La Coultera
I haven't posted anything here in awhile; summer, new smoker, learning about Twitter, reading, avoiding grading, watching Pujols, catching up with a long-lost friend: many distractions.
But I popped over to Ann Coulter's page the other day. I don't have TV any more, and I miss her insights.
I have a sneaking suspicion that there are some really good lawyers (my long-lost friend is probably one of them). I also think there are some that are evil, liars, stupid, drunk, asleep, and/or some combination of those qualities. At the same time, looking at the recent display of logic on the part of La Coultera, I think I'm starting to understand why she went into writing columns:
1) It avoids the long hours and hard work involved in doing the law correctly: you know, reasons, and evidence, and inferences, and arguments. Icky.
2) It avoids the long hours and hard work involved in doing journalism correctly: you know, reasons, and evidence, and inferences, and arguments. Also icky.
So you scream and rant and rave, say the most ludicrous things, dare people to put you on TV (aren't there videos you can already get, "Brains Gone Wild," or something?); complain if they don't, and complain if they do. It's a fabulous approach for a rich spoiled kid desiring to remain rich and spoiled. Wish I'd thought of it.
But let's examine a single claim of La Coultera's June 24 column, and see what, if any implications one can draw from it (using traditional logic, say that of Aristotle, or Frege; not her own, for, as we shall see, one of her axioms is "If P, then any fucking thing I want follows.")
The money quote:
Let's ignore the fact that La Coultera probably doesn't know much about Neda—famously supported by liberal bloggers all over the planet—and that much of the ricocheting that La Coultera mentions was the fault of liberals who hate America—and was, of all things, a philosophy student.
Let's just focus on the logic here.
X happens. Y does Z after X occurs. Therefore Z is a response, by Y, to X.
(There's a first-order predicate version of this, but I'll spare you.)
Feel free to fill in the variables. Let's try a few.
Need I add "masterful!"?
C'mon, it's fun! Add your own. While some law schools no doubt teach "post hoc ergo propter hoc" as a traditional fallacy (well, it is about 2,500 years old, at least), maybe La Coultera missed that day.
How did you respond to Neda's tragic killing?
La Coultera didn't offer us information on her response. I'm sure it was pious and devoted.
But I popped over to Ann Coulter's page the other day. I don't have TV any more, and I miss her insights.
I have a sneaking suspicion that there are some really good lawyers (my long-lost friend is probably one of them). I also think there are some that are evil, liars, stupid, drunk, asleep, and/or some combination of those qualities. At the same time, looking at the recent display of logic on the part of La Coultera, I think I'm starting to understand why she went into writing columns:
1) It avoids the long hours and hard work involved in doing the law correctly: you know, reasons, and evidence, and inferences, and arguments. Icky.
2) It avoids the long hours and hard work involved in doing journalism correctly: you know, reasons, and evidence, and inferences, and arguments. Also icky.
So you scream and rant and rave, say the most ludicrous things, dare people to put you on TV (aren't there videos you can already get, "Brains Gone Wild," or something?); complain if they don't, and complain if they do. It's a fabulous approach for a rich spoiled kid desiring to remain rich and spoiled. Wish I'd thought of it.
But let's examine a single claim of La Coultera's June 24 column, and see what, if any implications one can draw from it (using traditional logic, say that of Aristotle, or Frege; not her own, for, as we shall see, one of her axioms is "If P, then any fucking thing I want follows.")
The money quote:
Liberals hate America, so they assume everyone else does, too.
So when a beautiful Iranian woman, Neda Agha Soltan, was shot dead in the streets of Iran during a protest on Saturday and a video of her death ricocheted around the World Wide Web, Obama valiantly responded by ... going out for an ice cream cone. (Masterful!)
Let's ignore the fact that La Coultera probably doesn't know much about Neda—famously supported by liberal bloggers all over the planet—and that much of the ricocheting that La Coultera mentions was the fault of liberals who hate America—and was, of all things, a philosophy student.
Let's just focus on the logic here.
X happens. Y does Z after X occurs. Therefore Z is a response, by Y, to X.
(There's a first-order predicate version of this, but I'll spare you.)
Feel free to fill in the variables. Let's try a few.
- 800, 000 Tutsis are massacred in Rwanda. La Coultera responds by going to the beach.
- In 1984, some 15,000 people die in 72 hours in Bhopal India. La Coultera responds by going on a date and having a second martini and half a pack of cigarettes.
- In 2001, some 3,000 people (not just Americans, people from 83 different countries) die in a coordinated attack by Muslim extremists. La Coultera responds by watching TV.
- In 2002, Daniel Pearl, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, is beheaded. La Coultera responds by walking her dog and then taking a shower.
Need I add "masterful!"?
C'mon, it's fun! Add your own. While some law schools no doubt teach "post hoc ergo propter hoc" as a traditional fallacy (well, it is about 2,500 years old, at least), maybe La Coultera missed that day.
How did you respond to Neda's tragic killing?
La Coultera didn't offer us information on her response. I'm sure it was pious and devoted.
14 Comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC2kDVK4634
Back in form Kurt! La Coultera is a great character, boiled down Coulter that isolates her most tasty elements of idiocy. Almost as delicious as Demi Glace (I love veal). This article also reminds me of the official response of the Dartmouth Review lads who threw a lobster dinner in response to a fellow Dartmouth group who were fasting to protest the Ethiopian famine. At the time, I chuckled at their obnoxiousness (being a fellow asshole), but since having children and now much more human, I only shake my head at their callousness. La Coultera reminds me of those Dartmouth Dudes, callous, arrogant, and yet with rather low bandwidth.
But then again, thank God for the Anne Coulters of the world. They provides such an easier target than William F. Buckley.
MISTAKE!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Let me guess; former logic student of mine?
If you're referring to me: not this time.
No, to "Anonymous" (a name a lot of people seem to have); the logic text we use marks in bold certain inferential errors with "Mistake!," and sometimes I yell it out just for fun.
SHORTER!
i forgot to add the bold font
Yes there are a few mistakes. I should have written "William F. Buckley Jr." And I have a typo in "They provides," not an intentional misuse of the verb "to use."
However there is no mistake concerning Coulter being an easier target than Buckley. Buckley is far more thoughtful in his arguments and does not rely on hubristic humor. Those that don't agree need to read more Buckley.
Yes there are a few mistakes. I should have written "William F. Buckley Jr." And I have a typo in "They provides," not an intentional misuse of the verb "to use."
However there is no mistake concerning Coulter being an easier target than Buckley. Buckley is far more thoughtful in his arguments and does not rely on hubristic humor. Those that don't agree need to read more Buckley.
"If P, then any fucking thing I want follows."
Classic
Uh-oh. I hope "JOOOE" is not our old friend Joe the Moron.
nike zoom running shoe
chrome hearts
adidas nmd online
cheap real jordans
tiffany and co uk
http://www.cheapauthenticjordans.us.com
tiffany and co
michael kors outlet online
michael kors purses
skechers outlet
gg
Post a Comment
<< Home