Recently when arguing with lefties I’ve found it useful to write something like, for example, “Look, modus tollens. If P then Q. Not Q Therefore not P” and then substitute P and Q for the statements. I find this immediately cuts through the semantic horse shit that they try and cloud the issue with. Generally I find that this produces shock as the idiot realises that four years studying at the Faculty of Victim Studies at the University of Boohoohoo where they received their BA (Hons) in Liberal Outrage at a cost of $100,000 hasn’t actually taught them how to think critically or argue.

There are so many people out there who love their prima facie arguments like, for example, women get paid less than men ergo women are discriminated against and then go to pieces when you lay out step by step the logic of their position and it becomes obvious that actually their entire position is totally illogical. Usually this is stuff they’ve picked up in university and they can throw what they’ve been taught is “theory” at you to back it all up. It’s invariably horse shit and if you understand the origins of it you can attack this “theory” right at its foundation and so perfunctorily dismiss it.

If someone comes at you with Lacan, for instance, you point out that Lacan is a psychoanalyst but that psychoanalysis is pseudoscience with no empirical support and so nothing that Lacan says has to be taken seriously. Then you can get onto the real meat of the argument, you know, the proposition is this, if it is true then this, this isn’t true ergo the proposition is refuted. Invariably they then want to try and get around the logic with more theory and you dismiss it again.  

Of course the real upside of all this is for me because I get to really work on making my arguments logically watertight and so it helps my own learning and progression. I have to be on the ball with my logic or I get owned so it keeps me razor sharp.

Love it. I’m rampaging around the internet with Ockham’s razor in one hand and Hitchen’s razor in the other hacking away at anything I see fit.



One thought on “Logic

  1. Never attribute to malice what is more easily understood as ignorance. Yeah, not an exact quote but it still works. When you mention that these folk spout lines they’ve been taught I think you’re getting off into the rough of malice, something with intent. I think it’s more the other way, they spout off stuff they’ve been too stupid to forget.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s