Stop and Think

Today, public discourse has taken a tone that is by far too pathetic. Historically referred to as the melting pot, America now fails to evenly mix ideas that logically make since. Americans do not take the time or put forth the energy to evaluate news and choices they must make logically. In this modern technological era we try to simplify all life processes. This benefits us in several ways (no longer do we harvest grain by hand or have to start a fire every time we cook dinner), but unfortunately when it comes to public discourse this “ease-of-life” approach doesn’t always produces the most fair, accurate, and principled results.

I personally believe that pathetic fallacies have overtaken our rhetoric. We are continuously confronted with scare tactics, over simplified ultimatums, arguments portraying a slippery slope, band wagon pressure, Red Herring distractions, and sentimental appeals. Instead of putting forth the effort to logically discover a truth or persuade a truth we often find ourselves reacting and communicating on how we feel about an issue. We may not have good reason for that opinion, and if we do we often don’t explain it to others because we are too caught up in simply trying to get them to agree with it by provoking extreme, and often uncalled for, emotional investment into that issue. It amazes me that with the level of education American’s receive we still fail to carefully develop rhetoric. We also do not dissect what we hear and label it as either an acceptable or unacceptable argument.

The largest change to politics and life in general is that, unlike our Founding Fathers, we argue and do not compromise. Compromises laid the foundation for building this great nation. Today, instead of compromising different views we simply argue about them. What happens is that when we argue about an issue we fear that if we look at it logically we might be proven wrong. Perhaps our position on the argument is the correct one for the most part, but the other party’s position has some good qualities as well. People don’t want to argue logically because when it is proven that the other side has some positive input they are in a way proven wrong. Even if for the most part someone’s idea was correct, if they have to change one part of it to incorporate another person’s idea the original person will feel inferior or foolish that they didn’t think of that before. To prevent this type of self humiliation from occurring we choose to argue based solely on emotion. Emotion, unlike logic, cannot be proven wrong.

One example of avoiding logic to make an argument is the actions of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). They are a political activist group not associated with any local animal humane shelter that works to protect animal’s rights by trying to abolish modern agricultural practices. HSUS does have a more logical approach than PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), but they still fall victim to several pathetic fallacies. HSUS members are driven by emotion and few understand or have any logical scientific evidence to support their claims. If they do find research that they agree with it is typically blown out of proportion and not supported by various sources. They believe it is their right to protect animals. They are convinced that traditional methods of food production are much more animal friendly. They fail to acknowledge that in dairy farming, for example, new technologies and building designs that have been developed over the past decade provide more comfortable stalls bedded with over a foot of sand instead of a thin layer of straw, barns now allow the cows to roam freely amongst their pens that are typically over hundreds of feet long instead of being tied in their own stall all day, and that cows receive better health care (vaccinations and treatments for any diseases) than some human beings receive. Because arguments by the HSUS fail to logically recognize the improvements in animal husbandry and they preach using too much emotion, the arguments that do make since and should be addressed by the industry are not taken seriously. Those on the other side of the argument can be blamed for placing too much of an emphasis on emotion as well. When farmers are confronted with propositions by HSUS they don’t stop and think about how these “city slickers” could actually be providing them with useful advice. They immediately jump to the conclusion that any attack on the way their business is run is an attack on themselves, their family, community, and their industry. Some suggestions and movements by HSUS actually would cause more harm than good but some could be incorporated to improve farms. These two sides fail to combine their efforts in a positive way. They don’t compromise because that would cause them to realize they were wrong about some things. Instead of compromising they simply argue and cut down the other side’s intentions.

This is a common scenario in modern-day-America. We rely solely on emotion and ignore logic in our attempt to change the world. I believe it is time to stop, think, and use logic when making decisions.