I guess The Gates Defense would be best (although The Doofus Defense comes to mind too). I guess I'll add it to the Ninjaspeak thread soon.

Now, on the other hand, Obama himself is starting to get back on my good side. He hasn't actually used the dreaded "A" word, but he did admit that he had racheted things up. And he invited Gates and Crowley to the White House for a beer, which, if he's going to get involved at all, is exactly the kind of thing he should be doing.

Yes, I certainly DO enjoy seeing this: -- "Anti-Obama Rally in Jerusalem."


Chess Fan

Have you heard of the "birthers"? They're a lunatic fringe that can't handle the fact that their candidate lost the election so they're now claiming Obama isn't a born U.S. citizen and thus ineligible for presidency.

They claim vast conspiracies, doctored birth certificates all aided by the "liberal" press. I've been perusing some of their stuff and to say they lack anything even resembling a thinking skill, let alone a set of critical thinking skills, is an understatement. Really, get over it. You lost. Move on and work with what you have. Perhaps they just don't like having a prez that is smarter than they are, esp after the last 8 years???

Incidentally if there was anything to this you'd think that Obama's opponents would have found and used this information before the election.

I cannot let this go unanswered. Chess Fan, you are disgusting and the article you put up is disgusting. The "rally" was a big nothing - 1,500 people in a little square. Here is a real news story about it...one that doesn't try to make Obama look like a bad guy like your article. The truth.

I've heard that story bandied about. I even saw a story yesterday (which I didn't have time to read) saying that Obama was finally going to start trying to control it, which might be better than ignoring it. All I can say is that although it would certainly be relevant if true, I've never seen the slightest evidence presented that it is. Just a bunch of dark whispers ("He's not really an American"), but no reason ever given for thinking so. Give me a reason to doubt, and I'd honestly consider it, but I've seen none. And the story seems fundamentally implausible to me. They're supposed to have doctored records years ago just on the off chance that this guy might grow up a) with their mindset, and b) with the oratorical skills to become President? I'd need a lot of convincing to accept that.


Now, one guy that we KNOW is ineligible is Schwarzenegger. A few years ago I remember hearing him endorsing an amendment to change the process and make him eligible to run for President, which I found a bit offensive. The Founding Fathers had reasons for setting things up the way they did, and changing them just to personally benefit one guy seems incredibly tacky to me.

Like other nut jobs these people have no support for their claim but feel that they can bolster their claim by ignoring contrary evidence already presented and loudly demanding that someone prove them wrong.
\
Someone help me out, what is the proper description for the flawed logic being exhibited here?

That might help make them miserable, but it won't ever get Obama declared ineligible.

Back to Schwarzenegger. I said it was tacky to try to get the constitution changed just to personally benefit one guy. They never see it that way. One thing about politicians, both good and bad, is that they have enormous egos. (If you think about it, a person would HAVE to have one to be able to go around asking people to invest their hopes and money on them). If you asked Schwarzenegger, he'd probably say "This isn't just to benefit me, it's something that would help the whole country." I just imagined him saying those words in his flat, "Terminator" monotone, and found it terribly funny. Is it really that funny or is it just me?



I think that would be argumentum ad ignorantium; like arguing that ghosts must exist because nobody has ever proved that they don't.

Somewhere you (Petro) asked about what journalists do take in school because history wasn't one of them, and science isn't one of them either. Recently I came across a comment in another website from a journalist (his site is One Blue Marble) who attended journalism school. In his comment he said that the director of the school said that most of the students said (still following?) they were going into a journalism career because science was too hard. That certainly explains why most journalists are so easily misled on even the basics if this story isn't distorted by bias and time.

A bit off-topic, but close enough here as journalists do cover politics.

re: Obama's birth certificate. This isn't exactly ad ignoratium. The Constitution says that the president must be born in the United States. In other words, it is a thing requiring positive proof. Lack of positive proof is enough to disbar someone. So efforts to impeach Obama's birth certificate makes logical sense, given the end sought, i.e. the removal of Obama from office.

What we have here is what is called bull****, and I mean that in a philosophical sense. Harry Frankfurt, a philosopher, wrote an essay called "On Bull****", which makes a distinction between truth, lying, and bull****. The liar, he points out, takes pains to deny the truth because he recognizes its power. The liar's primary emotion is fear. The bull****er, on the other hand, simply ignores the truth and propagates his own version of events. His primary emotion is contempt. He doesn't care a jot about the value of truth or its power. He only cares about bullying other people into accepting his version of reality, even if they don't believe and know it is untrue. That's what's going on here: it is not a logical fallacy, it is a willful abuse of truth.