# Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 4, 2015, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009 "2015-08-04T21:07:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 440
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2015, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/440 "2015-08-25T19:33:30Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Agreed. This mountain of text simply amounts to: Things I believe are positive=the Rule of Law. Things I believe are negative=Criminal Rule. > > If one disagrees with something, then a quote is cherry picked from a founding father to show that the Rule of Law is a good thing, therefore my position is right. Similarly, if one agrees with something, then another cherry picked quote shows that criminal rule is bad and therefore the position is incorrect. > > It is simple question begging. I might call it epistemic closure, but that’s a little misleading. I suspect the closure is driven by other factors. Question begging, or assuming the conclusion, is more relevant. I’m trying to mine this discussion for sociological or rhetorical insights. Let me follow up with my argument via association framework. I used to think that argument was composed of 2 components. But actually there are 3: [ul] [li]Facts (observation)[/li][li]Logic[/li][li]Emotive Buttons.[/li][/ul] Buttons are pretty important. I make a fair amount of use of [loaded language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language) on this message board: it complements factual evidence and substantiated claims pretty well. But you can secure an audience just with buttons. Donald Trump is a terrific practitioner of this technique: factual refutations just bounce off his supporters. As for logic, I’ll quote part of post I made in the elections forum: > [@What the hell is Trump?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-hell-is-trump/726581/180): > > To see this, consider [Scott Adam’s latest post](http://blog.dilbert.com/post/127158474091/anchors-away). CNN asks Trump to comment on the Pope’s latest critique of capitalism. That’s a trap, albeit a mild one. Trump could evade, which looks evasive. Trump could engage which on television looks like, “_Trump-capitalism-corruption_”, given realistic attention spans. Now skilled politicians know that when you answer a question on television, you don’t answer the question asked but rather the question you wished they asked. That’s press conference 101. Newt Gingrich cracked the code by recognizing that the real way to answer questions during a debate format is to… turn everything into an attack on the media. The crowd loves that. > > But Trump operates on a even higher level. Much higher. Trump says, “I’d say ISIS wants to get you. You know that ISIS wants to go in and take over the Vatican? You have heard that. You know, that’s a dream of theirs, to go into Italy.” > > Wait whuh? Scott Adams: [INDENT][INDENT]Do you even remember the question anymore? > > Now compare the wattage coming from these two thoughts: > > 1. A boring discussion about corruption in capitalism. ([CNN]’s question) > > 2. A mental picture of ISIS taking over the Vatican. > > No comparison. Corruption and capitalism are mere concepts that have no visual appeal. The ideas are important yet inert.\*\* But an ISIS overthrow of the Vatican is so visual you wonder why it isn’t already a movie.\*\* And that visual is all anyone will remember of that interview in a week. > > Do you still think Trump’s clown act is random? > > Read more: [http://blog.dilbert.com/post/127158474091/anchors-away#ixzz3jPk4oAPe](http://blog.dilbert.com/post/127158474091/anchors-away#ixzz3jPk4oAPe) > [/INDENT][/INDENT] Emphasis added. Segueing from a discussion of capitalism to a terrorist organization makes no logical sense. But such emotive language certainly lights up the neurons, much like a jingle that you can’t get out of your head. I had thought that buttons were a complement to facts and valid logic. But for some they can wholly crowd them out. For some, buttons can carry the conversation on their own: some will draw conclusions on the basis of them, even if their factual backing is refuted. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009)._