Archive for the ‘Logic’ Category

Yeah, just WHY

14 Sep

would it be a problem? If instant background checks for buying a gun pose no problem at all, why would instant background checks for voting be a problem?

It just makes no logical sense to assert that one is a problem and one isn’t!

So, Lefties, which is it?

Comments Off on Yeah, just WHY

Posted in Logic


The truth is

07 Sep

that reading the Constitution is like reading an old recipe. You have to know what the words meant at the time. Maybe the recipe calls for “two teaspoons” of something, but the actual measure of a teaspoon was quite different then than it is now! Gee, that would be important to know…

This “original understanding” approach is the only one that makes a lick of sense. Now, one can just throw the recipe away and decide that it is no good and you don’t want that, anyway, but if you want to create the dish you MUST hearken back to the original understanding expressed in the recipe.

See, the argument is NOT about whether referring to an original understanding is the only logical way to go. It quite clearly and obviously is. Any fool can see that. No, the question is whether to accept the Constitution as it was written and amended or not. Shall we follow that blueprint or leave it entirely? There really is no middle ground, logically.

Comments Off on The truth is

Posted in Logic, Political Philosophy


It is true,

01 Apr

Universities seem to be very bad at teaching They don’t teach argument. They don’t teach logic. Many young people have no skills at all at defending themselves in terms of logical argument. It is ALL about calling names rather than stating a reasonable defense of their positions.

And THAT is a dirty shame. If you do that you start to think that the main issue is the feeling rather than the logical and reasonable grounds, you figure that YOU are the measure of all things. See, it is closely bound up with an overweening narcissism.  When you ask the classic question, “Why should I believe you over a dog-faced baboon?” the answer is “My feeling has epistemological primacy over logic.”

And if the feeling is primary, there simply is no truth, since my feelings are the measure of Truth and my feelings are likely different than yours. And one person’s feelings are no more valid or have any more Truth-value than anyone else’s. We all have feelings, and yours are no better than mine.

See, it all comes back to epistemology.

Yes, that post-modern relativistic know-nothingism is a dirty shame. Don’t be fooled, we are in a knowledge crisis. This is the end of knowledge itself. There is ONLY opinion, and one opinion is not intrinsically better than any other.

Comments Off on It is true,

Posted in Dog-faced Baboon, Epistemology, Logic


I like Yoo an

22 Aug

awful lot, but he is dead wrong on this. I’m frankly surprised that a guy who is usually so clear-headed would make such a stupid mistake in this case. He is usually awesome, but it takes little effort to dismantle his argument in this case. That is NOT typical for him. What happened?

I have NO problem with disagreement, but this argument is so easily destroyed that it leaves me quite disappointed. I just don’t get it. Yoo is smarter than this!

1 Comment

Posted in Logic


Honestly, I don’t understand

29 Jul

how Trump could be guilty of treason (I steal this from Krauthammer). Hillary has assured us that there was NOTHING in her deleted from her emails that had anything to do with national security. If you say Trump is urging the Russians to hack into national security stuff on her private server, then you are saying that Hillary DID hide national security stuff on her insecure server. If it really was just her yoga routines and details of Chelsea’s wedding, who the heck cares?

If what he did is treason, Hillary is guilty. But if she is innocent, he did nothing wrong.

Comments Off on Honestly, I don’t understand

Posted in Logic, Politics


I think that

15 Mar

in order to really convince another in a debate over facts, one has to acknowledge from the outset that your opponent is arguing in good faith.

In other words, saying that they are stupid or morally corrupt is NOT helpful, and I think it is almost never true, either. The factual point may be blindingly clear to you, but ascribing moral turpitude or low IQ to your debate partner is not the way to convince them. We need to keep in mind that that is the goal, here–convincing them. The goal is not to “win” or belittle or name-call–it is to convince, to change both hearts and minds. It is to convert.

See, I can acknowledge the good impulses and even fundamental morality of my adversary while still making my logical point. I think there is great danger in conflating those two things. Once I start assuming, even tacitly, that my opponent is NOT acting in good faith and that no one of good faith would hold to that drivel, I have lost the power to convince. I may indeed “win” the argument, but I lose the “convert.”

And “convert” is precisely the correct word. When my goal is merely to “win,” to puff myself up, only anger results. Not a winning strategy. No, the goal is not to win, but to persuade.

The prima facie case for this is religion. I can “bash” forever with someone of a different faith tradition and it will do no good at all. The issue is NOT that I am seeking to show that I am right. I am seeking a convert, and that is a totally different thing.

And that perfectly describes what we are seeing with Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. They are woefully ignorant in terms of factual knowledge. But they have “converted” people to their cause. And the two major parties have ignored the role of conversion, to their detriment (and perhaps to their utter destruction). The mistake the “establishment” of both parties have made is thinking that this is at all about facts. It isn’t. It is about conversion.

1 Comment

Posted in Logic