Zacharias 🐝 Voulgaris

9 mesi fa Β· 3 min. di lettura Β· visibility ~10 Β·

chat Contatta l'autore

thumb_up Rilevante message Commentare

Reading Between the Lines

Reading Between the Lines

I do not doubt that each and every one of us has developed logic and reasoning to a high enough level to understand things beyond the surface. However, much like those Math skills many of us picked up during our student years, we don't always make use of that skill. Perhaps it seems like overkill, or maybe it takes too much effort. Yet, there are times when using our logical faculties to go deeper into a statement is not only a nice-to-have but something essential.

A lot of BS is being broadcasted to the world and a lot of conditioning is happening, thanks to the misuse (or abuse) of logic by those behind the microphones. Much like Trojan horses, the statements these people send us via various platforms undermine our thinking and possibly change it to their advantage. If you aren't aware of the fact or have serious doubts about it, that means it's probably working. So, please suspend your disbelief until at least the end of this article.

Let's start with an example. An interesting "argument" I read recently on a picture that was supposed to be comical went something like this: You should trust Pfizer's vaccine. Pfizer came up with Viagra. If they can bring back the dead, they can definitely save the living. This was on a piece of paper in an ICU, according to the person who contributed this material to the website. Despite its humorous aspect, it seems that it was a serious attempt at convincing anyone who read it that the Pfizer vaccine is safe. I'm not going to go into detail regarding the absurdity of trusting an experimental medication branded as a vaccine, even if there is evidence that it's unsafe and that it doesn't make you immune to the virus. Other people have done this, and this is beyond the scope of this article anyway. I am going to try to analyze this argument and see what's there between the lines.

First of all, there is an irrefutable fact:

A. Pfizer came up with the Viagra medication, a med that works. Then, there is the other statement that seems like a platitude but it would be difficult to disagree with:

B. if they can bring back the dead [...]. That's a big if, though. Have they ever actually managed to resurrect a person who has died? Naturally, if they had, then they would be on to something. What they aren't telling you though is that, even if that even if B is valid, it's not connected in any way to A. Of course, there is a play on words that's happening behind the scenes, related to erections and resurrection, even if the specific words aren't mentioned. However, the human mind is aware of these words, and it may trigger the corresponding neurons around them, even if this happens on a subconscious level. As a result, the original statement (C. trust in the Pfizer vaccine) will become more plausible. Logically, however, the statement A + B -> C is an indeterminate statement at best (technically, this should be written as A^B->C, but I'm not sure if everyone here is aware of logical notation).

Imagine if someone were to formulate the original argument around a different company, e.g., Pirelli, the Italian tire manufacturer. We could say something like this:

A. Pirelli came up with great tires and continues to make them.

B. if they can keep road accidents at bay, they can keep pregnancy accidents at bay too!

C. You should trust Pirelli condoms (this is a fictitious product, but be honest, are you 100% sure about that without checking it out on a search engine?).

To be honest, I'd probably try the above fictitious product if it existed, rather than some experimental medication that could have side-effects for the rest of my life. If a condom fails, there is a good chance that your partner may get pregnant. It may seem like a disaster if you aren't up for having kids, but it's not the end of the world (it may even be a good thing). Besides, there are ways to tackle this situation if it manifests, should both parents decide to take action. You cannot say the same about an experimental medication gone wrong.

An invalid argument taken to be true may be akin to poison to your mind.


Perhaps things aren't as clear-cut or funny as they first appear. They may incite laughter to those partial towards this kind of humor, but they are far from valid statements. Piggybacking on the authority attached to the venue where that statement is made may help the argument go down easier (much like water does when taking a pill), but it doesn’t make it valid. And an invalid argument taken to be true may be akin to poison to your mind. Are you willing to take that risk? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below. Cheers.

thumb_up Rilevante message Commentare

Court Koenning

8 mesi fa #9

Thanks for sharing this!

Harvey Lloyd

8 mesi fa #8

I, like millions of other Americans have an opinion. But would suggest some research into the equity vs equality argument. This seems to be the divide. 50% of the voting base feels government should intervene based on equity measurements and 50% feel the Constitution has answered this question with the Declaration of Independence as a vision statement guiding the 14th Amendment. A reasonable debate and needs to be vetted. Our technological world is leaving many behind. They are Americans also. But we can't sacrifice one group by fixing another. We merely change the label of who is left behind. In the end the government will be defining what it means to be a Citizen of the USA over two hundred years ago it was known. The administrative government though has altered the definition for many. Both sides are upset as it has shown up on their front porch. In defining this concept they will be assigning responsibility of being a good citizen in some way. In the beginning it was to the individual. Equity moves responsibility from the individual to the system. I dont present this as bad or good, but what i have observed through inductive reasoning. So this begs the question: 1. Have we seen systemic compulsory citizen mandates before in history? 2. If we are to move from equal opportunity under the law to equity in outcome, what mandated performance criteria will be on the citizen? 3. Who gets to determine the level of equity needed to balance the outcomes? If we need to be informed with any elements of discussion we should be well versed in this area. But discussions in this area can increase your opportunity to be cancelled.

That's a very good point. I remember listening to a podcast having a similar message (it was about protesters and how they are not the "good guys" either). Perhaps this duality standpoint that we often find ourselves in is as bad as the problem itself. Maybe that's the biggest issue, not so much the disease or the measures against it. However, I have no idea as to how this can be tackled. If you have any suggestions, please let me know. Cheers!

Harvey Lloyd

8 mesi fa #6

I am in agreement. The "covid cloud" appears to have some politically homespun apparatus about it. But supports my comment point, it appears that the current climate, no matter where you fall on the spectrum, is causing division. Regardless of how we fix the issues it appears 50% will be unhappy. Quite the conundrum. In my thinking it is the constitution that has the answer, along with the common sense thinking our forefathers presented. Smaller government, blind justice and self determination are the sacred aspects we all must subscribe. If we do not, then these areas will be controlled by political folk. Enjoyed your thoughts and post.

Actually, I'm unhappy with a larger portion of the population, but for a different reason altogether. I don't care much about politics, especially these days. However, I find the lack of common sense and critical thinking on the Covid-19 experimental medication matter (branded as the Covid vaccine, although it has little to do with vaccination) much more problematic. Political leaders come and go but decisions we make about our collective health, often through misinformed or even uninformed actions, have more long-term effects. This is not something that affects us all, but generations of people to come, yet we often treat it as yet another thing we have to deal with. Also, I don't see how diverting our attention to US politics is relevant to this matter. Thank you for your input.

Harvey Lloyd

8 mesi fa #4

#2 If i might add to your inductive reasoning. I find it a bit unbelievable that with the level of early voting that took place, digitally, no one peeked at the results. It would be difficult at best to even find fraud given the time frames. Also it would be difficult to do anything about it if you did find it. Elections are like jury trials. It is hard to turnover a jury verdict. Voter fraud concerns opportunity not the reality. Where are the loopholes that would allow for voter fraud. One place is early voting. The 28th Congress saw this with the advent of the telegraph. So they enacted the law that elections would be held in November. A single day that everyone found out at the same time. Reducing foreknowledge. Was there voter fraud this go round, absolutely. Enough to make a difference, we will never know. 50% of the people voted for less government and 50% voted for more, based on the only candidates presented. Will the 50% that wanted less be happy in 4 years? Will the 50% that wanted more be happy in 4 years? Don't know, but the early results seem to point towards everyone is going to be less happy. Given your statements it would appear you are unhappy with 50% of the population.

Greg Rolfe

8 mesi fa #3

Zacharias \ud83d\udc1d Voulgaris interesting illustration. Thank you for the read.

Jerry Fletcher

9 mesi fa #2

Zacharias, Nearly half of the voting population of the United States still believes the most monitored presidential election in the history of the country was fraudulent and "stolen." In part that was because they were told it was going to be over and over beginning well before it actually happened. It was more concerning after the fact when no court in the land validated the arguments. It is because it is easy to convince people that their rights are denied if they already believe it for other reasons. That sea of red in the central part of the USA is there because the America they grew up in is no more. the surety of a middle class job where you grew up is gone. People don't want to accept it and even cling to the belief long after the facts are in tier faces. Desire trumps logic even when it is unfulfilled. And so it goes.

Thank you for the share, Joyce \ud83d\udc1d Bowen Brand Ambassador @ beBee!

Altri articoli da Zacharias 🐝 Voulgaris

Visualizza il blog
1 settimana fa Β· 3 min. di lettura

Facebook's Recent Issues and the Need for More Privacy

Source: Β· Brief Overview of What's Hap ...

2 settimane fa Β· 5 min. di lettura

Data Management Best Practices for Modern Backend Data Security

Source: (after some processing work)Th ...

2 mesi fa Β· 2 min. di lettura

Censoring Platforms

Source: Β· This article was inspired by ...