No it wouldn't. Evil makes everything easier. You can't use an argument like this for our side without coming across as a raving lunatic. There's a reason for that, and it's not just because it's an emotional appeal. We can use those effectively just fine when they're called for.
We can't twist the meanings of words the way they can because we believe in an unspoken principle I'll call implicit agreement. In this example above, everyone looking at it knows, by context alone, whatever language they might speak, that the intent is to compare the condition between the two lions. You don't even need the caption. Unless the viewer has a serious communication disability or other brain impairment, they can at least say, "These are both apples. How are the apples different?" And then draw a conclusion. They may draw the wrong conclusion, but no one looking at this example can honestly assume the intent is something other than the comparison of the two conditions.
It's a trick they've learned like trained seals. And it's not to argue with you. It's to distract themselves. They ignore what's directly before them, assume nefarious intent, and read it into what's been presented. And, like magic, they don't have to think through your argument anymore.
It's no different than two politicians debating on stage where one marches up to the other, pulls his pants down, and accuses him of perversion for exposing himself in public. Everyone in the audience knows what happened, but the supporters of the pants puller don't care. They want him to win, so they laugh at the pantsed politician even while they decry his perverted display.
Their twisting of words shows a blatant disregard for truth. That's why we can't do it. If we don't value truth, we value nothing and we become exactly like them.
It's more willful than cognitive bias, I think. It goes beyond even being unwilling to entertain our arguments. It's "truth over facts." That sounds like gibberish to us, but to them, it means they're somehow able to see a bigger picture that we can't because in their minds they're more intelligent than us and this allows them, paradoxically, to recognize intelligent expertise they believe we can't. Any logical argument against their position is simply another "fact" that's certainly been refuted by "experts" who must have a better argument against it.
They believe we've been fought to a stalemate because we're going against the consensus they've managed to fabricate. They believe the larger and more organized a society, the better it's chances at producing innovation--and, therefore, the more they submit to government, the more evolved they prove themselves. Our very desire for independence and freedom proves our inferiority, and hampers the evolution of the human race.
It's the formation of a new religion, in search of a prophet to codify it. Cognitive bias dismisses what it doesn't agree with, but it can be chipped away at. What we're facing is far more sinister. It's blind faith in the institutions of man. It's a sneering, unfaltering belief in their own superiority. They think they're gods walking amongst us mortals.
No it wouldn't. Evil makes everything easier. You can't use an argument like this for our side without coming across as a raving lunatic. There's a reason for that, and it's not just because it's an emotional appeal. We can use those effectively just fine when they're called for.
We can't twist the meanings of words the way they can because we believe in an unspoken principle I'll call implicit agreement. In this example above, everyone looking at it knows, by context alone, whatever language they might speak, that the intent is to compare the condition between the two lions. You don't even need the caption. Unless the viewer has a serious communication disability or other brain impairment, they can at least say, "These are both apples. How are the apples different?" And then draw a conclusion. They may draw the wrong conclusion, but no one looking at this example can honestly assume the intent is something other than the comparison of the two conditions.
It's a trick they've learned like trained seals. And it's not to argue with you. It's to distract themselves. They ignore what's directly before them, assume nefarious intent, and read it into what's been presented. And, like magic, they don't have to think through your argument anymore.
It's no different than two politicians debating on stage where one marches up to the other, pulls his pants down, and accuses him of perversion for exposing himself in public. Everyone in the audience knows what happened, but the supporters of the pants puller don't care. They want him to win, so they laugh at the pantsed politician even while they decry his perverted display.
Their twisting of words shows a blatant disregard for truth. That's why we can't do it. If we don't value truth, we value nothing and we become exactly like them.
It's more willful than cognitive bias, I think. It goes beyond even being unwilling to entertain our arguments. It's "truth over facts." That sounds like gibberish to us, but to them, it means they're somehow able to see a bigger picture that we can't because in their minds they're more intelligent than us and this allows them, paradoxically, to recognize intelligent expertise they believe we can't. Any logical argument against their position is simply another "fact" that's certainly been refuted by "experts" who must have a better argument against it.
They believe we've been fought to a stalemate because we're going against the consensus they've managed to fabricate. They believe the larger and more organized a society, the better it's chances at producing innovation--and, therefore, the more they submit to government, the more evolved they prove themselves. Our very desire for independence and freedom proves our inferiority, and hampers the evolution of the human race.
It's the formation of a new religion, in search of a prophet to codify it. Cognitive bias dismisses what it doesn't agree with, but it can be chipped away at. What we're facing is far more sinister. It's blind faith in the institutions of man. It's a sneering, unfaltering belief in their own superiority. They think they're gods walking amongst us mortals.