Logical inversions: Many prominent arguments today just don't make sense

WORLD Magazine ^ | 5/11/02 | Gene Edward Veith

[mlo]

An article illustrating common illogic and arguing for mental clarity is a fine thing. Unfortunately this article is no better than what it criticizes.

[Caleb1411]

An article illustrating common illogic and arguing for mental clarity is a fine thing. Unfortunately this article is no better than what it criticizes.

Maybe I'd/we'd believe your contention if it were supported. Why is this article no better than what it criticizes?

[Caleb1411]

BUMP

[Texasforever]

I see calls to "logic" on this site all the time. In most cases what they mean is root cause analysis. Simply put, ask why until there are no further whys. The problem with that approach is when the answer to “why” meets the agenda of the person doing it, the questions stop. Logic applied to public policy that is always agenda driven is an exercise in futility.

[general_re]

This is true. And, of course, anyone who's ever had a four year old around the house can attest to the fact that, in any given situation, there is no practical or theoretical limit to the number of "whys" that can be asked. You can always go back one more step, up until the point where you smack the kid ;)

[Avoiding_Sulla]

But clear, logical thinking requires the ability to make distinctions. It is wrong to kill an innocent person. It may not be wrong for the state to kill someone who is guilty. A baby in the womb is not the moral equivalent of a convicted serial killer or an al-Queda terrorist.

This seeming inconsistency vanishes once you add to the equation the ever-present death culture our current cultural mavens are foisting upon us.
Can't understand why the EU and the most leftist jerks in our country back the Islamist death worshippers? Same reason.

The paradigm has shifted. Why? Because the central thinkers and planning geniuses of our last few generations believe more in the bleak mathematics of Thomas Mathus than they do in our God-given ability to figure our way out of what they believe is the inevitable "population bomb."

So, no longer is innocent life to be cherished and protected.
Abortion is encouraged, because it promotes the reduction of the number of humans.
Common murder is no longer discouraged for the same reason, but also for the added bonus of terrorizing the weakest in society and justifying Draconian excesses as "the needs" arise.
Gee, I wonder why its becoming possitively dangerous to defend yourself? Defending yourself runs contrary to the new paradigm -- you're no longer innocent! You're guilty simply for existing. You're adding to the planet's human excess.

No. Once you start thinking like the enviro-wackos who get all the funding and the press, and help lay the groundwork for this megalomaniacal blood-lust, it all makes sense. Very grim, anti-JudeoChristian God, sense.

In short, don't ever forget what I've shortly laid out here, and a great deal that will happen in the next few years will no longer appear so contradictory.

[Texasforever]

You can always go back one more step, up until the point where you smack the kid ;)

BINGO. The root cause is that damned kid!

[general_re]

And when it's done by children, it's cute in its naivete, based as it is on the assumption that Dad has the answers to everything. When it's done by adults, "root-cause analysis" is mostly just an excuse for a little Monday-morning quarterbacking, especially in the wake of 9/11. The smacking part still works, though ;)

"Why do they all hate us so much?"
SMACK! "I don't care, but I can tell you why they won't be breathing much longer..."

[Caleb1411]

I see calls to "logic" on this site all the time. In most cases what they mean is root cause analysis. Simply put, ask why until there are no further whys. The problem with that approach is when the answer to “why” meets the agenda of the person doing it, the questions stop. Logic applied to public policy that is always agenda driven is an exercise in futility.

Veith isn't into navel-gazing root-cause analysis here; he's inveighing against contradictory (illogical) positions espoused by those who lack the fortitude or the moral candor to defend their whimsical reasoning.

[Texasforever]

SMACK! "I don't care, but I can tell you why they won't be breathing much longer..."

LOL. Going back to the Kid, I am going to stop with the smack because the next why is "why is he around to ask why?" That starts getting real dicey at that point.

[general_re]

LMAO - fortunately for me, my parents managed to restrain themselves to the "just because, that's why - now, shut up" answer. Which was not very satisfying, but from their point of view, it worked as planned ;)

[woollyone]

Yes mlo, we await your reply to this very appropriate question (see post #3).

[Texasforever]

Veith isn't into navel-gazing root-cause analysis here; he's inveighing against contradictory (illogical) positions espoused by those who lack the fortitude or the moral candor to defend their whimsical reasoning.

I was not critiquing the article I just believe that "logic" applied" to public policy does not work. It is "logical" for some to see the court ruling as a threat to the 1st amendment but it is just as "logical" to see the decision as a validation of Child pornography. There are examples each side can use to validate their "logic" the court used movies,"lol". The fact is, law for example, is not a logical construct. A law implies force and it can be dangerous in the wrong hands. While that is true is it "logical" to not pass a law on those grounds? No because that is like saying a hammer is good when used by a carpenter but bad when used by an angry husband so therefore hammers cannot be manufactured.

[trevorjohnson]

MLO sounds like a Postmodern relativist? There is objective truth, even if we support a certain ideology passionately. If the ideology is aligned to objective truth, then we can be both subjective in our passions, but totally objective in our discourse on a subject. Just just we are not toally objective, doesn't mean the truth isn't. And we can come to this truth.

[Texasforever]

MLO sounds like a Postmodern relativist? There is objective truth, even if we support a certain ideology passionately. If the ideology is aligned to objective truth, then we can be both subjective in our passions, but totally objective in our discourse on a subject. Just just we are not toally objective, doesn't mean the truth isn't. And we can come to this truth.

Sadly, you have described an intellectual integrity that 99% of the Human Race do not posses.

[supercat]

What would the Supreme Court say if Congress were to pass a statute which stated that anything which looks like real child porn maybe legally presumed to be such, absent evidence that it wasn't? Given that I'm unaware of any challenge to the proof-of-age record-keeping required by makers of 'ordinary' porn, I would think such a statute could probably pass constitutional muster while nonetheless avoiding the law-enforcement problems about which Ashcroft is concerned.

[pariah]

I just believe that "logic" applied" to public policy does not work.

I agree. One can argue all day long with a dedicated proponent of an opposing view and get nowhere, because the logic one uses, and the facts one chooses to cite to support one's position are pre-selected to arrive at the preferred conclusion. Whereas, in the larger picture, the conclusions are actually arrived at well in advance of any proferred logical argument or adduced facts -- based on the world view one subscribes to. And that world view is the result of many extra-logical factors, such as worldly experience, intuition, peer opinions, religous/mystical experiences, upbringing and inherited psychological temperament. Besides, which is easier, to convince a life-long liberal to change his opinions 180 degrees, or to convince an apathetic conservative to get out and vote?

I am through arguing with the ideological captives of cultural marxism, although sometimes I will post a sarcastic reply to an exceptionally stupid comment, just to burn a liberal's a**, or for the benefit of uninformed lurkers who may take a liberal comment at face value if left unchallenged.

[Texasforever]

Besides, which is easier, to convince a life-long liberal to change his opinions 180 degrees, or to convince an apathetic conservative to get out and vote?

LOL. Intuitively I would go with getting the conservative to vote but man that is a close call.

[Caleb1411]

I was not critiquing the article I just believe that "logic" applied" to public policy does not work. It is "logical" for some to see the court ruling as a threat to the 1st amendment but it is just as "logical" to see the decision as a validation of Child pornography.

I think some would decry the ruling not so much as a threat to the First Amendment, but as an unwarranted, unethical, legislation-by-the-judiciary extension of it. That notwithstanding, Veith's larger point seems in this instance to be, how can First Amendment champions grant free-speech freedom to pornographers (simulators or no) while denying the the identical freedom to citizen groups who want their voices to be heard in the electoral process?

The fact is, law for example, is not a logical construct. A law implies force and it can be dangerous in the wrong hands. While that is true is it "logical" to not pass a law on those grounds? No because that is like saying a hammer is good when used by a carpenter but bad when used by an angry husband so therefore hammers cannot be manufactured.

Hmmm, sounds suspiciously like the Second Amendment-abridging arguments of the likes of Chuck Schumer.

Maybe logic will have to yield to ethics or "natural law". . . and then we'll really see some superheated rhetoric.

I'll pick this thread up tomorrow; I need a little sleep before my 5 a.m. wake-up call.