Anything else.
Yesterday we completed year six of The Non Sequitur. Here's a special thanks to all those who take the time to read and comment. To those who lurk silently: thanks, and do feel free to join the discussion.
We started this blog because we thought that that the newspaper op-ed page was a kind of logical wasteland. Six years of commentary has shown this to be true. As for why that is the case, I still have no idea.
Ah, nothing warms my heart like someone pointing out fallacies. But pointing out ad hominem abusive is, really, just a little too easy. And people, especially because they often take criticism of their views to also be criticism of them personally, over-report instances of this fallacy. (Easy way to see this: imagine someone's just told you, in the midst of an argument, "think about it" — what's the implication but that you've not thought about it yet?)
The Professional Right has been put off by how often what they've seen as the ad hominem abusive gets used against them. Ann Coulter, if you'll remember, had a whole book cataloging all the names conservatives have been called. Carol Platt Liebau (over at TownHall.com) has weighed in on the issue, and she's against being called a stupid bigot. And so with the (ahem) Ground Zero Mosque debate:
The recent debate about an imam’s plans to locate a large mosque at Ground Zero has highlighted, as never before, the liberal elite’s utter contempt for the sensibilities of regular Americans. From the President on down, those in favor of the mosque’s construction at Ground Zero have characterized the opponents as ruled only by emotion – especially animus toward all Muslims.
And on the recent California gay marriage case:
Recently, an unelected federal judge struck down a state constitutional amendment passed by a solid majority of Californians – and supported by a majority of Americans generally – that defined marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. He did so by concluding that there was no rational basis for the measure he had overturned; its only conceivable purpose, according to the judge, was to “enshrine in the California Constitution” an assertion that “opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.” In other words, Judge Vaughn Walker characterized every single American who has reservations about changing the age-old institution of marriage as irrational bigots.
She sees these liberal types as taking the argumentative situation as one with utter dopes and fools:
Given that the President, Vaughn Walker, and much of the commentariat in favor of the Ground Zero mosque are part of the supposed intellectual and cultural “elite” in this country, the arrogance – and paucity of their moral imagination – is breathtaking. In their formulation, stupidity, ignorance and bigotry are the only conceivable reasons for opposition to anything they deem moral or just.
I am very much sympathetic to Liebau's point — it's best to have as one's defaults that one's argumentative opponents are reasonable, moral humans. That not only prevents escalation, but it also will likely make it so that both sides will actually work together on finding an acceptable solution to the disagreement. (I've actually got some research with Robert Talisse in the works on what we call the "no reasonable alternatives" mindset that all too often takes over when one enters into clear argumentative contexts — more later on that.) One of the ways to keep from feeding argumentative escalation is to keep the ad hominem temptation down — just because they're wrong about some matter of moral significance needn't mean that they are benighted, stupid, or evil. It just means they're wrong. And so now Liebau is going to show us how to do disagreement respectfully? Right? … Right?
Their intellectual and personal disrespect for those who disagree with them is breathtaking – and it is unleavened by even the slightest dash of humility. . . . The irony, of course, is that in its eagerness to denounce the intolerance and shortsightedness of the masses, the liberal elite reveals itself to be shortsighted and intolerant. . . . Increasingly, that kind of contempt emanates from those who consider themselves the meritocracy’s crowning glory. To put it in terms they can understand, it’s hypocritical to claim solidarity with “the common man” while despising everything he holds dear.
Oh well. Glad to see that someone's good at least good at recognizing abusive language in others. It's a start. Of sorts.
Another addition to the evaluation of rock and roll argumentation. Last time, Jem suggested a discussion of Rush's "Free Will." Here goes. (Lyrics here)
I remember back in high school when someone told me that Rush was 'thinking man's music.' I heard some of the songs, and I wasn't really sure what what my friend was getting at. In fact, it was "Free Will" that he played for me, and my opinion now is pretty much the same. Geddy Lee/Neil Peart are just confused about the whole metaphysical issue, and this confusion leads them to some pretty harsh judgments of the downtrodden.
In a nutshell, "Free Will" is the following set of commitments. #1: If you are committed to fatalism or determinism, you are looking to lay the responsibility for your life's failings on anyone or anything but yourself. (Fate, the gods, and perhaps social conditions). #2. Laying the responsibility for one's life (and its failings) outside oneself leads one to inaction. #3. If you are committed to free will, you hold yourself responsible for your life. #4. If you hold yourself responsible for your life, you are more active in that life.
The first two commitments are the ones that get the most attention, and so the majority of the song is out to cast the poor as people who rationalize their poverty as a consequence of fate, when it actually is because of their own inaction.
There are those who think that they were dealt a losing hand,
The cards were stacked against them; they weren't born in Lotusland.
The implication of 'Lotusland' is that the only benefits that some people appreciate are those of sloth. Alternately, the case for #3 and #4 is made but briefly:
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill.
In a way, the Rush strategy is akin to the old pragmatist reconstructions of metaphysical views. In this case, determinism/fatalism is pragmatically a form of passivity and irresponsibility, and libertarianism is a form of activity and responsibility. So choosing a metaphysics is equivalent to choosing what kind of person you will be (and the consequences of being that person).
The implication is that if you help others (especially because you see them as mere victims of fate), you consequently encourage their further dependence.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
The conclusions (suppressed of course) are that: C1: One ought to choose the active and responsible life. C2: So one should choose free will as a metaphysics. C3: Those who live the passive and irresponsible life (and suffer the poverty and ills that come with it) are nevertheless responsible for that life, because "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice". (And so: the poor have, really, chosen to be that way!) Finally, because treating the poor as though they are victims of fate promotes their conception of themselves as passive and not responsible for their lives, C4: We ought not even help the poor (as, again, that would be "kindness that can kill").
I will limit myself to three criticisms. First, the fact of moral luck seems perfectly obvious. No matter how active a farmer you are, you can't use your free will to choose that your crops not be eaten by locusts or withered by a drought. Your choosing free will has no impact on whether you are part of your company's downsizing, that you get brain cancer, or develop a psychosis. (This song will set you straight on that.) No matter how free will-ist you are, if you're born to a family with little money, no interest in education or social improvement, and a proclivity to violence, it doesn't take much figuring to lay odds on your coming life. So sometimes it's a reasonable attitude to blame the fates.
Second, there is nothing in the argument that shows that it is true that there is free will, only that believing that you have free will makes you more active. So far, a Hellenistic fatalist could accept that. In fact, the old fatalists like Euripides had a term for the thought that their fates were in their own hands — hubris. Unless it is false that the gods control the world, Rush's suggestions here put his listeners in danger of one of the greatest errors mortals could make, that is, taking themselves to be like gods. I presume that Rush has taken it for granted that the gods aren't in control, but that makes their whole argument from consequences superfluous. In fact, it makes the whole song (as an argument) beg the question.
Third, and finally, the two rhetorically most powerful moments in the song key on the fact that one has "chosen" one of the options between freedom and fatalism/determinism. The first is that if you go with fatalism, "you still have made a choice," and the second is that Geddy/Neil "will choose free will." But the free will – determinism issue can be recast to bear on whether the choice in either of these cases is determined. So the determinist maybe could say: Sure, you choose free will. That's exactly the kind of person you are — you're a stridently independent, anti-authoritarian, rock and roller. That's what they all choose. The fact that you choose free will just goes to show how determined you are. As a consequence, this choice business, despite the fact that it's the rhetorical peak of the song, is an utter argumentative failure.
Oh, and the guitar solo is a noodly mess, too.
There is a old but reliable theme in political discussion: the gulf between the rights of individuals and the objectives of the state. Liberal democracies are posited on the premise that the objectives of the state must be in the service of individuals and are constrained by their antecedent rights. That's why constitutions bind modern democracies. They are ground rules (among other things) for ensuring individual liberties are protected.
The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is an extension of the moral rule of equity; namely, that one must judge all morally similar cases similarly. The motivating conditions for the 14th Amendment was racial discrimination. And so, the race of an accuser or the accused is a morally insignificant fact. Consequently, accusations and and cases must be adjudged independently of the race of the people in question. The basic thought is that we have a right for the rule of equity to govern our legal standing, too. Laws must equally apply, and the protections from interference by the state must follow these rules.
The thought with equal protection, then, is that (regardless of the fact that the Amendment was occasioned by race) we should follow the rule of respecting individual rights. Any government must meet a very high standard of scrutiny if it is to interfere with one group's rights, but not another's. Prohibitions against gay marriage don't meet that standard. Neither did anti-miscegenation laws. (Same 14th Amendment equal protection clause invoked in both rulings.) California's Proposition 8 is a case of a state interfering with individuals on the basis of a morally irrelevant difference.
Now, Mark Trapp, at the American Spectator, says that the recent decision to overturn to Proposition 8 is a case of federal judges "imposing their personal policy preferences, the will of the people notwithstanding." This is a pretty serious charge, one implies that the decision (and perhaps all judical review) is undemocratic. But if the people willed to take all the rich people's money and cars, that'd be rightly stopped. If the people voted to prevent all left-handed people from driving, then that'd be rightly stopped, too. That might be "imposing" a policy preference, but it'd be one guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
Trapp seems to think that judicial overturning of a legislative decision is an Federal imposition on a state's sovereignty, and ultimately, individual sovereignty:
Rather than determine for themselves such fundamental issues as abortion and same-sex marriage, many seem resigned or even content to having such momentous public policy decisions made by judges — for whom they do not vote and against whom they have no recourse.
My question is how can one be in this case a person committed to States' Rights and the organizing value of the Constitution's protection of individual rights on this issue? If it turns out that California's Proposition 8 runs afoul of the 14th Amendment, then California does not have the right (regardless of the vote count, 52% to 98%) to discriminate.
You know, one of the few things I find appealing about conservativism is the individualism at its core. That seems right to me. But how does States' Right fit in that equation? Why does a Federal decision over a State's decision matter to someone who cares about individual rights? If the state is in the wrong and has run afoul of equal protection, isn't it a good thing to have a Federal Government to protect those rights? I mean, what kind of individualist rationalizes oppression by saying "it's morally irrelevant unequal treatment, but it's the way we do it here." ? How is the fact that it is here a morally relevant category?
The payoff for informal logic is that I think that some tu quoque arguments can reveal cases of bias and double standards. Trapp's argument is that protecting the individual liberties of homosexuals with the 14th Amendment contravenes the individual liberties of those in the majority who want to discriminate against homosexuals. And that's undemocratic and unjust. You see, Trapp loves liberty so much…
This is the 1,001st post at the NonSequitur. I failed to note the 1,000th posting, the last one. I was more excited about the post. Regardless, Colin and John have done a great job with the blog, and I'm really pleased to have been brought in. And in honor of the event of passing the 1000 post mark, I want to pose the question: can a joke work as a counter-example? Here's a test-case.
Ludwig Wittgenstein was a philosopher, one that did his most influential later work in the aphoristic style. Asking questions, putting things in a cute way, and so on. He made many of his points, really, with lines that could pass for jokes. One of the core commitments of Wittgenstein's system was that to speak a language, you have to share a form of life with others who speak the same language. To illustrate this commitment, he has the enigmatic-oracular line:
If a lion could speak, we could not understand him (PI: p.223)
Again, the thought seems to be that since a lion doesn't share our form of life, its language would be inaccessible to us.
Now, I'm not so sure about Wittgenstein's point, simply on the reason that if we're able to recognize that the lion is speaking a language, then we must be capable of having at least a decent grasp of what he's talking about. That is, a necessary condition for attributing to X the capacity to speak a language is that you've some evidence that the sounds X is uttering are semantically contentful and also what those contents are. (Or at least that you know that they are contentful and you could find out what those contents are.)
But I want to play Wittgenstein's game of making points instead of with straight argument, but with aphoristic style. And so, here's my proposed counter-example (in the form of a joke):
So a lion walks into a bar… He sidles up to the juke box and selects a Led Zepppelin song. He then plays a round of darts. Then he goes up to the bar, and he says to the bartender: "Wittgenstein wouldn't get this joke."
Should someone committed to Wittgenstein's philosophy of language be troubled by this joke? Is it funny, regardless? What are the consequences?
How often is it that the following three analogies are used in discussions of legalizing gay marriage?
#1: Laws against gay marriage are analogous to anti-miscegenation laws. Therefore, they are unjust.
#2: Laws against gay marriage are analogous to prohibitions against polygamy. Therefore, they are just.
#3: Laws against gay marriage are analogous to outlawing bestiality (or marrying one's dog). Therefore, they are just.
The answer to my rhetorical question is that the use of these analogies is innumerable. Most of the talking heads debating on TV race each other to the punch — whoever gets one of these analogies out first is the one who's framed the debate properly and thereby has the rhetorical upper hand. Now, I'm all for rhetorical competitions, but c'mon — you'd think that once the analogies are out there, somebody might… you know… address how apt these analogies are.
Enter Steve Chapman, writing for conservative opinion page, Townhall.com. Importantly, Chapman supports gay marriage, but doesn't want the courts to impose it on the citizenry. (One of the first questions that comes to my mind when I hear this sort of talk is what's better (again assuming he supports gay marriage): having a just conclusion imposed on a citizenry that does not want it, or an unjust law imposed on a smaller section of that citizenry… that does not want it either! If you don't see the point of this question, you don't see the point of judicial review.) Regardless, Chapman runs the gamut of the analogies, and makes it all worse. Especially when addressing #2:
Gays argue, correctly, that they can't be expected to change their inborn sexual orientation to get married. But polygamists can assert that monogamy is impossible for them — and, judging from the prevalence of sexual infidelity, for most people. Nor does the polygamy ban solve any problems. Men can already have sex with multiple females, produce offspring with them and furnish them with financial support. Former NFL running back Travis Henry has nine children by nine different women. Prohibiting polygamy does nothing to prevent such conduct. It just keeps people who want to do it responsibly from operating within an established legal framework. That's why I would legalize polygamy as well as same sex marriage.
Seriously, that is the dumbest defense of gay marriage against the analogy with polygamy I have ever seen. I could not have even made up a more dunderheaded version. In no way should the argument be that: well, lots of people are going to have multiple partners, and prohibiting polygamy doesn't prevent that, so we should legalize polygamy so they can do it responsibly. By analogy, Chapman's reasoning would be: gay marriage bans don't reduce homosexual sex and cohabitation. But that's not what those bans are out to prevent. Anti-sodomy laws were supposed to do that, and see how they fared constitutionally? The same fate would befall anti-multiple-baby-daddy laws.
The best way to defend gay marriage is to break the analogies between gay marriage and polygamy and gay sex and bestiality. The first is a simple moral difference: there is no established frame of injustice associated with gay marriages. They are, like modern heterosexual marriages, a relationship between equals. Polygamous marriages have structural inequalities, and the traditional forms of them have them in spades: younger wives are to play the role of child-rearer, clothes-washer, and concubine. Once they've borne children, they move up the ladder… Legalizing institutions that have these legacies is akin to legalizing a form of household slavery. My good friend Thom Brooks has an excellent survey of polygamy and its problems here.
The disanalogy between gay sex and besitality is simply with consent. Adult humans can give consent, dogs (or what have you) can't. End of discussion.
So why are people still wrestling with these analogies? Part of the answer is because columnists like Steve Chapman, despite being on the right side of the issue, can't put together a non-crazy response to them.
Classic downplaying is the strategy of making something look less important or significant. You can do this with euphemisms, so you can call a pay cut "salary compression," or you can call the victims of indiscriminate use of lethal force "collateral damage." Another strategy is to employ the terms of regular use, but use scare quotes around the terms. This method of downplaying at once both acknowledges that some use the term to describe the case, but it also registers your objection to it. No reasons are given, but it's a clear wink to one's preferred audience, a kind of code to let them know that it's a larger cultural battle in the works. But also note that scarequoting just communicates this challenge to the naming, but not its grounds or even what the alternatives are. It is a particularly weak and lazy form of criticism, one that effectively relies on the audience to supply their own arguments.
In the wake of the leaked Katie Couric tape, with Couric laughing at Sara Palin's kids names, Douglas MacKinnon re-opens the case that Sara Palin was treated unfairly by the media in '08. He thinks her performances in the Gibson interview (when she couldn't define the Bush Doctrine) and Couric interview (when, she couldn't name a single news magazine) were because of the treachery of the liberals who ran the interviews. But the real fault lays with the McCain campaign for not protecting her from these ambushes. That's weird, as it seems that these questions were hardly surprises and could have easily been turned into cases for Palin to showcase her knowledge of politics and foreign affairs, had she done any homework. Regardless, MacKinnon has the perfect downplayer setup for his case in his opening paragraph:
As the video popped-up this week of far-left, ultra wealthy, and privileged CBS “News” anchor Katie Couric going after then Governor Sarah Palin while mocking the names of her children, it reminded me all over again how much Palin is owed an apology from the “leadership” of the McCain campaign.
That paragraph without the scare quotes still gets the point across — McCain's campaign advisers should have known that liberals would try to take down their witless VP candidate, and they should have stayed with only Sean Hannity and Greta Van Sustren interviewing her. But with the addition, really, of no more words but a few extra marks (eight little apostrophes), MacKinnon communicates so much more and expresses (and encourages) real hostility to his opponents.
Here, let me show you. I'll re-write my last paragraph with the addition of scare quotes.
That paragraph without the scare quotes still gets the "point" across — McCain's campaign advisers should have known that liberals would try to take down their witless VP candidate, and they should have stayed with only Sean Hannity and Greta Van Sustren "interviewing" her. But with the addition, really, of no more words but a few extra marks (eight little apostrophes), MacKinnon "communicates" so much more and expresses (and encourages) real hostility to his opponents.
See? It's easy to sound much more outraged by and better informed than your opponents with just a few scare quotes. No wonder a lazy mind like MacKinnon uses them so… liberally.
My colleagues have challenged me to look deeper into the abyss. I did. This is what I found (courtesy of Sadly, No!):
In February of 2010, ABC News published an article regarding the 2009 enacted right to carry law in National Parks. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the article struck a tone straight out of a Brady campaign spot. A mosaic of Chicken Little ’sky is falling’ was painted in broad strokes and platitudes. All in response to a common sense measured signed into law by president Obama allowing citizens to carry a concealed firearm in the nation’s National Parks.
It’s a song and dance that we on the right have grown to be accustomed with concerning second amendment rights and the press. Virulent anti-gun groups and mainstream press outlets essentially spout the same talking points. We expect this, we accept this.
But with the recent grizzly bear attack near Yellowstone National Park that killed one and left two injured, one may wonder if the typical progressive, anti-gun canard still holds water?
I for one appreciate his patience. But in any case, one has to wonder how the extremely rare (but nontheless terrifying) prospect of bear attacks on national forest property undermines the "typical" progressive case against gun rights. One wonders this, in the first place, because the attack in question occured in a place (Gallatin National Forest) where you can carry unconcealed firearms. From the National Forest FAQ:
Can I carry a firearm on the national forest? back to top
Possession of firearms. The possession and unconcealed carry of a firearm on the national forest is not restricted by federal law or Forest Service regulations with the exception of “prohibited possessors,” such as convicted felons (see 18 USC 922g (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC922) and ARS 13-3101 (http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03101.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS). State laws regarding the concealed carry of firearms and the carrying of weapons within or on a motor vehicle apply to all National Forest System lands.
Discharge of firearms. National Forest regulations prohibit the discharge of a firearm within 150 yards of a residence, building, campsite, developed recreation site, or any other occupied area; across a road or any body of water adjacent to a road; into or within a cave; or in any negligent manner that could endanger life or property (see 36 CFR 261.10d) (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/julqtr/pdf/36cfr261.10.pdf). The Tonto National Forest also has areas that are closed to recreational shooting year-round due to proximity to local communities (see Forest Closure Orders). During periods of high fire danger, additional restrictions on the use of firearms may be imposed. None of the temporary or year-round restrictions prohibit the use of a firearm in the lawful taking of game.
So a very rare bear attack on an unnarmed person (who could legally have been armed) somehow undermines the "typical" progressive anti-gun canard (not sure what that is). Anyway. It gets more entertaining:
Moments like this are teachable. Liberals love to go down the subjunctive mood route and justify positions within theoretical conditions. But those theoretical positions always fit the progressive mold and worldview. And as any student of history and logic knows there are always two sides to the hypothetical reasoning coin.
Therefore, I can add that if even one of the victims of Yellowstone/Soda Creek Campground grizzly attack had a concealed permit, and had been armed, the outcome early Wednesday morning may have been quite different.
And the anti-second amendment crowd will never admit that.
A teachable moment indeed, but I don't know what I am supposed to have learned. Few could dispute that the second amendment (like the first, second, third, etc.) admits of some obvious restrictions as to nature and place (among other things). Everyone knows what those are. So it's not opposition to the 2nd amendment that's at issue. It's opposition to the carrying of concealed firearms in certain situations. But we've already established that this isn't one of them, so the hypothetical doesn't work in the first place.
Besides, how does having a concealed weapon help you in the bear attack scenario?
The Non Sequitur is supposed to be a blog about political media, I know. But I can't let this pass. I was converting some old CD's to MP3 format this evening, and I set about to listening to an old Tool album, Aenima. I'd forgotten how brooding they were and that the lyrics were intermittently profound and stupid. And then I came to "Hooker with a Penis." Here are the lyrics, if you need to read along, but here is the core of the song: it's an argument that you can't blame Tool for being sellouts. The background story is that Maynard, the lead singer, is approached by some kid who accuses him of being a sellout with the latest album, and that the earlier stuff is more authentic:
And in between sips of Coke
He told me that he thought
We were sellin' out
Layin' down
Suckin' up
To the man.
Before you point your fingerYou should know thatI'm the manIf I'm the man,Then you're the manAnd He's the man as wellSo you canPoint that fuckin' finger up your ass.
All you know about me is what I've sold you,
Dumb fuck
I sold out long before you ever even heard my name.
I sold my soul to make a record,
Dip shit
And then you bought one.
This is part of the reason why we can't have intelligent discussions about climate change:
Christopher Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, is a climate disruption denier in multiple ways. He’s denied that climate change is happening. He’s denied that human beings are causing the (unchanging) climate to change by pinning the cause on the Sun. He’s denied that global polar ice extent is declining. He’s repeatedly misrepresented published papers and hasn’t retracted his statements even after some authors pointed out that he was misusing their work. He’s also hit one of my personal buttons by misunderstanding and cheapening the real history of the Nazis by labeling peaceful, if rowdy, protesters as “Hitler Youth.” And we cannot forget that Monckton wanted to quarantine AIDS victims in the late 1980s, believes that President Obama probably isn’t a U.S. citizen, alleges that NASA crashed their own carbon dioxide-monitoring satellite, and claims to be developing a drug that will cure not only his Grave’s Disease and multiple sclerosis, but HIV, influenza, and the common cold too. Monckton also maintains that he’s a member of the UK House of Lords even though Parliament stripped most of the hereditary peers of their membership in 1999 and the House of Lords says that Monckton has never been a member (he’s now been reduced to saying that Parliament’s legislation was itself illegal).
This guy is such a super troll that if you try to point out his foundational wrongness, he accuses you of logical fallacies–that, as I think we might have noted before, is the fallacy fallacy fallacy.
Over the last few years, I’ve been repeatedly tempted to check every single one of Monckton’s references and see just how bad his understanding of climate science really is. But Monckton makes liberal use of the “proof by intimidation” fallacy whereby he presents so much information in a form that’s so hard to understand that it’s impossible to refute without taking days, weeks, or months to fact-check his claims. Life is too short to fact-check every single claim Monckton has made, so I decided to leave this particular task to others.
And thankfully, a number of others have done so. Barry Bickmore, a geology professor at Brigham Young University, has dissected much of what Monckton said in testimony to the Utah state legislature and found it to be largely inaccurate. Arthur Smith went paragraph-by-paragraph through Monckton’s 2008 Physics and Society article and found 125 logical fallacies, irrelevant statements, and outright errors. Peter Sinclair, creator of the YouTube climate science video series Climate Crock of the Week, did a two-part video just on Monckton (videos included below). But several months ago, John Abraham, Associate Professor at the University of St. Thomas, set the curve when it comes to debunking Monckton. In response to a presentation Monckton made in Minnesota, Abraham checked nearly every one of Monckton’s claims and references in order to see where Monckton got the science right vs. where he got it wrong. The result of all this research was a nearly 90 minute-long rebuttal where Abraham dissects dozens of Mockton’s claims from a speech a year ago and finds that nearly everything Monckton said in his Minnesota presentation was wrong. Abraham’s original presentation, plus a slightly shorter and revised version, are presently available at Abraham’s UST website.
To say that Monckton’s initial response to Abraham’s rebuttal was over-the-top is being far too kind – ludicrous might be the better description. Monckton accused Abraham of engaging in ad hominem attacks while simultaneously insulting Abraham and another of Monckton’s critics, George Monbiot of the Guardian newspaper.
That's putting a fallacy in your fallacy.