The difference between juvenile logic and mature logic is that the juveniles base their logic primarily on the dictation of their instinct as bequeathed to them by evolution. In contrast, the adults base their logic more on the dictation imposed on them by their experience in life. This results in a more flawless logic, the higher the level of experience that’s behind it.
What can happen, however, is that some individuals grow
up and age under conditions that prevent them from gaining an experience weighty
enough to overrule the evolutionary instinct they would have inherited for
being a member of the higher primates. These adults not only embarrass
themselves and their clan with their juvenile logic, their influence in society
often leads to serious consequences.
You can see an example of that in the Washington
Examiner’s editorial that came under the title: “To yield to Putin’s nuclear
threats would be to yield the free world’s future,” published on May 1, 2022.
The editors wrote that piece to tell America’s decision
makers they must ignore the statements issued by the various Russian players to
the effect that if the West will push Russia so far into the corner as to
threaten its existence, Russia will have no alternative but to detonate the “doomsday
machine,” known as the formidable Russian nuclear arsenal, and take the world
down with it.
Whereas it is obvious that the postures of both the
Russians and the Americans attest to a lack of maturity on both sides, the way
that the editors of the Washington Examiner explain those postures and then respond
to them, is what should frighten humanity the most. The following is a condensed
version of the editor’s preamble which introduces the readers to the subject:
“Russia is upping
its World War III rhetoric. Putin has threatened any nation that directly
intervenes in Ukraine with retaliation via nuclear weapons. At the same time,
foreign minister Lavrov says the risks of a nuclear war are now very
significant. Prominent commentators suggested that a nuclear war with the West
wouldn't be problematic because Russians would go to heaven, whereas Westerners
would perish. The fact that this was allowed on state media is highly
significant because there is nothing more serious than nuclear war. Yet this is
not the time to bow before Russian threats. Biden must respond to Russian
aggression forcefully. As Americans look with concern at Russia's escalation,
they must also be reminded that this showdown is not simply about what form
Ukraine survives. This conflict is about the future of the entire free world”.
With this preamble, the editors of the Washington
Examiner have reduced the planet’s continued existence or its destruction to a
simple choice: Either Ukraine will join the Western alliance, and the billions
of humans on it will survive, or Ukraine will be absorbed into the Eastern
alliance, and the billions of humans on it will risk annihilation.
The editors made their choice, and have argued for it
vehemently. If you get the impression that the use of the word “vehement” means
the editors came up with strong arguments and presented them forcefully, you’d
be wrong. It’s because the editors (1) brushed aside what they called the
immediate moral and political merits of the situation. (2) They invoked what
they call “sacred principles” to suit the moment without thinking of the
consequences that come with such invocation.
First, the editors brushed aside the moral obligations
which are due to Ukraine because what’s more important than Ukraine, say the
editors, is none other than America herself, and what she will tolerate in the
21st century. On second thought, say the editors, add to that the desire of the
free world (whatever that is) which allegedly marches in lockstep with America.
Second, the editors blew their case out of the water when
they used the most subtle of methods to define what they mean by sacred
principles. Here is their definition: “A
sacred principle of the post-1945 international order is that a sovereign
democracy cannot be extinguished simply because a more powerful nation desires
it”.
What is tailor-made for the occasion in this instance, is
the use of the two words “sovereign” and “democracy.” The reason why they were
stuck here, is to exclude Palestine and include Israel. The subtle argument of
the editors, is to the effect that because the Jews stole Palestine while still
a British Mandate and not a sovereign nation, annihilating the Palestinian
identity is acceptable to America even if it contradicts the United Nations’
definition of genocide.
By the same token, while America pursues a nuclear deal
with Iran, it accepts Israel’s lie about having a nuclear arsenal it keeps on
the table to use against Iran when it will so desire. America accepts this
double-standard because Israel also lies about being a full democracy, whereas
Iran quietly practices the parts of democracy that suit its condition.
Apparently, to America a deliberate full lie uttered by a Jew, is more valuable
than a chance partial truth spoken by an Iranian.
The editors of the Washington Examiner go on to discuss the
rapprochement that has taken place between Russia and China. That’s a subject
that will be discussed another time.