Archive for the ‘Logic’ Category

I think that

19 Oct

is basically correct.

I mean, what are Trump’s “crimes?” Surely there is some logic, here. OK, there is a decade-old tape of him saying a crude thing. Now I want to go on record that I am against crudity. On the other hand, I spent 7 years working with Marines and let’s just say that I have heard crudity before. In fact, what was shown was pretty dang mild. I don’t condone it, though it was hardly faint-inducing.

But for the sake of argument let’s acknowledge that he was crude. This wasn’t profanity, but it was quite crude. Is that why you are “Never-Trump?” Really? Gee, and LBJ and Nixon and Clinton and Obama were never crude? Did you ever protest them because of it? Oh pluh-leez! Don’t be a naive rube. I mean, honestly! I guess this lack of consistency tells it all–this isn’t really about Trump’s boorish behavior. That’s just a cover. I can see through that a mile away. Don’t try to rook me, bro.

Is it because he is not a suave east-coast liberal? Well, I sure hope he isn’t. Is it because he hasn’t made a profession of government? Yeah, I’m OK with that. Is it because he has not come up the ranks of professional politicians? Doesn’t bug me at all.

Just what is it? Surely you have a reason and this isn’t just your irrational prejudice and NY Times contamination! Is it that you don’t agree with his policies? Is is that you don’t like who he has put on the judiciary? Just what is it?

See, I think all the “never-Trump” nonsense is all about taste, and not at all about actual policy. Here’s what I would say to the Bill Kristols of the world: “Grow up! You were wrong, now be a man about it and ‘fess up. And quit your infernal whining! People respect you when you admit you were wrong.”

I used to listen to Bill Kristol regularly on a podcast. But I don’t at all anymore. If he was so wrong on this and yet can’t admit it, is he at all reliable in other things? How can I trust his judgment now?


Posted in Logic


The NRA’s succes

09 Oct

is due to their philosophical stance, not it’s money. No, not their money by a long shot.

What the anti-NRA gun-grabber nuts fail to understand is the the NRA’s power comes from its underlying philosophy. People of intellect and good sense are well aware that the NRA is pretty much correct. There might be some minor sub-issues over which we can quibble, but in broad strokes the NRA is right, and anyone with a lick of sense or logic knows it.

THAT is why the public and most elected officials support NRA positions. THAT is why concealed carry has made such headway across the nation (and indeed in several states you don’t need a permit at all to carry concealed). THAT is why we are likely to get national reciprocity soon.

See, the NRAs position on concealed carry make sense, while the position of the gun-grabbers sounds like the babbling of a stoned baboon. It is indeed noisy, but it makes no sense at all. Any fool knows that the day of the gun-grabber is rapidly coming to a close. Whether it be though reasonable and logical local gun laws and national reciprocity, easy 3-D printing that makes gun laws pretty irrelevant (additive metal printing is just starting to come into its own and already I can easily get a small countertop mill for not much money), or through sustained Civil Disobedience I don’t know. I really hope reason prevails and it is mainly the first one.

Comments Off on The NRA’s succes

Posted in Civil Disobedience, Guns, Logic


I think the

05 Oct

title of the article is extraordinarily important. It throws some rather goofy reasoning into stark relief.

But it’s not logically consistent to say that if, say, someone of Arab/muslim extraction does something deplorable is is NOT because of his Arab-ness or muslim-ness but if a typical white American male does something very bad, it IS because of his white male American-ness or his Christian-ness. Huh?

Comments Off on I think the

Posted in Logic


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