Hey, wait a minute, your're the one who made the crazy illogical statement. I.e. my wanting to hang Edison and all that for the crime of "using light bulbs."
Anyway, to paraphrase Glenn Beck, I'm not a philosipher, but I am a thinker and sometimes you don't need logic you just need good old common sense. And besides it wasn't me who was saying the things you appear to disagree with in the first place. I was quoting Ann Coulter.
Um, no. I'm the one who used a crazy example to illustrate your logical fallacy, or rather, your agreement with Coulter's logical fallacy. To wit:
As Darwinism gained currency, humanity did sink into greater degradation and brutalization than any since written records of human history began. A generation later, the world would witness the rise of the eugenics movement; racial hygiene societies; the first genocide in recorded history; Nazi Germany; Stalinist gulags; and the slaughter of 70 million Chinese at the hands of their exalted chairman. To be sure, other books were published on the eve of the bloody twentieth century. But Hitler and Marx were not citing Louisa May Alcott's Little Women for support. They were citing Darwin.This is a classic argument from adverse consequences. You agreed with it:After reading Darwin's The Origin of Species, Marx dashed a note to Engels, saying, "This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our views." While Marx saw the struggle as among classes, Hitler conceived of the struggle as among the races. Mein Kampf means "My Struggle," which Hitler described in unmistakably Darwinian terms.
I think she is right on in her analysis. Darwin is at the root of many of the liberal's thought processes. Ann gets into that also. It is a damming indictment.
Or are you claiming Ann wrote those last four sentences? Anyway, to paraphrase Glenn Beck, I'm not a philosipher, but I am a thinker and sometimes you don't need logic you just need good old common sense. And besides it wasn't me who was saying the things you appear to disagree with in the first place. I was quoting Ann Coulter.
"Good old common sense" is not as common as is commonly suspected, and when someone attempts to use it as a shield against logic, it's, well, nonsensical.
You agreed with Coulter, as I pointed out above. (Post 535 to this thread). You swallowed her fallacy hook, line, and sinker. You posted it, too. Posting HTML