Monday, September 19, 2005


This series is about open and honest dialogue, not about out-shouting one another or playing hit-and-run trolling. I live in the service of truth, not agenda or dogma. If you can enlighten me, great; if I am wrong now but you guide me towards being correct, I thank you.

However, certain rules apply, most of them laid out long ago by Aristotle - logic. Arguments based on intuition - my gut - just don't cut it. Our system of justice ostensibly relies on the rules of logic (in a perfect world, I concur) but more importantly, empiricism is founded on this entire system. Logic provides proofs for mathematics, geometry - what more could you ask? Obviously, you won't be seeing any arguments here about "Intelligent Design".

Left or Right, I will delete comments that do nothing to further the discourse and reduce the discourse to name-calling or indulge in the following fallacies:


Appeals to Motives in Place of Support

Changing the Subject

Inductive Fallacies

Fallacies Involving Statistical Syllogisms

Causal Fallacies

Missing the Point

Fallacies of Ambiguity

Category Errors

Non Sequitur

Syllogistic Errors

Fallacies of Explanation

Fallacies of Definition

Finally, and I don't know why this should be stated but I'll put it out there anyway, just to codify this entire thing: your arguments must be consistent, meaning, if they are going to to be used to validate a proposition, that argument must validate all propositions following the original proposition. If you're going to argue from complexity, you need to either devise a new argument or a new proposition.

Too tough? Tough shit, them's the rules and if you think that's too much to ask then don't play. The point is that we cut out all the bullshit ("liberal media" and every other canard) and do with this rationalism. If you're not intellectually prepared for that, stay away.


<< Home