Tag: logical fallacies

bookmark_borderHegseth is right to restore the Reconciliation Memorial… but not for the reason stated in this article

Posted on by Marissa

I recently saw a great opinion piece in the Hill by Donald Smith, arguing in favor of the decision to restore the Confederate monument at Arlington National Cemetery. Smith presents evidence that the “Naming Commission” that committed this despicable action did not actually have the backing of the American people. Although this may very well be true, in my opinion, this isn’t really relevant to the fact that removing the monument was wrong. So while I appreciate this opinion piece and Smith’s courage in speaking out in favor of the monument, my reasoning for opposing the monument’s removal is a bit different.

“By ordering the monument back, Hegseth is subverting Congress and the will of the American people,” said Ty Seidule, the intolerant bigot who served as the vice-chair of the “Naming Commission.” This may be true, and it also may be false, as Smith argues in his opinion piece. But the truth is that ordering the monument back is the right thing to do, regardless of the desires of Congress or the American people. This is because removing statues and monuments is objectively wrong, regardless of how many people support it. If undoing a horrifying, repugnant, and disgraceful atrocity constitutes subverting Congress and the will of the American people, then Congress and the American people deserve to have their will subverted.

In 2024, members of the “Naming Commission” stated that by passing the 2021 NDAA, which contained the provision to create the commission, “bipartisan supermajorities of 81 senators and 322 representatives declared it was time to try to end Confederate commemorations.” Smith argues that this wasn’t really the case, because the creation of the commission was merely one small part of the NDAA, which is a huge bill, and voting in favor of the bill itself doesn’t necessarily mean that one supports that particular part. This argument may be right, but more importantly, ending Confederate commemorations is objectively immoral. Ending Confederate commemorations inflicts horrific and unbearable pain on innocent people, destroys everything that makes life worth living, and sends the message that people who are different from the norm should not be allowed to exist. Merely reading the words “try to end Confederate commemorations” make me feel physically sick. The thought that anyone would even remotely support this is absolutely disgusting. Therefore, ending Confederate commemorations is morally wrong, regardless of how senators and representatives feel about it.

And in the commission’s final report, they state, “in passing the 2021 William M. ‘Mac” Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act, the United States Congress determined that Confederates and the Confederacy no longer warrant commemoration through Department of Defense assets.” Except that Confederates and the Confederacy do warrant commemoration. Because people who are different from the norm deserve to feel included, represented, and reflected in public art. We deserve to have lives that are worth living. We deserve to feel that we are allowed to exist. And without commemoration of Confederates and the Confederacy, none of these things are the case. Therefore, Confederates and the Confederacy do warrant commemoration. This is objectively true, regardless of what the U.S. Congress, or anyone for that matter, believes. Even if the U.S. Congress did actually determine that Confederates and the Confederacy no longer warrant commemoration, the only thing this signifies is that the U.S. Congress is wrong.

Seidule alleges that the Arlington monument “clearly commemorates the Confederacy and its purpose – chattel slavery.” First of all, I don’t get why it has become so popular over the last few years to call slavery, “chattel slavery.” Why not just call it slavery? Second, slavey was not the purpose of the Confederacy. Seceding from the U.S. and forming an independent country was. That’s why the Confederacy symbolizes rebellion, defiance, fighting back against authority, and being different. Third, yes, the monument clearly commemorates the Confederacy. And this is bad, how? That’s right. It isn’t. 

Removing Confederate monuments is objectively morally wrong, because it inflicts severe pain on innocent people, destroys everything that makes life worth living, and is a statement that people who are different from the norm should be obliterated from existence. The actions of the “Naming Commission” would be immoral even if they had the popular mandate that they claim to have. Removing Confederate monuments would be the wrong thing to do, and putting monuments back up would be the right thing to do, even if every single person in the U.S. and every single member of Congress felt otherwise. What is wrong is wrong, and what is right is right, regardless of the wishes, thoughts, feelings of the American people and their representatives.

bookmark_borderEverytown’s logical fallacies on Stand Your Ground laws

Posted on by Marissa

In a recent social media post, the Firearms Policy Coalition called attention to anti-rights organization Everytown for Gun Safety’s “research” regarding Stand Your Ground laws.

(Everytown refers to these laws as “shoot first laws,” which many commenters on the post correctly point out is a manipulation of language designed to make said laws seem reckless and unreasonable, when in reality they are not.)

“Shoot first laws are unpopular,” Everytown proclaims in large font at the very top of their page, blatantly committing what is possibly the most basic logical fallacy, equating popularity with goodness. Contrary to what Everytown presumes, how popular or unpopular something is, has nothing to do with whether it is good or bad. Okay, Stand Your Ground laws are unpopular. So what? What does that have to do with whether they are good or bad? Nothing.

“Legal experts and advocates also oppose Shoot First laws,” Everytown continues. A similar point applies here: the fact that legal experts and advocates oppose these laws, has nothing to do with whether the laws are good or bad. There’s no rule stating that whatever experts and advocates think is automatically true. Experts and advocates are simply people, just like anyone else. They could be right in their beliefs, or they could be wrong. 

“In 2012, the NAACP called for a repeal of these laws due to their effects of increasing crime and promoting racist violence.” The same point applies here: the fact that an organization called for a repeal of these laws, has nothing to do with whether or not the laws should actually be repealed. There’s no rule stating that organizations’ policy positions are automatically correct. Organizations can be right in their policy positions, or they can be wrong. An additional point also applies here: just as the popularity of a law is irrelevant to its goodness or badness, the effects of a law are irrelevant as well. The fact that a law would increase crime and/or “racist violence” has nothing to do with whether the law is good or bad. Goodness and badness are determined by the intrinsic morality of a law or policy, not the effects. Additionally, I do not see how it would be possible for Stand Your Ground laws to promote “racist violence,” because Stand Your Grounds laws do not have anything to do with race.

And furthermore, there is a very important point to make about the NAACP itself. Over the past five years, through the positions that it has taken and statements that it has issued regarding the statue genocide, the NAACP has established itself as an organization dedicated to inflicting horrific, unbearable pain on innocent people, destroying everything that makes life worth living, and obliterating from the face of the earth every person who is different from the norm. Due to the bigotry, cruelty, aggressive intolerance, and complete moral bankruptcy demonstrated by the NAACP, I would argue that there is a very strong negative correlation between whether the NAACP has expressed support for a policy position, and that policy position’s likelihood of being right. In other words, the fact that the NAACP called for a repeal of Stand Your Ground laws is strong evidence that these are good laws that should not be repealed.

“And in 2015, the American Bar Association also released a report recommending the repeal of Shoot First laws.” A similar point to the ones that I’ve made above, applies here: the fact that the ABA recommends repealing Stand Your Ground laws, has nothing to do with whether they actually should be repealed. There’s no rule stating that the ABA’s position on an issue is automatically correct. The ABA might be right on an issue, and also it might be wrong.

“According to an expert quoted in the report, ‘If our aim is to increase criminal justice system costs, increase medical costs, increase racial tension, maintain our high adolescent death rate and put police officers at greater risk, then this is good legislation.'” I don’t see how a criminal justice system would cost money, and so I don’t see how Stand Your Ground laws could increase “criminal justice system costs,” whatever the heck that means. I also don’t see how increasing medical costs is a bad thing, because in every transaction, the buyer of a product or service pays money and the seller of the product or service receives the exact same amount of money, so every transaction is a net neutral. Furthermore, I don’t see how Stand Your Ground laws could increase racial tension, because they have nothing to do with race. Most importantly, as I’ve stated above, all of this is completely irrelevant to the question of whether Stand Your Ground laws are good or bad. The effects of a law have nothing to do with whether the law is good or bad, because goodness and badness are determined by the intrinsic morality of a law, not its effects. By listing all of these irrelevant factors as if they are somehow significant, the ABA and their alleged expert demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of what constitutes good and bad legislation.

So, yeah. Stand Your Ground laws are correct, because people have the right to use deadly force against people who trespass on their property. Trespassing on other people’s property is wrong, and therefore people forfeit their rights if they do it. It’s morally abhorrent to focus one’s criticism on the victims of wrong actions – as Everytown, the NAACP, and the ABA do – rather than the perpetrators.

bookmark_border“They should have done it during the day so we could see your tears”

Posted on by Marissa

Why, exactly, is it considered a good thing to take actions that inflict pain on other people?

Why is this considered something positive?

Why, when a person takes actions that harm another person, do you believe that this reflects badly on the person being harmed, rather than the person doing the harming?

Please explain, John Maxwell.

Because as far as I can tell, this is the exact opposite of how morality works.

Last time I checked, taking an action that causes another person to cry – in other words to suffer, to be harmed, to be in pain – is something bad, not something good. And therefore I’m confused as to why someone would advocate in favor of that.

Please explain, John, how you came to hold moral beliefs that are the exact opposite of how morality actually works.

“And like the ones we still have to hear about over a decade after Obama was your president twice as long as the confederate states lasted.”

Same questions. Why is it considered good to inflict pain on other people? Why is this considered positive? Please explain this, Ronald Wendel.

Additionally, what does the length of time something lasted have to do with whether it was good or bad? What exactly is the logical connection there? Please explain.

Yes, Obama was president for eight years. The Confederate States of America lasted for four years.

What does this have to do with whether Obama’s presidency was good or bad?

What does this have to do with whether the Confederacy was good or bad?

What does this have to with whether or not the Confederates were justified in seceding from the United States and forming their own country?

That’s right. It doesn’t.

Maybe next time. refrain from making statements that have absolutely no basis in logic and make absolutely no sense. Just a thought.

bookmark_border“Don’t give up? That’s what you did at Appomattox.”

Posted on by Marissa

Um, yes.

The Confederates gave up at Appomattox.

So?

The Confederates gave up at Appomattox after four years of being outnumbered, outgunned, and out-supplied. After four years of fighting an enemy that had a larger population, more money, and a more industrialized economy than they did.

Yes, the Confederates gave up at Appomattox.

What is the moral significance of that fact?

What does that have to do with whether the Confederacy was good or bad?

How, exactly, does that reflect badly on the Confederates, as this commenter seems to be implying it does?

The correct answers to these three questions:

There is none.

Nothing.

It doesn’t.