[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?

[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.

[Lancey Howard]

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

Is this the part that has you confused and befuddled?

"The contradiction is really on the other side. How can you oppose the death penalty, but be in favor of abortion? How can you be against executing Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, who murdered 168 innocent men, women, and little children, but be for executing, without trial, a baby who isn't even born yet and who hasn't hurt anybody?"

[BibChr]

Unfortunately this article is no better than what it criticizes.

Yep, I'm with the others. Is there anything behind this, or is it just a lazy, easy, cheap shot so you can feel you don't have to think about the article?

Deliver, retract, or be discounted.

Dan