Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
No. The problem isn't drawing the conclusion; it's defining "riot." Riots can break out of protests, which they did, but that doesn't make the entire event itself a "riot." This is an area ripe with political bias and spin. One can legitimately refer to the event is 2020 as "riots" as well as "protests." We just need to keep in mind that they are referring to different events. The riots were subsets of the protests. Implying that the protests, as a whole, were "riots," might be best characterized by the ambiguity fallacy |
answered on Monday, Feb 22, 2021 06:48:53 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|