Cornell, ever heard of it?

Thankfully Cornell University's very excellent philosophy program is off the hook for the following travesty:

What follows is a series of ad hominem tu quoques.  For instance:

One could argue that, but one would be wrong.  Perhaps she should have taken a logic class as well.

Courtesy of the guys at Sadly, No!

5 thoughts on “Cornell, ever heard of it?”

  1. It looks like she can't even tell a premise from an argument, so that Aristotle or Aquinas might have been more useful than she realizes.  

  2. I think that it would be easier to argue that the consequences  of Obama's collectivist view can be observed in the dis-functional operation of America's failing systems of Social Security and Medicare. Both are government run insurance entities that are on the road to bankruptcy-2037 and 2017 respectively ( Hence, why would any sane person put the same government in control of one's personal health insurance? How Obama is so quite cocksure of his plan in view of history starting him in the face I don't know?
    But the more important question is: Who would have thought that a country 235 years old could have allowed it's intellect to atrophy to the point where a moronic economic policy could now even be given a single shred of credit in light of the failures of the collectivist theories? One of the most radical consequences the long march of Western Civilization has been the lifting of the individual over the state. Now the "leadership" of this country wants to turn that progress on it's head. Hence, I would not describe Obama as a "Progressive." He is a "Regressive."

  3. Gee I don't know JC.  Perhaps it's because a private system has not delivered on its promises.  Anyway, I think the point of the post was another one.  Thanks however for taking the time to comment.

  4. Aren't almost all informal fallacies, fallacies of relevance? I don't need to know the name of the fallacy to know that Obama's being a smoker isn't really related to policy. 

  5. That's right Ben.  No one is obligated to know the names of any particular fallacy to see that there is a problem.  The taxonomy of informal fallacies is (1) fun for a girl and a boy and (2) an aid in studying informal reasoning.  Having said that, it is not the case that all fallacies are fallacies of relevance.  The false cause variety of fallacy, for instance, has to do with the adequacy of the evidence (rather than it's relevance). 

Comments are closed.