Archive for the ‘Logic’ Category

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