Beautifully Unique Sparkleponies: On Myths, Morons, Free Speech, Football, and Assorted Absurdities by Chris Kluwe Page B
Authors: Chris Kluwe
Ads: Link
if you haven’t figured it out [sorry to the people who figured it out like five minutes ago, but I wanted to make sure he got it]), and I’m not really okay with that either.
Deep breath.
Your third logic fallacy—and, oh boy, does this one crop up a lot—is that of
cum hoc, ergo propter hoc.
Now, I’m guessing your Latin may be a little rusty (although it may not be, in which case, well done!), so if you need help, I’d like to ask the entireclass to say it along with me: CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION.
You can’t make the statement “Bless the single parents who try, but there is a direct correlation between single homes and crimes of all types” and not expect every moderately intelligent person to jump all over it. Single-parent homes don’t
cause
crime. That’s like saying, “I rode my bicycle to work today, and it rained, therefore my bicycle causes rain.” There are a multitude of factors related to crime, including income, residence location, public resources available, education, education available, age demographics, police presence, temperature patterns, et cetera, ad nauseam, ad infinitum (which means I could go on for a while [also, way to take a giant steaming literary dump on every single parent, infertile couple, and those people who choose not to have kids; you’re making all sorts of friends today]). To single out single parents is, to put it bluntly, absolutely absurd.
And then, to make it even better, you manage to link an unsafe environment for children (somehow caused by single parents?) to same-sex marriage by claiming same-sex marriage “reinforces changes to the marital definition.” Hoo-boy. Tell me: Were you worried about the children when all those colored folks started marrying the white people? Because that sure was a change to the “marital definition,” and, funnily enough, there were a bunch of people using this same argument back then. Or how about when women started working? Are the kids unsafe now because Mom wanted to actually do something with her life instead of putting on a plastic smile andtending to the kitchen all day? (No offense to any stay-at-home moms or dads who choose to do so; I know that’s a full-time job in itself, and you have my respect.) What happened when the “marital definition” changed to allow divorce and remarrying? Should we pass some constitutional amendments preventing those? C’mon, don’t stop with the gays; go oppress a bunch of other people too!
AND THEN, to make it even more betterer (grammars!), you return to the mind-projection fallacy by claiming, “Currently, as a society, we have wavered from this traditional motivation, and many, not all, view marriage as a venue for self-fulfillment.” It’s so nice of you, Mr. Balling, to define my and countless others’ marriages as a “venue for self-fulfillment.” Oddly, though, I don’t remember you ever hanging out with my family and me, or with our neighbors, so I don’t see how you could provide any sort of factual information to back up your claim. (And if you say that I need to provide evidence so you can disprove it, that’s called
onus probandi,
in case you were interested.) The only fact that I’ve been able to glean from your entire ill-constructed argument is that you don’t know how to construct an argument. You know, with facts and stuff. (The basis of your argument is what’s called an appeal to emotion—more specifically, it’s an appeal to fear—if you wanted that for future reference.)
Deep breath. <1 percent, don’t wipe now!>
Frankly, sir, your blatant attempt to sway people by using the “OH MAH GAWD, THINK OF THE CHILDREN” argument is tiresome, bothersome, and insulting, and anyone who hasthe slightest interest in doing so can pull aside your curtain of self-satisfied drivel and expose the ugliness underneath. Furthermore, you never made any sort of logical attempt to explain how same-sex marriage affects your marriage in any
Deep breath.
Your third logic fallacy—and, oh boy, does this one crop up a lot—is that of
cum hoc, ergo propter hoc.
Now, I’m guessing your Latin may be a little rusty (although it may not be, in which case, well done!), so if you need help, I’d like to ask the entireclass to say it along with me: CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION.
You can’t make the statement “Bless the single parents who try, but there is a direct correlation between single homes and crimes of all types” and not expect every moderately intelligent person to jump all over it. Single-parent homes don’t
cause
crime. That’s like saying, “I rode my bicycle to work today, and it rained, therefore my bicycle causes rain.” There are a multitude of factors related to crime, including income, residence location, public resources available, education, education available, age demographics, police presence, temperature patterns, et cetera, ad nauseam, ad infinitum (which means I could go on for a while [also, way to take a giant steaming literary dump on every single parent, infertile couple, and those people who choose not to have kids; you’re making all sorts of friends today]). To single out single parents is, to put it bluntly, absolutely absurd.
And then, to make it even better, you manage to link an unsafe environment for children (somehow caused by single parents?) to same-sex marriage by claiming same-sex marriage “reinforces changes to the marital definition.” Hoo-boy. Tell me: Were you worried about the children when all those colored folks started marrying the white people? Because that sure was a change to the “marital definition,” and, funnily enough, there were a bunch of people using this same argument back then. Or how about when women started working? Are the kids unsafe now because Mom wanted to actually do something with her life instead of putting on a plastic smile andtending to the kitchen all day? (No offense to any stay-at-home moms or dads who choose to do so; I know that’s a full-time job in itself, and you have my respect.) What happened when the “marital definition” changed to allow divorce and remarrying? Should we pass some constitutional amendments preventing those? C’mon, don’t stop with the gays; go oppress a bunch of other people too!
AND THEN, to make it even more betterer (grammars!), you return to the mind-projection fallacy by claiming, “Currently, as a society, we have wavered from this traditional motivation, and many, not all, view marriage as a venue for self-fulfillment.” It’s so nice of you, Mr. Balling, to define my and countless others’ marriages as a “venue for self-fulfillment.” Oddly, though, I don’t remember you ever hanging out with my family and me, or with our neighbors, so I don’t see how you could provide any sort of factual information to back up your claim. (And if you say that I need to provide evidence so you can disprove it, that’s called
onus probandi,
in case you were interested.) The only fact that I’ve been able to glean from your entire ill-constructed argument is that you don’t know how to construct an argument. You know, with facts and stuff. (The basis of your argument is what’s called an appeal to emotion—more specifically, it’s an appeal to fear—if you wanted that for future reference.)
Deep breath. <1 percent, don’t wipe now!>
Frankly, sir, your blatant attempt to sway people by using the “OH MAH GAWD, THINK OF THE CHILDREN” argument is tiresome, bothersome, and insulting, and anyone who hasthe slightest interest in doing so can pull aside your curtain of self-satisfied drivel and expose the ugliness underneath. Furthermore, you never made any sort of logical attempt to explain how same-sex marriage affects your marriage in any
Similar Books
