Logic and the internet.

Just the other day I came down hard on someone for their version of logic and their stance on a particular topic using their version of logic. To begin with, they suggested that because they have an opinion, and that they gave reasons for the opinion, that questioning either the logic or the opinion was illogical. I saw the trap and pretty much ignored it. The trap of claiming logic based on opinion and daring any to question it is like a 125 pound boxer entering the lions den and daring the lions to even come close. The results are messy. And, I can be a lion, tease me and find out. If I generally do not bother to debate the issue after has to do with an absolute lack of interest. And, I do not care about the battery either. You may find it near shredded pieces of the shoulder upon which it sat, or in my scat.

I see this so often. I usually do not take the bait, at other times it seems as if I have no choice but to take the bait though.

The topic regarded the 'fact' that, because the writer thought laws based upon morality were wrong, and wanted them overturned. He would not further the cause of immorality or amorality should his wish through voting and advocacy come to pass. The legalizing of currently controlled substances, prostitution, and some other vices, it seems, was seen as no reflection on his person whatsoever. And that, since he believed in these things being legal does not suggest that he believed in these things personally. That is what many of our politicians say about abortion, that they would never have such a thing but that they would not impose their personal beliefs upon the general public. It works with one as it works with the other. For most of us who are against abortion, drug use, gambling, prostitution, and such that works not at all. I would go so far as to suggest even pro-abortionists see this as a public lie, if they do not care because it comes down on their side.

Circling the wagons and redefining logic does not make that supposed truth right or true. If you are pro-libertine in the guise of libertarian, expect no one to believe the smoke and mirrors or the logic. It simply fails. This seems to be how the left tries to define the debate so that no one can debate their stances. Put up artificial fences and define the area of debate around your presuppositions, regardless of how honestly placed the area is upon true logic and reality, then dare anyone to argue (and screech like a banshee if anyone disagrees or goes over into the land of reality based on the debate material). That is why elites are so often so very wrong.

It is not worth debating with people who define logic as their opinion. It is sad to live in a nation which seems to have decided that logic is not necessary for opinion or that they can define logic poorly without being questioned. It is odd to see how many think the legalization of drugs is a logic or a right, rather than merely an opinion (held by few). Whatever. He did accuse me of failing at reading comprehension (and being an idiot I think), so I had thought to go back and re-read, but I don't think I will gain anything from that and haven't been up to it any way. Oh, and the other thing is, he suggested that true conservatives were on his side. What? Talk about redefining. And, again, no.