[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 ;)

[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.

[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.