bring up the United Order, we often hear similar fallacies without noticing.

Perhaps it's most often disguised in phrases such as "Wouldn't it just be best if..." or "Shouldn't we really just..." Notice how the word "just" is a bit of a motif in those phrases? "Just" is actually the the crucial part of perfect-world logic, as the limiting scope of it's meaning destabilizes any rebuttal. When scoping use of "just" is conjoined with the absolute truths that perfect-world logic is derived from, it becomes difficult to dispute without acknowledging the absolute truths, thus weakening the dissenting opinion.

However, the largest problem with perfect-world logic is it simply doesn't work. It's like nailing Jell-O to a tree. When we eliminate human tendencies and use only azoic rules, we ignore the very essence of any given problem's core- humans. When solving a problem, we must take into account perceived, expected and unexpected actions and reactions of both the affected and unaffected. We cannot force rules upon those who do not wish to have them.

Ultimately, large complex issues will have large and complex solutions for as long as we live in an imperfect society, a society that includes innumerable opinions, preferences and lifestyles.

Haha, I'm just kidding. Why would I write a new post for consecutive days?

I've realised to the problem, though: I hate the physical act of writing. It's not being creative and expressing my opinions the bother me; it's the physical act of typing.

I need a speech-to-text converter

A Week of Rants, Part Deuce: Bias in the Media, Church, Bloggernacle and more.

Because I've been lax in my blogging, I'm going to do another week-o-rants. It will include "Different Strokes: How different people find fulfillment in different ways"  and "Folk-doctrine, including prophetic infallibility"
Today's rant is on bias and unilateral thinking



Recently, a Sgt. in the Port Canaveral police force was suspended. The first headline about this said he was using a picture of Trayvon Martin for target practice. I held off making an opinion, because I knew there had to be more. Finally, Brighthouse News Network (Channel 13 News) reported that it was a training target intended not to be shot at; also, it wasn't actually a picture of him but a silhouette of his profile. Now, this was still a boneheaded move on his part, but using his silhouette for the intent of not shooting it is quite different from the intentional shooting has his actual picture. Still, this has been portrayed as if the officer was committing a hate crime, and not just being stupid.

Actually, the way the entire Trayvon case is being handled is disgusting me. The first headline said that a unarmed teenager was gunned down for being black. Then came the stories of how he was just walking home with some skittles but this overzealous pseudo-cop gunned him down without provocation. The media  showed Trayvon's picture from when he was 13, and used Zimmerman's mugshot from years earlier. They never told of how Trayvon had a history of violence, that he was on suspension from school for fighting, and how he had attacked Zimmerman after Zimmerman followed him. (Yahoo! eventually released the pictures of Zimmerman's injuries.)

 It's easy to show bias without telling a direct lie.

"Unarmed Black teenager shot dead by white man"

"Teenager shot and killed during fight"

"Older man shoots in defense against attack from African-American teenager teenager"


While all three are factually correct, only the middle one tells the story from a non-biased point-of-view.

I've seen this alot lately in many circumstances. There has been a lot of anger over the way the media defended the men who committed the Steubenville Rape of a 15 year-old girl. They Talked of how their lives were ruined. (Never mind the girl's life and the effect this has on her.)

Look at how the bloggernacle has blown up over sister Dalton's last talk. Sure, she annoyed me too, and I felt like her talk should have been worded differently when referring to rape, but at some point in time, you've got to stop whining about semantics and move on. (Let me add here that I believe the church needs an overhaul on how it talks about rape, and sexuality in general, but blasting Sister Dalton for not understanding the exact meaning of the exact words in a scripture is a little bit hypocritical. I've had someone very close to me sexually assaulted, but there is a point in time where we learn to understand intent.)

I could go on, but the point is simple: How do we detect bias, and how do we move past it?

I think one of the first things is to think "Is this really logical? Does this usually happen in real life? Does the world really work this way?" While we may all have different answers, just asking those questions would have raised a red flag for anyone when they were told an innocent teenager was gunned down in cold blood simply for being black. The world doesn't work that way these days in this part of the world.

It's also important to consider the source. I've stopped listening to certain people and news sources. Some people have no intention of being accurate if it doesn't prove them right.

I think sometimes, just certain words trigger a fight-or-flight mentality of sorts. As soon as I brought up feminism with my dad (a registered Democrat, interestingly enough) he didn't seem happy that I was labeling myself as a feminist. (After a long talk, he did admit to me he feels things aren't entirely being done correctly in his opinion.) Do you automatically shut down or go into defense mode when taught or controversial topics are brought up? Sometimes, we need to listen and seek to understand those with different views, no matter how much it may agitate us.

I guess what I'm trying to say is question everything and think logically. There is a wealth of information out there to be learned, but we instead choose to let others pick out their favorite parts, and take those parts as the whole.

That obnoxious couple you can't stand to see in public.

Also, there is a new post of my religion blog.

The last eight days.

The last eight days have certainly started with a smash. Literally.

Jacob was having the YSA over at his house. Lauren decided to drive, and invited Richard and me to ride with her and Ryan. Richard and I live on the same street, and Richard was the last one to pick. After waiting a few minutes for Richard to come to the car, we started off for Jacob's house. We got about 300 feet. All I remember is Lauren and Ryan both freaking out, Lauren hitting the brakes, then a smash, followed by a thud and the sound of breaking glass. All I remember was me realising I was clutching the seat belt with glass on the seat. Our car was sitting in a yard across the intersection. Lauren was on the verge of a breakdown. Richard was covered in glass and in shock. I turned around and saw the other car. It was obviously totaled. The engine was pushed back several feet into the cab.

Everyone walked away. I think I may have gotten the worst of the physical injuries. Lauren isn't doing too well, though. She was charged with the accident. It's her second one.

Saturday wasn't any better. I won't talk about it here, but things aren't going well here with Todd.

Sunday was decent. I talked to Bishop Crookston about my financial situation, and he assured me I won't end up homeless. President Button did some adjustments on my neck. It's sufficiently awesome having an EQP who is a Chiropractor, as well as three members of the Quorum who are licensed physicians. 

Monday was alright. Monday night I had three episodes of sleep apnea. They may be from my whiplash.

Tuesday I got an awesome book from the library. It's called "The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat." Look it up. Serious motivation for my future career in neurology/psychiatry.

Wednesday I got more adjustments from President Button and played basketball with a few YA from the ward.

The rest of the week has been uneventful aside from renewing my DL and not having to pay for the Driving test, and then getting two Gator hats for 10 bucks.

I see Sarah today. So excited.

Perhaps "Happy Holidays" is better after all...

Every year, my Facebook feed is filled with rants about how we are slowly taking the Christ out of Christmas and how we should be able to say "Merry Christmas" because we are the most Christian nation in the world.

But perhaps we should be saying Happy Holidays instead. Not because it might offend someone, but because it makes more sense.

There are four major holidays within three weeks of each other in late December/ early January. Why should we wish good cheer for only one? Simply because we are the most Christian county? Even if that were true, we still shouldn't just say "Merry Christmas."

First: We, as a collective nation, are none more Christian than any other country. While many state and federal laws are more conforming to Judeo-Christian doctrine than the laws of other modern entities, we are none more religious. While 73% of Americans claim to be Christians, only 36% attend church regularly when possible. Also, there is the remaining 27% that is either non-Christian religious, Atheist/Agnostic, or simply unsure. And in a Republic, (Which is not the same as democracy, and we do not live true democracy. We never have.) the majority doesn't over-rule the minority. That's the sort of thing the constitution sought to prevent with the Senate having two representatives from each state regardless of population. But, if we say for a minute that the majority DOES rule, only 9% of all Americans believe that religion is the most important thing in their lives. That's a pretty small minority.

There is also a belief that the Founding Fathers were Christians, celebrated Christmas, and founded America on Christian principles. None of these are true. While the term "Founding Fathers" includes a WIDE group, well over a thousand, we usually think of the Framers, of the men who wrote the constitution and played a major impact on it's creation. Of this group, there are many agnostics, including John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin. While there are several references to God in the DoI and Constitution, none of them specifically refer to a Judean-Christian God. 

As long as we are considering the early years of America and the intentions of the Founding Fathers, you might be surprised to find Christmas wasn't celebrated in Early America. Most Americans wanted nothing to do with anything British, which included the celebration of Christmas. (It's worth noting here than Christmas was more like a New Years back then.) In fact December 25th is nothing Christian at all. It's a pagan holiday that was christianized during the first crusades. The Bible tells us that Christ was born near Passover, which is in April. Most Christmas celebrations, including gifts, lights, and trees, have pagan roots. That doesn't diminish or change the Christian symbolism, but it does put things in a more realistic light. (The same for Easter. It's the same story.)

Finally, why should "Happy Holidays" offend you? It makes more sense. You wouldn't tell me "Happy Hanuka," and I wouldn't tell a Jewish person "Merry Christmas." When I say Happy Holidays, I'm saying "Happy Hanuka if you're Jewish; Merry Christmas if you're Christian; Happy Kwanza if you're Black, and no matter what you are Happy New-years." It's like a shortened URL.  Stop Getting offended when someone says Happy Holidays, because very few are offended by Christmas.

The difference a uniform makes

So, this picture has been circulating through the internet a lot lately. I like the point it makes. (And yes, this guy actually is a real doctor. He's a primary care physician in New York.)

So why do I bring this up? Because I've experienced first hand how this kind of prejudice exists. My entire adult life, I've always worked customer service. AT&T. Food Lion. Chick-Fil-A. Perrine's Produce, and now Jersey Mike's. Anytime I wore my work uniforms outside of work, I was always treated with indifference. A lot of professional workers looked down on me. Sure, they were polite, but they were always slightly condescending. They treated me like a low-life loser. I was like the guy who brings the coffee and makes copies.

Things changed quickly when I put on my UPS uniform. Just from sitting outside eating spaghetti-o's out of the can, as I used to do with my Chick-Fil-A uniform, professionals would actually talk to me as someone on their level.

 "Hot out there, isn't it."
 "Hey man."
 "Busy season yet?"
 "Alright! Lunch time!"

Now, There is some difference between UPS and these other places. I will tell you that UPS is a more professional organization. A lot more professional. There is a true feeling of team spirit. Unity. Common goal. The only other place I've had that is the stock crew and meat department at Food Lion. But UPS is even better.

But I'm still the same person whether I am in my UPS uniform or my Jersey Mike's uniform. I'm still someone scraping to get by, with high goals and huge mountains to cross to get there. I'm still the same person, no matter what I'm wearing.