In case anyone is interested in crimes against logic, feel free to poke around the continuing controversy surrounding my post on Silicon Valley Republicans and entrepreneurship. People continue to write in, trying to refute arguments that I never made with a startling lack of logic.
Here's a great example:
Chris, you are being intellectually dishonest. First you write a column that uses pretzel-style logic. You go from:
1. Outsiders make the best entrepreneurs.
2. In Silicon Valley, Republicans are outsiders.
3. Therefore, Republicans are the best entrepeneurs in Silicon Valley.
Even though you wrote this column at a time when the country is deeply divided over the Iraq War and many other emotional issues, you imply that you expected readers to read it dispassionately. I don’t believe for a second that your intention from the start was to do anything other than needle liberals.
After readers called you on your faulty logic, you claimed that you were not making a political argument.
The funniest part of all this is that you’re trying to make yourself out as the victim of overzealous liberals. Shame on you.
Yeah, Chris, you’re so misunderstood. Your own words from your personal blog at:
“Now of course, the very act of writing a post on Republicans was a calculated attempt on my part to stir up controversy, so I’m actually pretty happy with the results. But it certainly doesn’t bode well for bipartisanship in this neck of the woods. Any closeted Republicans want to speak up?”
I’m glad you feel like you “got me” by exposing a public post from my very own blog (which appears in the “About the Author” section) that links to this one. But don’t be surprised if few think that this qualifies as much of a gotcha.
Hell, if you want to claim that I’m a Republican, you can point to this post in which I freely admit to having voted for Republican politicians (which, incidentally, must be true for most people in California, since Arnold Schwarzenegger easily won re-election):
The bottom line is, everyone who writes in to attack my logic and arguments has to misinterpret my post and claim that I’m arguing something that I’m not.
Joe, you call my classic syllogism “pretzel-style” logic. To paraphrase “The Princess Bride”: “Socrates, Aristotle, Descartes? Morons!” All right then, what is the right argument?
Assuming that one agrees that outsiders make better entrepreneurs, and that in Silicon Valley, Republicans are outsiders, show me what kind of logic allows one to conclude: “But Republicans won’t make better entrepreneurs because they are not the *right kind* of outsiders.”
This kind of insane troll logic should be exposed for what it is, whether its the idiocy of intelligent design, or raising minimum wages. To pick and choose when to apply logic depending on one’s political beliefs is nothing more than hypocrisy, a crime of which both Republicans and Democrats are plenty guilty.
Am I being unfair? Or simply asking for impartial logic and reasoned argument?