Monday, 24 May 2010

Argument From Intimidation

(May 24th, 2010)

A quote I found in this week’s “Sábado”, a Portuguese magazine, immediately called to my attention in these “Carter-Rucked” times we live in whereby bullying doth take place, of all places, in the Courts of Law.

This phenomenon has now become normality, to the point of being the principal reason for the common Justice abiding citizen to fear… Justice.

But not only on the “legal” battleground, did I find this quote adequate. It came to my mind all those comments that we’ve had the displeasure to endure judging our judgments in such a negative manner, sometimes to the point of insult.

 Judging our judgment of people, by ranting as if completely appalled by the fact that we're bringing upon this or that individual the suspicion of being involved in someway with Maddie’s death and subsequent cover-up.

They in turn find completely justifiable to deprive others of thei privacy just due to the fact that they do not meet the beauty standards set by them, or of past misdoings in nothing related with the facts in question.

As if THEY, and they alone, had the supreme capability of determining who’s to be a suspect and who’s not to be.

By the way, this self-judgment on judgment is pretty revealing by itself.

But also judging our judgment of fact, basing their counter-argumentation once again on insult or on the most sound of all arguments: “Because I say so.”

The quote in the magazine is from Ayn Rand and was “the Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence”. 

This immediately made me want to know more, and what I found was certainly worth every second spent searching and reading:  

There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent’s agreement with one’s undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure

[It] consists of threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. 

Example: “Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X’s argument is false.” . The falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality. 

In today’s epistemological jungle, that second method is used more frequently than any other type of irrational argument. It should be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as “The Argument from Intimidation.”  

The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: “Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.” 

The Argument from Intimidation dominates today’s discussions in two forms. In public speeches and print, it flourishes in the form of long, involved, elaborate structures of unintelligible verbiage, which convey nothing clearly except a moral threat. (“Only the primitive-minded can fail to realize that clarity is oversimplification.”) 

But in private, day-by-day experience, it comes up wordlessly, between the lines, in the form of inarticulate sounds conveying unstated implications. It relies, not on what is said, but on how it is said—not on content, but on tone of voice

The tone is usually one of scornful or belligerent incredulity. “Surely you are not an advocate of capitalism, are you?” And if this does not intimidate the prospective victim—who answers, properly: “I am,”—the ensuing dialogue goes something like this: “Oh, you couldn’t be! Not really!” “Really.” “But everybody knows that capitalism is outdated!” “I don’t.” “Oh, come now!” “Since I don’t know it, will you please tell me the reasons for thinking that capitalism is outdated?” “Oh, don’t be ridiculous!” “Will you tell me the reasons?” “Well, really, if you don’t know, I couldn’t possibly tell you!” 

All this is accompanied by raised eyebrows, wide-eyed stares, shrugs, grunts, snickers and the entire arsenal of nonverbal signals communicating ominous innuendoes and emotional vibrations of a single kind: disapproval. 

If those vibrations fail, if such debaters are challenged, one finds that they have no arguments, no evidence, no proof, no reasons, no ground to stand on—that their noisy aggressiveness serves to hide a vacuum—that the Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence.

Let me emphasize that the Argument from Intimidation does not consist of introducing moral judgment into intellectual issues, but of substituting moral judgment for intellectual argument. Moral evaluations are implicit in most intellectual issues; it is not merely permissible, but mandatory to pass moral judgment when and where appropriate; to suppress such judgment is an act of moral cowardice. 

But a moral judgment must always follow, not precede (or supersede), the reasons on which it is based.  

How does one resist that Argument? There is only one weapon against it: moral certainty

When one enters any intellectual battle, big or small, public or private, one cannot seek, desire or expect the enemy’s sanction. Truth or falsehood must be one’s sole concern and sole criterion of judgment—not anyone’s approval or disapproval; and, above all, not the approval of those whose standards are the opposite of one’s own. 

 The most illustrious example of the proper answer to the Argument from Intimidation was given in American history by the man who, rejecting the enemy’s moral standards and with full certainty of his own rectitude, said: “If this be treason, make the most of it.”

We, in this blog, pride ourselves in writing all with nothing but MORAL CERTAINTY.


  1. I can't argue with that. Even forensics would have to agree.

  2. Samantha, if I ever thought I write well, Ayn’s enormity has just put me back in the place where I belong. A humility bath never fails to cleanse the soul.

    What words! And upon reading them, and seeing that we here effectively remain truthful to our objectives, faithful to our verticality and unwavering in our values, I’m starting to be convinced that, yes, the Black Hats are starting to fear this blog.

    We’re only the hand that lets itself be guided by the energy that it receives from all of you.

  3. I do think when their days of being protected are over, this blog will be used both by Justice as by those that will "suddenly" start to see the truth...


    As IF anymore proof were needed that the McCanns are behind 'ROSIEPOPS' click on to the Sky article 'International missing Chilcrens day' Takes you straight to her site.

  5. "Intimidation" is now the main word in Mccann's vocabulary gallery.
    It comes after "fabrication" and "manipulation".

    Lawyers hired few days after Madeleine went missing, costing more then 700 Euros per hour, came into the saga with a very specific porpose, which was not defending a couple of innocent parents or following the truth.
    At moment the influence of politicians is not ennough to close the mouths of trillions of people in the Internet, who don't buy such bizarre abduction. Politicians can control polices and Forensic Lab reports, but never the public. The public need to be convinced and, after 3 years, Mccann's still farway from that point with two huge problems at their hands:- The anti, still growing in number and looking for justice and for the truth.- Less people buy their stories and attitude, then over the time less money is droping in the Fund to feed the corruption going on with this lawyers, witnesses and detectives.

  6. Anon., 10:50

    The ceaseless attempts of disruption and veiled threats from Black Hats, which seem to have appointed someone specifically for us, as is well documented in the “Trash Can”, are a clear indication that we’re on the right path.

    Speaking about libel, and similar threats, I think it has been almost six months since a Lawyer, representing the McCanns, in Court, spoke of innumerous leads that were ignored by the Portuguese Police, and that they should be investigated thoroughly at once.

    That same Lawyer, if memory doesn’t fail me, was said to have established contacts with other McCanns former Lawyers in order to find the best way ahead to effectively re-open the process.

    These contacts, negotiations or proceedings must have certainly met unexpected obstacles, because as we all know, none whatsoever were to be raised from Maddie’s parents.

    We all heard from Gerry McCann himself outside that same Court, the parents were willing to cooperate with the re-opening of the process.

    As far as is publicly known, the re-opening has not yet occurred, but I might be wrong.

    We wait patiently, but attentively.

  7. I feel no sorry for any bad word, message, etc, I have writen in the Net, Newspaper or watever, about the Mccann's. They started it and they deserve it.
    They started it when they allowed British freelancer journalists and their spin spoke-persons spread the idea of a country being the nest of paedos. when they feed the idea of a tan abductor ( connecting the skin color to one of the most horrible crimes against a child). When they stick an "incompetent" label into PJ, leaving the British police conveniently out. When from PJ they decide to persecute only one, and use physical characteristics such, being fat or wearing espensive glasses and clothes, to try to describe the competence of a police. When they tried to convince the world that negligence is a behaviour which go across British society and what they have done is what all British parents with good skills do. When they fool trillions in the world, wearing a victim suit to ask money, saying will be used to search their daughter,and at the end...used it for themselves.

  8. Totally agree with you Textusa- Thay know, the truth is faraway from their abduction story and this.... IS THE OBSTACLE.

    This portuguese Lawyers fall in total discredit.
    On one of the last Humour programes in the RTP, called o "LADO B", the author made jokes about Madeleine last progressive picture (7 years old) and KATE. Nothing happen to him.

    I would like to congratulate him for such courage and attitude. Mccann's deserve all the jokes we can imagine because they are the first one's insulting the image, the tragedy and the memory of their daughter. THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT. WE JUST NEED TO REVIEW THE ALL FOREST AND HIGHLIGHT THE MOST IMPORTANT TREES.

  9. TotallyConfused25 May 2010, 13:06:00

    Two things came immediately to mind when I read this entry. First is my ex-husband's favorite phrase 'If you say something enough times- eventually someone will believe you'. (Perhaps the McCann's work on that basis- they can convince the public- and themselves- they are telling the truth)

    The second is a true story I use in my training seminars for managers on how to motivate staff. One day, when my older son was 3 years old he was watching cartoons. I asked him to pick up his Lego. He said he would do it in a minute. So I waited 15 minutes and asked him again. He said 'Why do I need to pick it up?'.....'Because I am your mother and I said so.'.......Without turning away from the cartoon, I was told, ' Oh come on mummy, no body does anything in life JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY SO!'

    Talk about how to learn a life lesson from a child: No one ever does anything in life just because you say so- you have to give people a reason for why you want them to do something and it is normally based around there being something 'in it' for them- a motivator.

    So Kate and Gerry, what was your motivator/reason for leaving 3 tiny children alone in an unlocked hotel room? Nothing you say can ever alter that fact.
    PS 'We the Living' is one of my favourite books of all time.

  10. Not wanting to give the SUN any oxygen for their latest crap. I do lke it when people are outed.

    The latest witness and here he is in all his glory from 2007.

    Many thanks to HLM...

    disappearance of Madeleine McCann has been a big story for a number of media outlets.

    Martim Cabral, Deputy News Editor for Portuguese TV
    station SIC, gives us his perspective.The search for Madeleine is one of the biggest manhunts that I can remember ever having taken place in Portugal.

    The sheer number of police officers, detectives and members of other emergency and rescue services involved has left many people here in Portugal wondering if the same effort would be made if the victim wasn’t a foreigner.

    The authorities say they treat all cases with the same thoroughness, whatever the nationality, but the fact is that in the Algarve at the moment the only thing missing are the armed forces.

    Notwithstanding the criticism which has been voiced in the British media about the search operation, the fact is that Portuguese detectives have an enviable record in these kinds of cases.

    In 2006, 30 children (the majority adolescents) went missing in Portugal. Twenty-four were recovered. It’s not 100 per cent but it’s not bad.

    The fact is the Portuguese Judiciary Police (Detective Division) has a very good reputation for thoroughness and an enviable success rate.

    As a journalist I too am frustrated by the laws of this country, which prohibit police officers during an investigation from speaking to the press.

    The reasoning behind the law is legitimate and valid – it aims to protect the identity of the people being investigated and someone who could turn out to be innocent from having their names splashed all over the media and their reputations ruined.

    But the fact remains that we live in an era of 24 hours news cycles – my station (SIC TV) also has a 24 hour news channel like SKY as well as an Internet site. And these media ‘beasts’ have to be fed regularly.

    The answer surely is for the authorities to hold regular briefings where they can reveal some information without prejudicing the investigation – especially in a case like this one where there is such huge international interest. This is what the Portuguese police in the Algarve are now doing.

    Written by Sky News, 09/05/2007


    Comment to above article by one Carlos Moreira.

    I would like to say that the Portugal has no longer any
    effectively controlled borders with Spain. Our borders are a shame! We have terrorists, pedophiles, arms and drugs dealers passing through so easily by the major international motorways, if you Britons could only witness this shame to our country! Our government must enforce our borders immediately, but European laws prevents us from doing it.

    Posted by:
    Carlos Moreira, Rio Tinto, Portugal
    10 May 2007 22:04:50



    A few months ago a police officer died while OFF duty on his motor bike...11 Officers are being investigated...a cop has been arrested for being drunk and possibly violent.

    What do all these officers have in common? they are all Leicester Officers who have helped in either directly or indirectly in the cover up of a small child.

    Jaqui Smith was seen crying in the street after she lost her seat.
    It was she who sent rogatory letters back time after time protecting the ' Seven EVIL 7'

    Gordon Brown also booted out.

    I believe in Karma and I hope somewhere someone is getting 'KARMA' for Madeleine Mccann

  13. Ironside...yes, yes...Karma is something indeed. There are forces around us that 'balance' the universe...and I believe that, in the end, justice will be dealt to the McCanns and their assistants in exactly the proper way that 'God' intends. There's a popular Greek saying here which goes (loosely translated) 'You'll pay for everything you've done, right here on earth!' So all these people better watch out...Sounds like a threat? It is! And it isn't me saying it, it's the universe! (lol)
    I think that if we believe that a crime was committed and that we can go some way to proving it, then it isn't wrong to do so. I've said publicly that if I'm wrong and Madeleine turns up alive and well and the McCann's were just 'idiots' then I'll apologies to them personally... But it's not up to me what happens!! ;-)

    (still writing up my theories)


Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.