Shifting the Burden of Proof (Trump and the River of Blood)

The following is a chapter from the book

Phalluses of Logic: How to Know When Republicans Lie

Shifting the Burden of Proof: Declaring something as true unless it can be proven false.

AKA: appeal to ignorance, demanding negative proof, ad ignorantiam

• Why don’t you believe in angels? Can you prove they don’t exist? Why say you don’t believe in angels when you don’t have any evidence on your side?
• I’ve never seen any evidence that proves our planet hasn’t been visited by space aliens before, so I continue to believe.
• God told me last night that I’m the new king of the world. What do you mean you don’t believe me? Do you have any proof?

The burden of proof should always be with the person who makes the claim. The claim should only be accepted as true if it can be supported with sufficient evidence. This is not a matter of stuffy debate etiquette, but a product of logic and common sense. The American justice system offers a simple example through the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

If the burden of proof were switched, we would accept anything as truth until it can be disproven. If someone said pigs can fly, unicorns are real, and Donald Trump’s hair is an alien being that controls his mind, you would have to accept these beliefs as fact until we find proof of the contrary. Of course, proof of something that isn’t can be difficult to come by. Maybe pigs only fly when we’re not looking. The unicorns could be deep into unexplored terrain. The alien hair could be a perfect mimic. This is part of the reason why the person making the claim is responsible for providing evidence. It’s often difficult or even impossible to prove that something doesn’t exist or didn’t happen.

Burden of proof comes down to the same simple truth as other fallacies: If you want people to believe you, you need to give them a decent reason why. And if you can’t offer any evidence to back your claim, why are you even making it in the first place?

Anytime someone makes an adamant claim without evidence to back it up, they are essentially shifting the burden of proof. Consider this conversation between Ohio Governor John Kasich and oversized child Sean Hannity:

JOHN KASICH: Part of the problem was we got in the middle of a civil war because we thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction—

SEAN HANNITY: I still think he did. 

KASICH: Pardon?

HANNITY: I still think he did. I think he got them out in the lead up to the war. And I think he brought them to Syria. 

KASICH: Well, you know, maybe he did, but the fact is—you know, look, the fact is that if—well you say he had them, I don't know. There's no evidence to say he had them. 

Hannity makes a claim with no proof to support it. If we had discovered WMDs in Iraq, that would have been proof of their existence. Of course, we didn’t. Kasich cannot prove that Hannity’s claim is wrong, but he shouldn’t have to. Kasich’s lack of evidence to prove Hannity wrong matches Hannity’s lack of evidence to support his claim, so there is no reason to believe it in the first place. For more examples of baseless claims, read just about any tweet by Donald Trump.

Here’s another way to look at it. True and false are mutually exclusive, like a coin toss. If it lands on heads, we know it didn’t land on tails. If it’s tails, we know it isn’t heads. But if we don’t know if it landed on heads (maybe a friend tossed it but didn’t reveal the outcome) that doesn’t mean we assume it was tails. The absence of proof that the coin landed on heads is not proof that it landed on tails. Apologies to any millennial readers who only use PayPal and have never touched a coin in real life. Maybe a story will help.

A man purchases a plot of land. To make the land more valuable, he claims that it was the site of a Civil War battle. This is despite any evidence supporting such a claim. No records of any military orders pertaining to the battle. No newspaper articles about the conflict. No personal letters or journal entries from soldiers. When the man is challenged by critics who say no such battle ever occurred, he simply responds, “How would they know that? Were they there?” 

This argument shifts the burden of proof. The landowner demands that others provide evidence the event never happened and for everyone to accept the claim unless such evidence is provided. Why would such evidence exist? Who would write an article about a battle not occurring? What artifacts could be uncovered from the land that prove no battle took place?

Aside from not being a sound logical argument, this claim would be absolutely disgraceful. It rewrites American history, belittles the tragedy of the Civil War, and uses the memory of those who sacrificed everything, all in the name of greed. Unfortunately, this is not a fictional example. The person who made this fallacious claim was the unfortunately not fictional Donald Trump.

Trump purchased the property, a golf club in Loudoun County, Virginia, in 2009. Among the many upgrades he made to the land is a historical marker with this inscription:

“The River of Blood”

Many great American soldiers, both of the North and South, died at this spot, “The Rapids”, on the Potomac River. The casualties were so great that the water would turn red and thus became known as “The River of Blood”. 

It is my great honor to have preserved this important section of the Potomac River!

Trump doesn’t seem to know how tacky exclamation points look on a monument to fallen soldiers, but that’s not even the worst part of the plaque. Nor is the use of the word “preserved” for an area where Trump clear-cut hundreds of trees to make for a better view. The most outrageous part of this inscription is that the Civil War battle it refers to never took place. No battle happened there at all, let alone one with notably high casualties. Trump’s story was completely fabricated. Not contested, based on questionable documentation, or a topic of debate among historians—this story was entirely imagined.

Let’s go back to Trump’s quote from earlier: “How would they know that? Were they there?” These are the remarks Trump made after historians refuted his claim. By shifting the burden of proof, Trump demands for his lie to be accepted as truth, despite a complete lack of evidence.

Also notice that Trump avoids specifics. The more details you give, the easier it becomes to discredit. Which regiments were involved? Who were the field officers? What was the date of this terrible battle, or battles? This is all information you would normally find on historical markers.

If any of this information were given, historians would have something to confirm or deny. They could look at records and documents to confirm if those people actually existed and if they and their regiment were even in this area at the date of the supposed battle.

Let’s give Trump the benefit of the doubt and say that even without any reason to believe his claim, there exists a chance, an extremely unlikely and insignificant possibility as close to impossible without being impossible chance, that the events he describes did take place and there just happens to be no evidence of it. It’s just as possible that aliens from outer space once landed on this spot by the Potomac. It’s just as possible that this spot along the Potomac will be the future location of Christ’s second coming. Any random and baseless claim you make is just as likely. It could be true, but there is literally no reason for anyone to believe it for a second, let alone to accept it as solid fact. 

Now it’s your turn to try it at home. Create your own historical markers and display them around your community. Using the Trump methodology, don’t worry about it being even remotely true. As long as you make the claim, others must believe it until it can be disproven. Just like Trump, be careful to avoid anything specific like names or dates. Vaguely assert that something happened at some time. Your sign can say anything you want, but here are some samples to get you started:

One day, at this location, Donald Trump spit on a homeless war vet.

It was on this very elevator that Donald Trump once kicked a puppy for growling at his hair.

Here is the place where Donald Trump once wet himself, just a little, while watching an obese man eat a kebab.

Remember to include in fine print at the bottom:

This statement is based on the same amount of evidence as Donald Trump’s claim that American soldiers died fighting in a Civil War battle on a golf club he owns.

Speaking of awful human beings, the next example comes from Texas Governor Greg Abbott.

Wait, no . . . too cheap. 

Transition, take two;

For this next example, we move from the American Civil War to the Syrian Civil War. Between President Assad and ISIS, Syrians have good reason to fear for their lives. Over two hundred fifty thousand people had already lost their lives since the turmoil began in 2011, and about half of the country’s population was forced to leave their home. The United States and other countries have taken in refugees fleeing the violence of this war-torn nation and continue to do so. However, some U.S. politicians would like to see these efforts cease. Specifically, the fear-mongering opportunistic ones. In the wake of the November 2015 Paris attacks, many U.S. Governors used the fear of terrorism to argue against allowing Syrian refugees from being resettled in the U.S.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott wrote a letter to President Obama explaining why he believes we should stop allowing Syrian refugees into the country:

Neither you nor any federal official can guarantee that Syrian refugees will not be part of any terroristic activity. As such, opening our door to them irresponsibly exposes our fellow Americans to unacceptable peril.

In the words of Will Ferrell’s “Mugato” character from Zoolander, “He’s absolutely right.” Obama cannot guarantee that any Syrian refugees will not be part of any terroristic activity. The fun part about Abbott’s statement is that you can replace Syrian refugees with any other group of people and it would be precisely as true. Mormons, cat-lovers, thespians, Texas Governors . . . Obama cannot guarantee that any of them will not be part of any terroristic activity.

Abbott shifts the burden of proof. No one can guarantee that anyone won’t become a terrorist. Putting aside the obvious racism in assuming Syrians are probably terrorists, Abbott’s comments are also misleading. They give the idea that we’re allowing any Syrian refugee to enter the country without first looking into who they are. Nothing could be further from the truth.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, “Of all the categories of persons entering the U.S., these refugees are the single most heavily screened and vetted.” Refugees must complete extensive interviews, reference checks, and biological screenings like iris scans. Of those who pass, only those deemed most vulnerable are recommended to be transferred overseas. Once referred to the U.S., another level of intense scrutiny begins with nine government agencies working together. The whole process can take two years. About half of those accepted are children, and a quarter are over sixty years old. Only about 2% are unmarried men of “combat age.”

This is the perfect proving ground for shifting the burden of proof. Despite putting Syrian refugees through the highest level of screening any person traveling to the U.S. encounters, it’s still impossible to prove they won’t become terrorists . . . or shopkeepers, lawyers, or circus clowns. We can uncover evidence that someone is a terrorist or has had suspicious ties, but what evidence could we find that would prove someone will never commit an act of terror?

Despite the many politicians who supported Abbott and his fallacious argument, there were others like Delaware Gov. Jack Markell who chose not to prey on his constituent’s fear:

It is unfortunate that anyone would use the tragic events in Paris to send a message that we do not understand the plight of these refugees, ignoring the fact that the people we are talking about are fleeing the perpetrators of terror.

If you enjoyed this chapter, get the full book here!

You Could Be A Slave As Well

"You could be a slave as well." Every jew I grew up with knows this line from The Ballad of the Four Sons. It's a sneaky line, hiding in the middle of an otherwise cutesy children's song that is literally sung to the tune of Oh My Darling, Clementine. The lyrics involve a father teaching his children about Passover and answering their questions. The idea originally comes from the Torah which offers four different ways to teach children about the exodus from Egypt. I'm not sure they sing this tune in Israel and I doubt it's a big hit in ultra-orthodox circles but for many American Jews it's one of many, many Passover traditions. (We pack in extra traditions by making the Seder the longest effing experience of your life. It's so long.)

There are four sons: one wise, one wicked, one simple, and one unable to ask any questions. (You learn which you were on the first day of Hebrew school from the sorting hat. Always an exciting day.)

Before going further, let me remind you of the old adage "ask two Jews, get three opinions." So please understand that my interpretations of a song published in the 50s adapted from parts of the Torah is not meant to be the ironclad word of the Lord that every Jew would agree with. That being said, here's the verse in question:

 Then did sneer the son so wicked,
"What does all this mean to you?"
And the father's voice was bitter
As his grief and anger grew.

"If yourself you don't consider,
As a son of Israel
Then for you this has no meaning,
You could be a slave as well!"

When I say this part sticks out, understand that in the previous verse the father tells the wise son that he has to stop eating at midnight. Seriously, that's what he tells the wise son, I'm not joking. So we go from a Cinderella/Gremlins type situation to a dad writing his own child off as a slave.

The result of this zero to sixty for me was to focus on this part of the song more than the rest. I didn't think much of the wise, simple, or quiet sons other than cringing a bit at "simple" as I got older. My thoughts on the wicked child have evolved over the years but here's where I'm at now:

The main purpose of the Passover Seder is the retelling of the Exodus story. It's the original "Never Forget." What is the real point of remembering that we were slaves? It can't just be that God is great for saving us and we are to be eternally thankful. The problem with that go-to reason is that the rest of the Torah does that too, over and over again. God is great, don't forget. God is great, tell your friends. Why this extra focus from the Torah on teaching your children about Passover more than we see for other holidays? This commitment to always remembering we come from slaves—what is to be gained? The reason is clear to me. We remember that we were once in need to understand that others are in need of our help today.

At some modern Seders you'll see the story of Exodus lead into a discussion of current events, of oppression and modern day slavery in all of it's forms. Remembering the exodus can't simply be for mourning the past and enjoying the present. Many Jews see it as a call to action, a reminder that we can make a difference for others. A reminder that rescuing yourself is not always possible. God delivered us from Egypt. The allied forces liberated us from Nazi Germany. It's not much of a stretch to say a basic tenant of modern Judaism should be the quest to help those in need.

You could be a slave as well. The meaning is obvious to me. If you don't care about the plight of the oppressed, if you care only about your own joy and can ignore the suffering of anyone else, you might as well be a slave. Even worse, if you can justify the suffering of others, maybe you deserve that fate. The wicked son lives like he never was, never could be, a slave. He thinks he deserves his freedom more than others, that those without freedom must somehow deserve their fate. The wicked son is the son that did forget.

When I think about the American Jews today that continue to support Donald Trump, this strange children's song always pops into my head. Now, I'm not shocked to see Trump's displays of blatant racism. We've known of his bigotry for years. This is the man who kept black people from renting at his properties until the Federal government intervened. (A simple sting operation of sending people of different skin colors to try and rent a Trump property produced rather damning evidence. That's how blatantly racist his policies were.) This is the man who still believes the Central Park Five shouldn't have been released from prison despite the DNA evidence that matches the man who confessed to the crime. He'd rather see innocent black men in prison than admit he was wrong about something. What a guy.

He's an awful person and nothing he does will surprise me. What continues to shock me is that any Jew would still have his back. (Of course, there's no reason for anyone to support him Jewish or not, but I'm sticking to a theme here.)

When he rallies his base by celebrating his camps filled with foreigners—when you hear of children separated from their parents with no promise of being reunited, how does that not ring any bells for you?

When Trump tells four Congresswomen "go back where you came from," how could it not occur to you that Jews have suffered this same attack in every country they've ever lived in, including both the U.S and Israel.

When he talks about crimes committed by immigrants, (both the actual crimes and the ones he makes up) the same tactics used to stoke hatred of Jews in Nazi Germany, how can you not sympathize?

I don't understand how a Jew could be fooled by scapegoating tactics. I'm not saying I payed attention in Hebrew school all the time—or even most of the time—but apparently I picked up more than some other Jews did. 

I am thrilled to see Jewish groups protesting Trump's policies and ICE under the banner "Never Again" and "Never Again is Now," and to see the Anti-Defamation League constantly fighting back against Trump's rhetoric and policies. But to know that any jew would still support this man is something I cannot comprehend. 

So to my fellow Jews, religious or not, orthodox, conservative, reform, whatever—here's my message to you. If you still support Trump after everything we've seen, if you can justify all of it and still plan to vote for him in 2020, you might as well skip out on the Seder next year. Passover isn't really for you anymore. "For you this has no meaning, you could be a slave as well."

Cherry Picking

 The following is a chapter from the book
Phalluses of Logic: How to Know When Republicans Lie

Cherry Picking

Carefully selecting what evidence to present and what evidence to ignore with the purpose of making an argument appear stronger.

AKA: single-entry bookkeeping, card stacking, incomplete evidence

According to combined results from Gallup polls in 2015, only 9% of Americans consider themselves Christian. That’s even fewer than the 17% who do not consider themselves religious at all. Is this a result of the war on Christmas? Is the liberal media confusing audiences into abandoning the church? Maybe it’s those elitist college professors, poisoning young minds against the Bible.
No, no, and no. It’s just a cherry-picked read of the full Gallup results:

• Protestant 38%
• Christian (nonspecific) 9%
• Catholic         23%
• Jewish 2%
• Mormon         2%
• Other 6%
• None 17%
• No answer 4% 

Protestant, Christian, and Catholic represent represent 70% together. The original statement was misleading because it left out important information, even though the small amount of information it contained was more or less true. There is even more data in this report, but you don’t need to explain everything in complete detail to avoid the fallacy. That would be cumbersome, if not impossible. The fallacy isn’t about how much information you provide, but whether or not you purposefully ignore information that goes against your argument.

The anti-vaccination crowd are big fans of cherry picking. (Fallacies become crucial when you have no evidence on your side.) The modern hysteria surrounding vaccines started in 1998 when a research paper by Dr. Andrew Wakefield was published in the medical journal The Lancet. Wakefield’s twelve patient case study suggested a connection between autism and the vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR.) Wakefield called for the three-in-one vaccine to be replaced by individual shots spread out over years. “It’s a moral issue for me. I can’t support the continued use of these three vaccines, given in combination, until this issue has been resolved.”

Wakefield was correct about there being an issue with morality. As was ultimately revealed by investigative journalist Brian Deer, Wakefield was secretly being paid by a lawyer named Richard Barr who wanted to start a class action lawsuit against the MMR vaccine manufacturers. Barr kindly reminded Wakefield of this in a letter:“I have mentioned to you before that the prime objective is to produce unassailable evidence in court so as to convince a court that these vaccines are dangerous.” Wakefield had also filed a patent for his own measles vaccine. There would be no market for such a product, unless of course people suddenly had a reason to fear the MMR vaccine.

Wakefield’s lack of morality goes further still. There’s the five days of invasive tests he conducted on the children, including anaesthesia, colonoscopies, and lumbar punctures. There are rules in place to protect patients from such a barrage, but Wakefield chose to ignore them. He failed the seek approval by the appropriate ethics committee to run all of these tests, because the answer would have been no. When submitting his research to The Lancet, he lied about receiving approval since the journal would never have published his case study otherwise.

But hey, does the greed, bias, and callous disregard for ethics really matter if the research was solid and lead to medical gains? It’s not a comfortable thought, but it doesn’t actually matter here because the results were fabricated anyway. This was partially done through cherry picking. According to Nicholas Chadwick, a graduate student who worked in the Wakefield’s lab, he “tended to shrug his shoulders. Even in lab meetings he would only talk about data that supported his hypothesis. Once he had his theory, he stuck to it no matter what.”

Despite the research being exposed as fraudulent, the anti-vaccination movement remained. The organization SafeMinds funded a long-term investigation into vaccines from 2003-2010 with around $250,000. Researchers vaccinated baby monkeys and then observed their behavior and their brains for any abnormalities. Thanks to SafeMinds, we can add to the pile one very well conducted long-term experiment showing no link between vaccines and autism. That and some dead rhesus monkeys. Separate piles.

So far, nothing to poke at. SafeMinds had a hypothesis, they funded the research, the findings didn’t confirm their belief. The cherry picking comes in the response of SafeMinds president Sallie Bernard: “We feel that embedded within these data sets there are animals that have potentially an adverse reaction to this vaccine schedule that would mirror what happens in human infants."

Oh is that what you feel Bernard? The neat thing about data is that it doesn't give a damn about your feelings. And if you need to rip through mountains of data refuting your point before finding a small hint that you could be correct if only the results you were just searching through in the first place never existed, you are not correct. However, this is the perfect metaphor to describe the anti-vaccine movement. Also notice that Bernard states that infants have an adverse reaction to vaccines as if it is a fact while discussing her own failed attempt to prove exactly that.

Onto the next example. Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act on March 26, 2015. The law strengthened the ability to use religion as a legal defense. Democrats had attempted to include a stipulation preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but to no avail. This left many concerned that the law might allow for such discrimination. Critics suggested the law was a follow up to the failed attempt by conservatives to amend the Indiana constitution to ban same-sex marriage. They saw it as a gift to supporters of Indiana Republicans who were promised a big win against the LGBTQ community, but didn’t ever get one.

A few days after the signing, Pence appeared on the ABC News program This Week to defend the law. Host George Stephanopoulos gave the governor an opportunity to put everyone’s mind at ease. All Pence had to do was answer the question about whether or not the law would allow for discrimination against the LGBTQ community. Pence repeatedly refused to answer. Instead, he cherry picked which parts of the law everyone should care about. To Pence, the law is perfect as long as you focus on the freedom it provides and not the discrimination. He doesn’t even argue that the good outweighs the bad, but only that we should ignore the bad.

The following descriptions and excerpts from the interview may seem repetitive. They are. Pence never answers the question, so Stephanopoulos doesn’t stop asking.

Pence begins by claiming the law is similar to many others, even one supported by Barack Obama when he was a senator. Stephanopoulos challenges him on that point:

Your civil rights laws don't include sexual orientation as a protected class. And even some of the supporters of the bill who were—who appeared with you when you signed the bill, Eric Miller of Advanced America wrote that “It will protect those who oppose gay marriage.” So this is a yes or no question. Is Advance America right when they say a florist in Indiana can now refuse to serve a gay couple without fear of punishment?

Pence says in his response, “the purpose of this legislation...is very simply to empower individuals when they believe that actions of government impinge on their constitutional First Amendment freedom of religion.” Also adding, “this is not about discrimination.”
Stephanopoulos tries again. “And so yes or no, if a florist in Indiana refuses to serve a gay couple at their wedding, is that legal now in Indiana?”

PENCE: George, this is, this is where this debate has gone, with, with misinformation and frankly...

STEPHANOPOULOS: It's just a question, sir. Yes or no?

PENCE: There's been shameless rhetoric about my state and about this law and about its intention all over the Internet. People are trying to make it about one particular issue. And now you're doing that, as well.

Stephanopoulos again refers to the claim that a florist could refuse service to homosexuals under the law. “Is that true or not?”
Pence then whines a bit about how mean people have been to him since he passed a law that takes basic rights away from gay people and has refused to clarify how it will work. He complains about the U.S. focusing on tolerance for people “on the left,” and concludes with “tolerance is a two way street.”

STEPHANOPOULOS: So when you say tolerance is a two way street, does that mean that Christians who want to refuse service or people of any other faith who want to refuse service to gays and lesbians, that it's now legal in the state of Indiana? That's the simple yes or no question.

Pence again refuses to answer the question and again moans about people focusing on the wrong part of the bill. “The question here is if there is a government action or a law that an individual believes impinges on their religious liberty, they have the opportunity to go to court.”

Stephanopoulos tries again. “One fix that people have talked about is simply adding sexual orientation as a protected class under the state's civil rights laws. Will you push for that?”

PENCE: I will not push for that. That's not on my agenda and that's not been an objective of the people of the state of Indiana.

STEPHANOPOULOS: One suggested fix to the law would say that, "this chapter of the law does not establish or eliminate a defense to a claim under any federal, state or local law protecting civil rights or preventing discrimination."

PENCE: George, look, we're not going to change the law, OK?

Pence walks back a little and says he would sign a bill adding a section that “clarifies what the law really is.”

STEPHANOPOULOS: A final question, a final yes or no question, Governor. Do you think it should be legal in the state of Indiana to discriminate against gays or lesbians?

PENCE: George...

STEPHANOPOULOS: It's a yes or no question.

This time, Pence offers what will probably be the greatest answer to an interview question of his entire political career. (It's a bold claim, but wait till you read the quote.) Pence explains that discrimination is not an issue because people from Indiana don’t discriminate.

Hoosiers don't believe in discrimination. I mean the way I was raised, in a small town in Southern Indiana, is you're kind and caring and respectful to everyone. Anybody that's been in Indiana for five minutes knows that Hoosier hospitality is not a slogan, it's a reality. People tell me when I travel around the country, gosh, I went to your state and people are so nice. I mean this is not about discrimination. This is about protecting the religious liberty of every Hoosier of every faith. And we're going to continue to work our hearts out to clarify that to the people of Indiana and the people of this great country.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Yes or no, should it be legal to discriminate against gays and lesbians?

PENCE: George, you're following the mantra of the last week online and you're trying to make this issue about something else.

Despite a valiant effort by George Stephanopoulos (whose name coincidentally is an anagram of People R Honest Go USA Go,) Gov. Mike Pence (anagram of I am Lord Voldmort) would not let go of his fallacy (not uncommon for men of his maturity level.) He didn’t argue that the pros outweigh the cons. He didn’t claim that the law wouldn’t actually allow discrimination. His argument was that the law is perfect as long as you only thin about some of it. The spirit of the law was somehow more important than that actual impact it would have on real people.

Many saw the threat of discrimination and Pence’s refusal to address it as cause for concern. Hosting an event in Indiana or sending people there for any reason meant a risk of legalized discrimination for your employees and customers. A handful of Mayors and Governors restricted city/state-sponsored travel to Indiana after the law passed. Apple, NASCAR, NCAA, and others voiced their opposition. Salesforce and Angie’s List put expansion plans in Indiana on hold. Planners of major annual events like Gen Con threatened to move to another state. Performers including the band Wilco canceled shows. It was almost as if people thought discrimination was a bad thing.

Eventually Pence gave in and signed a revised bill adding protections against discrimination. The economic risks to Indiana had become too high to ignore. Either that or he’s a huge Wilco fan. Either way, in true phallus phasion Pence refused to admit the bill was ever flawed and continued blaming everyone but himself:

Over the past week this law has become a subject of great misunderstanding and controversy across our state and nation. However we got here, we are where we are, and it is important that our state take action to address the concerns that have been raised and move forward.
What a jackass.

controversy — Yes, because the bill handed rights to some citizens while taking away rights from others.

misunderstanding — Yes, because when asked to help everyone understand the bill, you refused.

however we got here — Is that a fucking joke? We got here because you gave one group the right to discriminate against another group and refused to answer questions about it!

Usually cherry picking involves a little bit of hope. You’re hoping that no one notices the evidence being ignored. You’re hoping no one brings it up. Other times, you might have a little more control. If you are the only one who has certain information, all you have to do is keep it for yourself. This suppression of evidence is a little more devious and opportunistic than your garden variety cherry picking.

For an example of suppressing evidence we go to the Supreme Court ruling on Texas Bill HB2, the goal of which was to shut down abortion clinics in the the state by forcing doctors and facilities to meet medically unnecessary and onerous standards. Conservatives argued there was not enough evidence available to prove the law creates an undue burden to women seeking an abortion, and therefore no reason to strike it down. In the end, a 5-3 ruling did strike it down, allowing the case to become more powerful than conservatives could’ve possibly imagined by threatening other similar or future laws in other states.

The argument that there was not enough evidence was absurd anyway. Between the presented data, briefs, and basic common sense, there was no way to look at this law intelligently and conclude that it would improve women’s health and not cause unnecessary health risks. You would have to be dead not to see that, and only one justice could use that excuse. (Too soon?)

However, there still should have been more available evidence prior to the court’s ruling. A spokesperson for the Texas Department of Health Services explained "the data is not final. If the data were final, we would release it. We hope to have it finalized soon." But another state employee reached out to NBC News alleging that the information was finalized and the department was suppressing the data. The employee backed up that claim with emails and screenshots. Researchers were even asked to compile the data earlier than usual, saying "they definitely wanted the abortion data earlier."

Presumably, officials rushed the compiling of the evidence, saw something in it that could be bad for the state’s case, and chose not to release it yet. If we were to discount the whistleblower, this could all be a coincidence, but it fits right in with the argument of the state and the conservative judges. Here’s Dr. Daniel Grossman, a key witness in the case: "During the trial, Texas said our data couldn't be trusted because these weren't official statistics and that we had to wait for the official statistics to come out. It did seem ironic that they had the information."

So it starts with regular cherry picking, a lame excuse for ignoring the available information. Then it gets turned up a notch with evidence suppression, refusing to release information that could be used against the state’s argument.

And what was in that suppressed report anyway? If the data wasn’t too damning for the conservatives, that could suggest they weren’t suppressing the data afterall. When the data was eventually released, that was not the case. Under the law, second trimester abortions increased by 27%. These later abortions come with higher risks of complications. This data would have absolutely crushed the already weak argument that the Texas law was somehow protecting women’s health.
Dr. Grossman explained that the originally suppressed official report had similar findings to the research conservatives cherry picked as unsuitable.

In our research, we documented cases of women who were delayed into the second trimester because it took them time to find an open clinic or to arrange transportation to a more distant clinic, while others were delayed because of the long wait times to even get an appointment.

The official report also raised concerns about women attempting to induce an abortion on their own, often with pills sold as ulcer medication across the border in Mexico. According to Grossman, “As clinic-based care becomes harder to access in Texas, we can expect more women to feel that they have no other option and take matters into their own hands”

The Texas ACLU had attempted to get the Department of Health Services to release their report before the ruling. After the report was published, ACLU Staff Attorney Trisha Trigilio commented, “It’s clear why lawmakers might have wanted to keep this information out of the public eye before the Supreme Court made its decision.”

Perhaps the opposite of suppressing evidence is something called the broken window fallacy, AKA the glazier’s fallacy. It means cherry picking by ignoring the unseen results of actions not taken.
For a dramatic explanation, we go to a Hollywood vision of the 23rd century. Like most great movie characters, Zorg from The Fifth Element is portrayed by Gary Oldman. Early in the film, Zorg tries to convince a priest that evil is actually good for the world, saying “life, which you so nobly serve, comes from destruction, disorder and chaos.” To demonstrate his justification, Zorg knocks a glass off his desk, shattering it across the floor. A team of small robots emerge to clean the mess while he explains:

Look at all these little things, so busy now! Notice how each one is useful. A lovely ballet ensues, so full of form and color. Now, think about all those people that created them. Technicians, engineers, hundreds of people, who will be able to feed their children tonight, so those children can grow up big and strong and have little teeny children of their own, and so on and so forth. Thus, adding to the great chain of life. You see, father, by causing a little destruction, I am in fact encouraging life. In reality, you and I are in the same business.

This general argument has been used to explain why damages from street graffiti, hurricanes, or even war are positive in the long run. In actuality, it’s probably only good in the short run if at all. It’s certainly not good for the cup. Whatever resources the robots used to clean up the mess could have been used to do something wholly productive, not just reactive. The work they didn’t make the world better than it was before the cup shattered. They only brought back the status quo, but had to expend energy to do it.

The name broken window fallacy comes from the original parable by Frédéric Bastiat. His essay from 1850 titled That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Not Seen explained that spending money to mend destruction does not benefit society overall. The general argument being that the same money could have been spent on something else, something more desirable, without having to deal with the pain of destruction. You get the same economic stimulus, plus whatever you chose to purchase.
In the essay, Bastiat describes a shopkeeper whose son breaks a window. Onlookers console the man by pointing out how good this is for the glazier who must be paid to fix the window. Bastiat admits this is a good day for the glazier, but cautions against the belief that this transaction causes a chain reaction that benefits the economy overall.

Yes, the glazier can now use that money to buy bread from the baker, and the baker can in turn get his shoes repaired by the cobbler, and so on. But this only focuses on what is seen; the broken window and the glazier who fixes it. The unseen part is what the shopkeeper could have done with the money if the window was never broken. He could have bought clothes from the tailor, who could then pay the baker, who could pay the cobbler, and the same type of boost to the economy occurs, with one exception. In the broken window version, the shopkeeper gains nothing. There is no net benefit. He only returns to the status quo of a non-broken window. In the second version, he gets new clothes. The broken window forces him to spend money that gets him back where he started while also robbing him of the choice to spend his money on whatever he desires.

Village idiot John Stossel used the glazier’s fallacy once on ABC’s 20/20. Well, he tried at least. He was attempting to debunk Bastiat’s point, or possibly support it, while also claiming that government spending is bad. It’s difficult to summarize because it was an especially shitty and incoherent mess of an argument.

Stossel begins by comparing government spending to paying someone to break windows.
Many people argue that government spending creates jobs...for example if the government spends 70 million dollars on a new road or military aircraft, those projects will employ people. However, there is a problem with this government spending to create jobs theory. Economist call it the broken window fallacy. They say you might as well pay me to do this. [Stossel then throws a rock through a window.] That’ll create jobs!

 So, that’s completely wrong and misses the point of the original story: spending that creates a benefit is preferable to spending that fixes damage. Both types of spending stimulate the economy, but only one adds something extra on top of that. In his example, the added bonus could be a new road, which is a hell of a lot more useful than a window being shattered and replaced.

He also twists the story by suggesting we actually pay the rock thrower, comparing this to the government paying people to create something. That’s just entirely moronic. Now you’re paying to cause the damage and to fix the damage, missing two opportunities to have spent money in a productive way. Stossel goes on to further bastardize the fallacy:

That 70 million dollars taken from you now means you have less to spend on a new teapot, or newspapers, or a restaurant. That means fewer jobs for those business. Of course, that loss is less visible.

You pile of rocks, it does not mean that at all. Why would it mean less jobs? If you buy a teapot, you get a teapot, and the teapotter has money to and a need to hire someone, and the money continues moving helping other get jobs. If the government spends the money to pave a road, then we get a newly paved road, the road paver can spend money elsewhere, and the money continues moving helping other get jobs. Both scenarios include a benefit and an improved economy.

For Stossel’s argument to make any sense, the road workers would have to take their pay and flush it down the toilet. Or better yet, the road could be paved by slaves. You’ve probably heard the argument that the civil war was all about economics, not racism. From an economic standpoint, imagine if every slave was actually a paid employee who used their wages to purchase food, shelter, clothing, etc. Wouldn’t that help the economy? Isn’t that the unseen benefit being overlooked? The only economic downside would be for the relatively small number of influential white plantation owners who would have to pay them, so, ahh, right, there you go.

By the way, you can find this full video of Stossel’s argument online. To really appreciate his position, you need hear it in his condescending know-it-all voice while trying not to look at his 70’s pornstar moustache.

Later in the video, Stossel explains “If governments did not spend the funds, taxes would be lower and people would have more money to spend on cars, vacations, whatever they value.” One has to wonder what good that car would be without any roads.

OK, let’s ease up on Stossel a bit. This was an older story, and he did mention the glazier’s fallacy again in a 2005 article, Build it on Your Dime, where he challenges the practice of taxpayer money being used to build sports stadiums. He argues that the owners who stand to profit the most from the stadium should pay to have it built themselves. George W. Bush, for example, was partial owner of the Texas Rangers and had a stadium built with taxpayer money. Stossel also points to economic studies showing that stadiums create relatively few jobs for the amount they cost to build. There are much less costly and more beneficial job creating methods available. Those would be the unseen elements in this case.

A stadium might be better than a rock through a window, but handing money over to people who are so wealthy they own sports teams can’t be anywhere close to the best use of tax money. Keep in mind that not everyone wants a stadium. Traffic concerns are often one reason why. There’s also this little issue of what’s currently on the property the super rich team owners want to build their stadium on. Luckily, it’s usually just crap owned by unimportant poor people, like homes and churches, so it’s easy for the owners or the city to kick them out using eminent domain.

In all of it’s forms, cherry picking is fallacious. Sometimes, this does throw people off a bit. Doesn’t it make sense to only mention the points that benefit your argument? If your goal is to appear correct, then sure, go ahead. But if you actually want to prove you are correct, your argument can’t ignore the facts of the case. If your entire argument can be destroyed by your opponent simply mentioning the details you chose to ignore, you never had a very strong case in the first place. This begs the question, why do you believe in such a weak argument anyway?
That was actually the common yet incorrect usage of the phrase “begs the question.” To see the correct usage, read the next chapter.

---

If you enjoyed this segment, read the full book HERE! 

Hitler Fallacy

 The following is a chapter from the book
Phalluses of Logic: How to Know When Republicans Lie

Hitler fallacy

Comparing an opponent or their ideas to Hitler or the Nazis.

AKA: Reductio ad Hitlerum, Argumentum ad Hitlerum, or playing the Nazi card

The following scene is from the 1999 comedy film Office Space. Disgruntled employee Peter (Ron Livingston) talks to Joanna (Jennifer Aniston) about her employer making her wear decorative buttons called flair as part of her uniform.

PETER: Doesn't it bother you that you have to get up in the morning and you have to put on a bunch of pieces of flair?

JOANNA: Yeah, but I'm not about to go in and start taking money from the register.

PETER: Well, maybe you should. You know, the Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear.

JOANNA: What?

Do you enjoy reading books? Well so did Hitler you fucking Nazi piece of shit. Hitler was also a vegetarian, enjoyed painting, and hated cats. But sharing any of these traits does not mean you're the reincarnation of Der Führer any more than a wheelchair makes you Franklin D. Roosevelt or a Havana cigar makes you Winston Churchill.

Like the banana fallacy, this is another specific version of false comparison that has taken on a life of its own. In the Hitler fallacy, as you may have guessed, a person or their argument is compared to Hitler or the Nazi party in an attempt to discredit them.

This fallacy was first described in a 1951 article by philosopher and University of Chicago professor Leo Strauss. It was popularized in 1953 after he wrote the book Natural Right and History. Strauss writes, “A view is not refuted by the fact that it happens to have been shared by Hitler.” For any audience, this one really can be difficult to accept as a true fallacy. We see Nazis as a pure representation of evil. They’re even the bad guys in every good Indiana Jones movie (Remember in the movie when Hitler signed Indiana Jone’s dad’s journal? That was the best.)

However, comparisons to Hitler are often a bit of a stretch. If you call someone a Nazi because they were a little mean or strict, that doesn’t really compare to the realities of Nazi Germany. For an example of a Nazi comparison that has little to no basis in reality, we’ll go to someone who rarely concerns himself with reality anyway.

For Glenn Beck, making Nazi comparisons is a favorite pastime. If you disagree with Beck, it’s probably because you are in fact a filthy Nazi. Beck's list of Nazis-in-disguise include President Obama, Al Gore, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, The Peace Corps, ACORN, and a flight attendant who was once disrespectful to him.

To be perfectly clear, that last one is not a joke. This isn’t the cliché comedy list that ends with a fake example. In 2012, Beck complained that he was not given “courteous service” by an American Airlines flight attendant who had previously been an Israeli soldier. As for why he would be treated this way, Beck said “I don’t know why.” Really? Not even a hunch? After making a living demonizing huge swaths of the population, Beck can’t fathom any reason that someone might treat him unkindly. Putting that enigma aside, here’s something else Beck had to say about the encounter. He wondered if this flight attendant’s family ever had a similar experience “in the dark years of Europe.”

Hmm. How does even the worst inflight service warrant an allusion to Nazi Germany? We’ve all had bad flying experiences, but rarely do we leave a plane thinking “So that’s what the Jews went through. Now I understand.”

While Beck may think the true evil of the Nazis was their poor customer service, not every comparison to Hitler is so absurd and far-fetched. If someone is arguing in favor of something that Hitler was well known for, and is one of the reasons he is so despised, then the comparison seems more legitimate. If your opponent supports genocide, anti-Semitism, and getting punched in the face by Captain America on the cover of a comic book, then the comparison makes more sense. Not many American politicians can check off all of those boxes, but what about these: anti-communist, xenophobia, holding large rallies, releasing an autobiography for political and financial gain, craving more power and less oversight, and appealing to the younger generation. Many American politicians would fall into some or all of those categories. Still, showing that someone has something in common with Hitler does not mean they are necessarily bad or wrong. It certainly doesn’t mean they are all together as bad or wrong as Hitler.

Before moving on, you’re probably thinking some of these examples are silly to list. Who would ever compare someone to Hitler just because they draw large crowds? For one example, we can look at conservative economist and author Thomas Sowell, the man Sarah Palin referred to to support her belief that Obamacare would lead to “death panels.” Here’s Sowell writing about Obama:

To find anything comparable to crowds' euphoric reactions to Obama, you would have to go back to old newsreels of German crowds in the 1930s, with their adulation of their fuehrer, Adolf Hitler. With hindsight, we can look back on those people with pity, knowing now how many of them would be led to their deaths by the man they idolized.

Huh? Anyway, even if a person truly is wrong or evil at a Hitleresque level, the comparison shouldn't be necessary. When Putin annexed Crimea in March of 2014, it wasn’t wrong because Hitler used to do that sort of stuff. It was wrong on its own merits. If the reason something is bad cannot be explained other than to say the Nazis did it too, then there's no reason to assume it really is bad. If you can explain it without mentioning Nazis, well, do that.

As a helpful exercise, consider how anyone ever decided Hitler was evil in the first place. No one at the time could say “hey, this guy’s as bad as Hitler.” Genocide isn’t wrong because Hitler did it. It’s wrong, among other reasons, because murder is wrong and genocide is a whole lot of murder, and because it usually targets people by ethnicity. The same goes for any other act of evil committed by Hitler and the Nazis; it wasn’t bad because they were the ones doing it.

So sharing a trait with Hitler does not make your argument wrong, and comparing someone to Hitler is not enough to disprove their argument. This concept may seem simple enough, but the allure of the Hitler card can be downright irresistible. The Nazis are so universally despised, it’s tempting to point out anything connecting them to your opponent. What's that? You hate Atlas Shrugged and think every copy should be burned? Gee, that reminds me of someone . . . can't quite put my finger on it . . . the name is right on the tip of my . . . oh yeah it's Hitler. You're acting like Hitler, you big giant Hitler. It sounds passionate, but the argument gives no reasons why books shouldn’t be burned.

Online commenters seem particularly inclined towards playing the Hitler card. (Especially the n00bz . . . lolz!) Doing so became so commonplace that in 1990, author and attorney Mike Godwin surmised that any threaded internet discussion would include “a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler” if allowed to go on long enough. This was dubbed Godwin’s Law, or Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies. Some online communities would use Godwin’s Law to determine that it was finally time to end the discussion if they’re reached the point of Nazi accusations. Godwin’s Law was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2012.

Of course, one need not peer into the dark abyss of online forums to find Reductio Ad Hitlerum. Our politicians offer plenty of their own. For a legit clusterfuck of examples, consider this mysterious case from 2005. Senate Democrats were filibustering Republican judicial nominees. Republicans threatened to take away their ability to filibuster, the so-called nuclear option. But as events unfolded it came to light that the persons involved were not actually U.S. senators as was first believed. They were all, in fact, Adolf Hitler.

The first revelation was made by Sen. Robert Byrd. This West Virginia Democrat with a political career spanning nearly six decades is notable for speaking on the Senate floor against the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and against the cancellation of the TV show Gunsmoke. He managed to prevent only one of those catastrophes.

In March of 2005, Byrd compared the way Republicans wanted to change Senate rules to the way Hitler brought fascist legislation to Germany. Byrd drove the point home by saying under such new rules, the rights of senators would be “incinerated.” (Get it? Like what the Nazis did to all those people?)

Contestant number two is Republican Sen. Rick Santorum. Appalled by the Hitler comparison, Santorum called on Byrd to retract his statements, saying they “lessen the credibility of the senator and the decorum of the Senate.” Two months later, Santorum takes to the Senate floor calling the Senate Democrat’s actions “the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942.” In Santorum’s defense, two months is a long time for him to be expected to remember what his own convictions are.

Ira N. Forman, Executive Director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, responded to Santorum’s anger towards, and use of, the Hitler fallacy by saying: “Did Senator Santorum think the Jewish community wouldn't notice his comparing Democrats to Hitler? In this case, 'hypocrisy' is not a strong enough word—but it'll have to do”

            Next up to bat is Chuck Pennacchio, a Pennsylvania history professor. He had an eye on Santorum's job and wasn’t about to pass up an opportunity to point out Santorum’s use of the Nazi card.

As an historian of Holocaust-era Germany, I find Rick Santorum's comment to be offensive, divisive, and destructive. Rick Santorum should immediately issue a public apology, and then retreat with conscience to consider the lasting damage he has done to the United States Senate and to the memory of 12 million Holocaust victims.

That was well said. Pennacchio continued:

How ironic is it that he would make such an extremist comment comparing Senate Democrats to Adolph Hitler while his own political party seeks to consolidate all governmental power in its own hands?

Oy vey. Last to the party comes Democratic Senator Harry Reid, although not really. Reid uses a Nazi card loophole by comparing Republican judicial nominees to a Hitler stand-in:

"When Americans think of a scary person in a black robe, they should be thinking of Darth Vader, not Republicans' choices for judges."

Ahh, space-Hitler.

Looking back, it’s no wonder this debate escalated to the point of Nazi comparisons. The filibuster is a touchy subject. Even though it has been overused and abused, it still provides a strong voice for the minority and acts as a sort of checks-and-balances between political parties. It’s no surprise the Democrats responded so passionately when Republicans wanted to do away with it. If you’re wondering how this story ends, the Senate filibuster remained intact. That is until 2013 when Democrats decided to get rid of it themselves. (Only for executive branch and non-Supreme Court judicial nominees though, which is why you still hear about filibusters today.) In Democratic Senator Robert Byrd’s defense, he had already died by then.

            Not in Byrd’s defense by the way, he spent his 20s and 30s as an active member of the Ku Klux Klan. Byrd gathered 150 people to start a local chapter. He once held the title of Exalted Cyclops, which you do have to admit is a pretty cool name. In 1946, Byrd wrote the following letter to a segregationist Senator, which you have to admit is pretty uncool:

I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side . . . Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.

Holy shit. Of course, someone will argue that with historical context, writing a letter like this in the 40’s is not quite the same as writing it today. That person can take their historical context and shove it up their ass.

On the other hand, people can change. Make your own judgment, but Byrd redeemed himself in the eyes of many constituents throughout his career. In a book about logic, it’s wrong to assume Byrd's positions must be wrong because he was once a KKK member. If we do, we’re guilty of the ad hominem fallacy: discrediting an argument by attacking the speaker and not the actual argument. Still, for all of the recovering Klan members out there, try to steer away from comparing others to racist extremists like Hitler. It’s not a good look for you.

             Now it’s time to revisit a couple of old friends. We’ll start with the ultimate fountain of humor, Sarah Palin’s twitter account. In June of 2010, she tweeted out the following super serious warning:

GOP: Don't let the lamestream media suck you into "they're defending BP over Gulf spill victims" bs . . .This is about the rule of law vs. an unconstitutional power grab. Read Thomas Sowell's article.

Yes, the same Sowell who accused Obama of being like Hitler because they both had large amounts of energized fans. The tweet linked to Sowell’s June 21 Op-Ed, Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny? The article criticizes the White House's response to the BP company’s 2010 Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion and oil spill. The incident resulted in eleven deaths, an estimated 210 million gallons of oil flowing into the Gulf of Mexico over eighty-seven days, and substantial damage to the local tourism and fishing industries as well as wildlife habitats. (Not to be confused with BP’s other major oil spill from 2006.) The Obama administration met with BP representatives to work out an agreement that ensures victims would be compensated. They agreed on a $20 billion dollar escrow account, but Sowell believes the Obama administration violated the Constitution in doing so. The article explains why he believes the White House overreached on this one.

Good. He’s a small government kind of guy and he should offer that counterview to the White House’s hands-on approach. What’s not so good is that the second and third words of Sowell’s article are “Adolf” and “Hitler.” (The first is “when.” That’s not important, but not knowing would have bugged you all day.) With an impressive display of restraint, Sowell doesn’t use the word “Nazi” at all until the article’s eighth word.

Now, there are reasons to argue that the White House should not have taken such action, but none of those reasons involve Nazi Germany. Or perhaps the Obama/Hitler comparison makes perfect sense, as everyone knows Hitler’s most egregious crime was arriving at a mutual agreement with a large corporation in order to ensure proper compensation for victims of a tragic disaster.

Sowell’s argument looks something like this:

X and Y are both a.

[Hitler and Obama both tried to assert their power in some way]

X is also b.

[Hitler did crazy bad shit with his power]

Therefore, Y is b.

[Therefore, Obama will do crazy bad Hitler shit if granted more power]

In the article, Sowell writes:

. . . during the worldwide Great Depression, the German Reichstag passed a law “for the relief of the German people.” That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people—indeed, powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others.

If Harry Reid is reading this, just think of Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, when Chancellor Palpatine is granted emergency powers. What was the Galactic Senate thinking?

Sowell attempts to show that Obama making a deal with BP sets a precedent that could be dangerous in the future, the same way Hitler consolidated power and used it for evil. If that doesn’t make sense to you, it’s only because it doesn’t make sense. The precise amount of power held by the president, as well as other politicians, is almost constantly being discussed, challenged, and altered. It rarely leads to concentration camps. Rarely enough that we need to quit assuming it will every single time.

A number of politicians have also invoked Hitler’s name to help us understand the true evils of the Affordable Care Act. Here’s a few choice examples:

●      North Idaho Sen. Sheryl Nuxoll compared insurance companies working with Obamacare to “the Jews boarding the trains to concentration camps.”

●      Maine Gov. Paul LePage: "We the people have been told there is no choice. You must buy health insurance or pay the new Gestapo — the IRS." After this lead to criticism and outrage, the chairman of the Maine Republican Party Charlie Webster defended LePage’s remarks by saying, “I know what he meant. Most regular people know what he meant.” That’s nice. Jews and other minorities may have been offended, but regular people understood.

●      Tennessee Republican state Sen. Stacey Campfield: "Democrats bragging about the number of mandatory sign ups for Obamacare is like Germans bragging about the number of manditory [sic] sign ups for 'train rides' for Jews in the 40s."

●      Arizona state Rep. Brenda Barton: “You better read your history. Germany started with national health care and gun control before [the Holocaust] happened. And Hitler was elected by a majority of people.”

●      North Carolina State Sen. Bob Rucho: “Obamacare has done more damage to the USA then [sic] the swords of the Nazis, Soviets & terrorists combined.”

 Why. Why Nazi Germany? If you want to compare the Affordable Care Act to something, wouldn’t a better comparison be with a similar health care system from a modern developed country? Although that would probably backfire for conservatives, since those programs are generally successful, popular, and result in very few concentration camps.

            The non-stop criticism from conservatives is meant to convince Americans that Obama as the worst and most dangerous President we’ve ever seen. The Hitler comparisons are a part of that attack. But is Obama really the most Hitleresque President we’ve ever had? Ya know, if you had to choose one, would Obama be it?

Let’s see . . . with President Truman at the helm, the U.S. experimented on Guatemalan citizens by infecting them with syphilis and other STDs without their knowledge. A similar study, the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, victimized rural African Americans and lasted from 1932 to 1972. That means Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon can all share the blame for that one.

FDR rounded up Japanese Americans and placed them in internment camps. But don’t forget about Obama, who worked with BP to protect victims of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and also signed a health care bill.

Let’s keep stretching it here. When Roosevelt’s New Deal programs began in 1933, it included assigning every American citizen a Social Security number, just as Hitler was also assigning numbers to Jews in concentration camps. And have you ever seen Hitler and FDR together in the same room? Makes you think.

That last example is preposterous, but that’s sort of the point. Were the Japanese internment camps as bad as Nazi concentration camps? Were the STD experiments as bad as all of the experiments performed by Nazi scientists? No, they really were not as bad. And that’s another reason why comparing anything to Hitler is just a waste of time. Stuff can be bad without being Hitler-bad. Something can be extremely wrong, horrible, and downright evil (like the Japanese internment camps), even if it doesn’t rate a perfect score on the Hitlermeter (suggested pronunciation: Hit•Lermeter.)

            Invoking Hitler and Nazi Germany will never strengthen your argument. It shows that you are more interested in garnering an emotional response than logically proving a point. It even suggests that you might be unable to make a convincing argument since you are resorting to such extremes. And if that’s how you argue, if you ignore facts and logic and simply try to stir up the masses, well, you’re no better than . . . wait . . . never mind.

            Now in 2016, the Hitler fallacy has a new target: Donald Trump. So much of his rhetoric seems to activate our Hitler glands. He suggested special IDs for Muslim Americans. He blames our problems on immigrants and favors mass deportation. So many of his remarks seem to involve scapegoating and the darker side of nationalism. Nonetheless, all of Trump’s offensive ideas are offensive in their own right. You don’t need to carry around a sign with Trump sporting a Nazi uniform or a Hitler mustache. He isn’t terrible because he’s like Hitler. He’s terrible because he’s Trump.

---

If you enjoyed this segment, read the full book HERE! 

Post hoc

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

The following is a chapter from the book

Phalluses of Logic: How to Know When Republicans Lie

Correlation does not imply causation.

AKA: false cause, after this therefore because of this

●      I stubbed my toe before watching the game last night and my team won. I should probably stub my toe before each game, just in case.

●      We did it with our socks on and didn’t get pregnant. Socks must prevent pregnancy.

●      The TV show Arrested Development was canceled during the Bush administration and was brought back during the Obama administration. Obama, a true man of the people, brought back Arrested Development.

For your own safety, don’t tell an NFL quarterback that their hard work and talent has no bearing on who wins because your absurd game-day superstition determines the score. Many factors determine if and when a woman will get pregnant—socks are not one of them unless the man is wearing one in a very unorthodox way. Bush did not cancel Arrested Development. It was canceled by The Fox Network, just like Futurama and Firefly. This makes the offensive rhetoric of Fox News only the network’s fourth largest sin.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (just “post hoc” to his friends) is a fallacy used to claim that one event caused another because they occurred in that order. A happened, then B happened. Therefore, A must cause B. This is fallacious because correlation does not imply causation. In other words, just because two things happen near each other does not mean that one caused the other, or even that they are related in any way. To create a valid argument, you would need to prove how the first event caused the other.

For the purpose of this book, we can group post hoc together with its cousin, cum hoc ergo, propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this.) While post hoc refers to one event causing a future event, the cum hoc label is used when the events occur at the same time, the order they occur in is not deemed important, or the order is unknown.

In our first example, the anti-vaccination crowd maintains that since children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) only begin showing signs after they are vaccinated, the vaccines must be causing the disorder. One problem with that theory is that when infants begin receiving vaccinations (assuming a normal schedule), they would be far too young for ASD symptoms to be recognized. An ASD diagnosis by age two is usually reliable, and sometimes signs can appear by eighteen months or earlier. The CDC suggests first screening for ASD at eighteen months, and for developmental delays in general at nine months. Even by then, the baby will have already received a number of vaccines.

It’s no surprise that symptoms would appear in a child with ASD only after they had been vaccinated. That is the expected order for those events. By the same logic, we could claim anything that eventually happens to children (learning to walk, puberty, hating their parents) is a result of vaccines. We could also use the same fallacy to show ASD is caused by anything that happens in the first eighteen months, like being held, listening to Mozart, or dad freaking out over baby food prices.

Another problem for this theory would be the overabundance of research showing no connection between autism and vaccines. Since their claim is only based on the post hoc fallacy, the anti-vaxers need actual evidence to show a connection. They have so far been unsuccessful in that endeavor.

Post hoc can also be applied to the argument that marijuana is a gateway drug. People who use heroin or cocaine often start with marijuana, so marijuana must lead to harder drug use. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, however, “The majority of people who use marijuana do not go on to use other, ‘harder’ substances.” This suggests that whatever makes people move onto harder drugs is probably not marijuana. The organization also offers this theory:

An alternative to the gateway-drug hypothesis is that people who are more vulnerable to drug-taking are simply more likely to start with readily available substances like marijuana, tobacco, or alcohol, and their subsequent social interactions with other substance users increases their chances of trying other drugs. Further research is needed to explore this question.

People might abuse substances in a certain order, but that doesn’t prove each substance leads you to the next. It also appears that cigarettes and beer could carry the same level of culpability as marijuana, so a gateway-drug argument for keeping marijuana illegal should also carry with it a ban on alcohol and tobacco. The organization admits more research is needed before determining what leads users to hard drugs, but shows that marijuana isn’t it. Apparently no one’s explained this to Gov. Chris Christie. Here he is with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt in April of 2015:

Hewitt: Right now, we've got the states of Colorado and Washington flaunting federal law by allowing people to sell dope legally. If you're the President of the United States, are you going to enforce the federal drug laws in those states?

Christie: Absolutely. I will crack down and not permit it.

Hewitt: All right, next . . .

Christie: Marijuana is a gateway drug. We have an enormous addiction problem in this country. And we need to send very clear leadership from the White House on down through the federal law enforcement. Marijuana is an illegal drug under federal law. And the states should not be permitted to sell it and profit from it.

Interesting how conservatives are always fervent protectors of states’ rights except for the times they don’t want to be. In March of 2015, Christie said, “It was the states that created the federal government, not the federal government that created the states. We need to get back to that philosophy.” Then in April, he wants to become president so he can tell states they can’t make their own intelligent and research-based decisions regarding marijuana legalization. Christie lands a state’s rights 180° just by thinking about being president.

Miriam Boeri, Associate Professor of Sociology at Bentley University, wrote about Christie and others who point to marijuana as a gateway drug. She questions that claim, writing, “As any junior scientist can tell you, correlation does not mean causation.” She also explains that other factors including poverty, mental illness, social environment, and even anti-drug laws and their enforcement can be much more of a gateway to hard drugs than smoking marijuana is.

The gateway theory is a way to distract attention from the real argument. There’s definitely some red herring and slippery slope involved. Your audience might not find marijuana to be scary enough, so you have to connect it to scarier drugs. This is especially odd when the argument is against marijuana for medical use, since we already have prescription drugs similar to heroin (Oxycontin and Vicodin) and cocaine (methylphenidate).

Post hoc loves to come out on rainy days. Whenever a natural disaster strikes, you can count on someone from the religious right blaming the catastrophe on homosexuality. Gay marriage, gay soldiers, families not disowning their gay children—these can all lead to tornadoes, earthquakes, or hurricanes. Scientists might argue that a hurricane is caused by water vapor creating a low-pressure area over the ocean surface, but they're clearly ignoring the obvious. America is becoming less hostile towards the LGBTQ community, and sometimes the weather is bad. There must be a connection!

Pat Robertson, host of the Christian News TV show The 700 Club, blamed 1998’s Hurricane Bonnie on homosexuality. When the storm was predicted to hit Florida, Robertson explained this was clearly punishment for Disney World holding a Gay Days Weekend. His weather-gaydar was off though, as the storm ended up missing Florida and instead hit just about every other state on the east coast. Those would be the states where Disney World had not held their Gay Days Weekend. It gets even better. According to the National Weather Service, most of the damage caused by Bonnie was in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia, where Robertson's own show is based.

Since hurricanes are punishments for our sins, we have to wonder what Robertson did to invoke the wrath of the heavens. Maybe it was his time spent posing as a faith healer. Or when he compared non-Christians to termites. Could be that child he had before he was married. Or the time he called Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Methodists “the spirit of the Antichrist.” Or the time he called feminism a "socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.”

Whatever the reason, the big question is why didn’t Robertson simply use the power of prayer to keep the hurricane away? We can’t know why for certain, but it might have a little something to do with what happened the last time he tried to publicly pray the weather away. In 1985, Robertson did pray for Hurricane Gloria to avoid his show's headquarters in Virginia. His prayers came true that time as Gloria hit states north of Virginia, resulting in $9 hundred million in damages and causing eight deaths.

It’s not only homosexuality that can cause natural disasters, according to Robertson. In 2010, a terrible magnitude 7.0 earthquake hit the country of Haiti. Estimates for the resulting death toll range between around one hundred thousand to one hundred sixty thousand. Given the awful nature of this event, Pat Robertson felt it was important to explain the real reason for this earthquake. If you guessed seismic waves caused by the breaking of underground rock, you would be incorrect. The culprit here was a pact with the devil made by the Haitians during a 1791 slave rebellion. Events like this make you think that maybe post hoc isn’t a fallacy after all. If Haitian slaves make a deal with the devil and a catastrophic earthquake hits only 219 years later, how could there not be a connection?

To be fair to Robertson, we should emphasize that he is not the only right-wing nutcase making such claims. For example, the lesser-known John McTernan makes Robertson look reasonable and sane by comparison.

McTernan, founder of Defend and Proclaim the Faith ministries, believes that Hurricane Sandy was God’s way of punishing the U.S. for not being able to find anyone better than Obama or Romney for president. On October 28 2012, McTernan posted to his blog:

A pro-homosexual Mormon along with a pro-abortion/homosexual, Muslim Brotherhood promoter, Hard Left Fascist are running for president. And there is no cry of repentance from God’s people! I see this storm as a warning from the LORD to call His church to repentance, This might be the last call from the Holy God of Israel.

You’re probably wondering, why don’t we just put an end to homosexuality and see if natural disasters continue? That’s definitely what you were thinking. Luckily for you, a pastor by the name Charles Worley has laid out his own plan to rid the nation of gays and lesbians. On May 13 2012, Worley had these fine words for the congregants of Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, NC:

Build a great, big, large fence, 150 or 100 mile long. Put all the lesbians in there. Fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals, and have that fence electrified till they can't get out. Feed 'em. And you know what? In a few years they'll die out. You know why? They can't reproduce.

Worley may not have thought this one all the way through, but hey, nothing says Christian values like an internment camp. He does seem oddly concerned about his homosexual captives having something to eat though, which is nice. In this short excerpt from his rant, he pushes the food twice. He’s like the Jewish grandmother of bigoted psychopathic pastors. 

.........

If you enjoyed this segment, read the full book HERE! 

---