2/17/2013

But Don't Rule Out Malice

Via- American Thinker

By Ryan Scott Welch

There is an adage that reads "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity... but don't rule out malice." This is known as Heinlein's or Hanlon's Razor (there is only a slight difference between the two). Unfortunately many people only go by the first part of Heinlein's Razor, leaving out the "but don't rule out malice" part. People using this heuristic decision-making shortcut often think that even though some things that people do seem very suspect, and even though mental red flags are going up and instinctive alarms are sounding, that there must be some explanation, other than malice, to explain the actions of people. This is especially true when the suspicious people are connected to them is some way like family, friends, or even the politicians that they support. Many people using Heinlein's Razor shrug off these suspicious actions as if they were just a mistake, or maybe the actions that people did were the result of "bad luck", or possibly that ignorance can explain why they made those decisions. But I would like to focus on the second part of Heinlein's Razor which of course is: but don't rule out malice.

Sometimes, some people actually act out of malice. Malicious people do exist in the world and always have, as far back as the beginning of recorded human history. It is easily possible that you know, or know of, some malicious people. They could be your acquaintances or friends; they could even be in your family, and yes, they might be one or more of your political leaders. In support of the second part of Heinlein's Razor there's another adage called Occam's razor that says among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected -- the simpler the explanation, the more likely it is to be true, everything else being equal. If you have to mentally jump through a lot of hoops to explain how someone's motive cannot be malice then Occam's Razor says that the more assumptions you need to make the less likely that your hypothesis is true.


Read more:

6 comments:

  1. Was that pic of Obama during the Sunday Prayer Breakfast?
    Bwa Ha Ha Ha!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have tried desperately to rule out malice on Obamas part.
    I have twisted myself into dreadlocks in the attempt.
    I still refuse to take that step mentally,but in my heart/gut I think I know the reality.
    Now Nancy and Harry? Thats an entirely different subject.
    There is malice and hatred.... Out-rite contempt for the rule of law and reality.
    But they are simply stuck on stupid. Those two truly believe they are doing good by whatever means needed.
    They are the half-witted pawns of Obama and his path towards fundamental change.
    Where as Obama most likely knows he has to dismantle everything we know and believe about America,its foundations,its laws,and its morals,in order to create a new balance in the World.
    Harry and Nancy think they are just pushing the boundaries to do good.
    Kinda like the Afluenza syndrome.


    For those of you not familiar with the term....

    Transcript from Rush Limbaugh follows.


    Affluenza Survivor Thanks Rush
    November 26, 2007

    BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

    RUSH: Joe in Smyrna, Tennessee. Welcome to the EIB Network, sir. Hello.

    CALLER: Hi, Rush. It's an honor to speak to you today.

    RUSH: Thank you very much.

    CALLER: I owe you a huge debt of gratitude. My wife and I for many years have suffered from affluenza and it was just a terrible burden, but about six months ago we started tuning into your show and listening, and we recognized the signs and recently we've come to be cured of this disease, thanks to you.

    RUSH: Well, that makes me happy. I can't tell you how happy that makes me. You had affluenza?

    CALLER: Yes, we did. We found ourselves hiding our assets from our friends, and telling people we didn't have money, and things like that, and it just wasn't true.

    RUSH: Right, because you were obsessed with guilt.

    CALLER: Exactly.

    RUSH: Because you felt it was unfair you should have so much while poor, and women, and minorities had so little.

    CALLER: Just like the spot says.

    RUSH: You learned not to feel guilty, because you earned it.

    CALLER: Exactly -- and I still do. I'm on my way right now to go earn it some more.

    Transcript credit link:

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2007/11/26/affluenza_survivor_thanks_rush

    Now mind you.... Nancy and Harry didnt get their wealth in the most pure of manner,so they are doubly and irrevocably stricken with incurable/blinded,AFFLUENZA.
    Nancy and Harry must continually atone for,and we the people must continually pay for their Affluenza.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Excellent article! The author builds a firm foundation for his idea, and his examples illustrate the ideas well. The comments, too, are well worth reading, for they are thoughtful, informed, and on topic.

    I agree that the Obama administration's policies are malicious. I also agree with the author that the destruction of the U.S. is the goal. I don't think these statements are too strong, and I do think we need to communicate these concepts of evil to all who will listen and consider.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The whole Coward-Piven thing makes this more than just speculation. the fact that Obama went to Columbia when they taught there is why I have always suspected that his transcripts are kept hidden. The question though is this truly malicious, or just a warped ideology pursued with misguided motives?

    I am of the opinion that it really does not matter, what matters is that they are destructive and in the over all scheme of things lead to evil and therefore must be resisted.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree, Jer, that Obama may have started out with a warped ideology, but the extreme measures he has employed to carry out his agenda take it to the malicious level. Any reasonably intelligent person knows that collectivism has failed miserably wherever it has been forced on people.

    No, it doesn't matter whether Obama's personal motivation is ideological, malicious, evil, or power-driven. What does matter is that more people must see what is happening so they can join the resistance.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jer and Number.
    Absolutely!
    The intent only matters if it was provable.
    The end results of such policies have been proven over time,and are being proven again TODAY!
    If this was 150 years ago,Obama would be impeached,hung and then flogged. But we as an American Ideal,institution,experiment have strayed so far from original intent,over such an expanded time-frame,that there is no longer the ability to muster any outrage.
    (Frog in a pot of boiling water)

    ReplyDelete