Sad attention junkie calls for Trump’s resignation: Why now?

Hopeless loser Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (Dumbass – NY) is tweeting that Trump should resign due to sexual harassment claims against him. We’ve known about these accusations since before the election, so why renewed calls about it now?

(1) The most obvious: Democrats have really been taking a beating on the sexual harassment issue for the last couple of months, and they’re desperate to “even up the score” by taking out a Republican or three. The more high-profile the better.

Also, as of yesterday, when she flung the tweet out, the polls about Alabama were looking bad for Dems. That was even before one made allowance for the standard leftist bias. The implication is that the Dems will remain in a weak position in the Senate come 2018. They were hoping to move things a little in their direction by replacing a Rep with a Dem.

(2) Gillibrand is an attention whore; also, she’s testing the waters for a 2020 Presidential run. Nothing plays to the left-wing base right now like calling for Trump’s removal from the White House. God, how unhinged are you people? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? There was an election. You lost. Jesus, get over it.

(3) It’s starting to dawn on some of the less moronic lefties that the Russia thing is a total wet firecracker. The “investigation” – an absolutely partisan, unfair, biased witchhunt – has been going on for months and they’ve got absolutely nothing whatsoever. Their big, huge bombshell was getting a former Trump associate (Flynn) to admit that he lied to the FBI about something that had nothing to do with Trump “colluding” with Russia over the 2016 election. (This whole thing has been so transparently baseless that I almost wrote “Trump” “colluding” with “Russia” over the “2016” “election”.)

This bullshit has been going on since before Mueller’s witchhunt. Recent revelations have uncovered the fact that people in the FBI are biased against the President. They really want to find him guilty of something serious. If there were the slightest hint of a scintilla of an iota of evidence, they would have uncovered it by now. It is hysterical, and not in the sense of “funny.”

So the less unhinged leftist politicians are getting ahead of the inevitable sad (for them) conclusion to the Russia thing and trying to find another way to get Trump out of the White House.

Hey assholes, I know how to have a chance of doing that: In 2020, repudiate your most extreme, insane, hate-filled whackos – the “trannies in your daughter’s high school bathroom, force people to bake gay wedding cakes at gunpoint, all whites are racist and should be genocided” psychotics – and run a campaign for normal, sane people.

“No way! We really like the insane psychotics! We really want to be evil and crazy, and to stay in power anyway! Making sure that innocent American girls are killed by illegal immigrants means a lot to us!”

And they wonder why we loathe them.

Advertisements

More on the ad hominem “fallacy”

In my previous post I argued that ad hominem and tu quoque arguments are not always fallacious. I want to be clear that I am not saying, to those who claim they’re always fallacious, “Yeah, you’re right, but you’re a bunch of eggheads, so I’m gonna ignore you.” I’m saying, “You’re wrong.”

Now dweebs with no intellectual self-confidence will say, “Dear God, you can’t disagree with textbooks, man! They’re textbooks!

I can, in fact, disagree with textbooks when they make statements that are ragingly moronic. And I did so in my last post.

Today I want to provide a different, more explicitly rigorous argument refuting the notion that argument ad hominem is always fallacious. I will do this by providing an argument that is both ad hominem, and logically sound. I will also note, for those who collapse in spasms of fear at the idea of disagreeing with actual textbooks!!! that the kind of argument I am going to present is common in the academic literature, including Economics, Psychology, and, hilariously, Philosophy. The Philosophy one is hilarious because the fuck-witted “Ad hominem is a fallacy!” stuff appears in textbooks for Logic classes, which are typically taught by… Philosophy departments.

Here’s the example argument, casual version:

“Joe said that a meteor is bound for Chicago and will kill everyone in the city in an hour or so. Yet he’s calmly sitting here in Chicago with his feet up on the ottoman, sipping a Riesling. So obviously there’s no meteor.”

This is good enough to make my point for casual readers. (For those who like to dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s, more below.) I’m refuting Joe’s assertion not by attacking his assertion (not directly), but by stating something about Joe. That is, speaking precisely, an argument ad hominem – “against the man” – and the argument is valid, not fallacious.

Just for thrills, let’s disassemble it and lay all the parts out. I am going to be careful but not anal-retentive about it; professional logicians are welcome to fill in the blanks even more carefully if they want to.

Assumptions:

1. Joe wants to live as an overriding priority. (He may also want other things, but remaining alive is priority numero uno.)
2. Joe is capable of assessing evidence pertaining to the existence and trajectories of meteors (note that if he’s not, nothing he says about the alleged meteor is credible anyway), such that he will believe a meteor is approaching if and only if there is evidence that a meteor is approaching.
3. Joe knows of at least one way to get beyond the meteor’s blast range, and to do so soon enough to remain alive.
4. Joe knows that, if there is a meteor, he will live if and only if he gets outside the blast range soon enough.
5. All methods for being outside the blast range soon enough require that Joe begin to travel immediately.

First conclusion, which follows from 1, 3, 4, and 5:

6. If Joe believes there is an impending meteor, he will begin to move immediately.

Second conclusion, which follows from 6 and 2:

7. If the evidence suggests there is meteor approaching, Joe will begin to move immediately.

Observation:

8. Joe is not moving; he is calmly sitting on his complacent ass in his Lakeside Drive apartment.

Third conclusion, which follows from 7 and 8:

9. The evidence does not suggest there is a meteor approaching.

Let’s re-write 7 – 9 more tersely:

A. If there is meteor evidence, Joe is moving.
B. Joe is not moving.
C. Therefore there is no meteor evidence.

If someone tells you this is an ad hominem fallacy, your only option, as a civilized individual, is to give them a wedgie. There’s nothing else you can really do.

The argument is not fallacious. It is correct.

Again, I want to emphasize for the intellectually pious that the foregoing kind of argument is entirely standard in various branches of the academic literature.

Additionally: If you say X is true because a textbook author asserted it, you’re making an ad hominem argument. This variant of it is usually dubbed “appeal to authority,” but it’s simply the other side of the same coin. In other words, ad hominem is usually interpreted to mean,

“(Something about the author of an argument) ➞ the argument is wrong.”

While an appeal to authority is simply,

“(Something about the author of an argument) ➞ the argument is right.”

Therefore, those who would claim that ad hominem is a fallacy, and cite textbooks as support for this claim, are, in technical terms, fucking themselves over. You tell me, doofuses: Are ad hominem arguments valid or not? Double bind, bitchez!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Xtra credit for nerdlingers: Put the A – C argument above in proposition-contrapositive form.

ANSWER KEY!!!

Using symbolic logic with the arrow (➞) indicating implication and tilde (~) meaning “not”:

The statement

A ➞ B

implies the contrapositive statement

~B ➞ ~A.

For example,

If something is a cat, then it is a mammal.
implies
If something is not a mammal, then it is not a cat.

Thus:

Proposition:
Meteor evidence ➞ Joe is moving.
Therefore, by the contrapositive:
~Joe is moving ➞ ~Meteor evidence.

When a “fallacy” is not a fallacy

A standard assertion in propositional logic textbooks is that tu quoque (roughly, “you do it too”) and ad hominem (arguing “against the man”) are logical fallacies. This is the received wisdom, which is wrong. They are not always fallacious.

I am going to refute this silliness, discussing both “fallacies” in the same post because, while they’re distinct in principle, they often travel together in practice. E.g., both often come up in political debates.

1. Tu quoque is not a fallacy when were are faced with two choices and must choose one. E.g., Suppose that in some election our only realistic choices are a Democrat and a Republican. If a Dem supporter points out that the Republican candidate has killed someone, it is perfectly reasonable for a Rep supporter to point out that the Democrat candidate has also killed someone.

That’s because the question we’re debating is not “What’s right or wrong?” but “Which of the two options should we elect?” Our choices are often about the lesser of two evils, and we should vote, not for a candidate who is perfect, which is not an option, but for the candidate who is the best available choice.

2. We also often hear argument ad hominem as an alleged fallacy. But argument ad hominem is only fallacious under certain conditions.

An example of an ad hominem argument that really is fallacious would be “Pythagoras really wanted the Pythagorean Theorem to be true, therefore, due to his bias, the theorem is wrong.” Whether he wanted it to be true is not relevant. Just look at the theorem’s assumptions and determine if the conclusion follows from them.

This is all very well if we are just deducing the logical implications of a set of assumptions. But that’s rarely what is going on in real-world discussions like political discussions.

Consider: “The New York Times, and leftists and general, have consistently lied in the past, therefore there is a high probability that their assertions today are lies.”

This is not fallacious. It’s simple reality. In fact, it’s an example of something that those same logic textbooks will tell you is a valid kind of reasoning: Inductive reasoning. Indeed, to deny it is to say, “You cannot form beliefs based on what you’ve observed in the past.” To deny it is to say, “No matter how many times the boy cries wolf and turns out to be lying, you cannot validly conclude that he’s lying this time.” Sorry, wrong. You can, validly, conclude that. In fact you must conclude it based on the evidence.

So we have, “The New York Times says President Trump made a racist statement,” and my reaction is just going to be “They’re lying.” Based on experience, it’s literally hundreds of times more likely that they’re lying than that they’re telling the truth. This is not engaging in an ad hominem “fallacy.” It’s forming your beliefs based on evidence.

In your life you will encounter plainly false assertions from obviously untrustworthy sources immeasurably more often than you will encounter proofs of mathematical theorems.

3. Another reason ad hominem is not always a fallacy: People’s actions reveal their beliefs and therefore something about their information. If someone tells me that he believes Chicago is going to be obliterated by a meteor tomorrow, but he continues to stay in Chicago, I can infer that he doesn’t really believe it. Whatever facts he knows have not actually convinced him that there’s an impending meteor. If he says, “Here are 50 pages of evidence that there’s an onrushing meteor,” I’m logically correct to say, “You’re staying in Chicago, so I can infer that the 50 pages contain no convincing evidence of a meteor.” So no, I’m not going to waste hours pouring over your alleged “evidence.”

This, of course, takes me to an old video game called Road Rash. “Finally!” you say. “I was wondering when he was going to get to Road Rash.” Road Rash was a motorcycle race game from the early 1990s. You were a biker on a motorcycle and you’d compete against other, digital bikers animated by the game. It had the following interesting feature: The game had hills, and occasionally a car would come at you in the opposing lane – which you’d be in because you were trying to pass another biker – from over a hill. Of course, you couldn’t see the car, so you’d get smeared by it. UNLESS! you had a couple of the digital bikers ahead of you. If they were near the top of the hill, they’d all move over into the right lane all of a sudden, because they could see the car. That told you that you’d better get over to the right as well. That is, you were inferring something that the other bikers knew based on their behavior.

These other bikers never spoke, but if they did, one can imagine them all getting over to the right, even as they said to you, over their shoulder, “Don’t worry; there’s no oncoming car!”

“Bullshit,” you’d say, “you’re getting over to the right so I’m getting over to the right!” This is both tu quoque and ad hominem… but it sure as shit isn’t a fallacy. It is simple, undeniable reality.

A more real-world example:

Suppose some white leftist tells me he thinks “racial inclusiveness” is vital, and “segregated” neighborhoods are bigoted and evil. But he lives in an all-white neighborhood. I can infer that he himself doesn’t really believe that “inclusiveness” is important. This is logically relevant, because it shows that even a person with a strong emotional incentive to find convincing arguments for it, cannot find an argument that convinces him. I am therefore entitled to conclude that no convincing arguments exist.

Maybe there are convincing arguments, but I can validly conclude that it’s improbable. In fact, it’s VERY improbable, because human beings can convince themselves of the most astounding bullshit when they really want to. If a leftist can’t make himself believe X even when he really wants to, then X is very unlikely indeed.

Hordes of “intellectuals” will shriek, “But that’s ad hominem and therefore a fallacy!” which is why “intellectuals” are held in such low general esteem: Because so many soi-disant “intellectuals” are so nakedly stupid and intellectually dishonest.


The follow-up post (sorry, no Road Rash).

Rand Paul assaulted at home by neighbor

A few weeks late; here’s the link:
http://amp.dailycaller.com/2017/11/04/rand-paul-assaulted-at-his-kentucky-home/

As it happens, the assailant is a Trump-hating Democrat. But what if it had been a Republican? Does it even matter any more? At some point the powers that be are going to have to stop fucking the rest of the country over. I’m not a Dem, but I perhaps can understand the basic impulse, in broad outline. Our government is not just corrupt; it laughs in our face about its corruption and says, “What are you going to do about it?” It’s not that surprising that eventually someone would say, “This, asshole,” and get… kinetic. Our patience with our putrescently corrupt political class is getting pretty fucking threadbare.

Recall the baseball game shooting from a couple of months earlier. I don’t support the baseball game shooter, who seems to think he has the right to kill anyone who doesn’t give him free handouts. And I don’t know what the deal with the attack on Rand Paul was. But whether the attackers were right or wrong is not my point. My point is that right or wrong, such incidents speak loudly, to any politicians who are paying attention, about their apparent belief that they’re bulletproof. Thus even if we condemn such an incident in any particular case, it may nevertheless have salutary effects.

Paul’s injuries were fairly severe. From a tweet by Paul November 8:

I appreciate all of the support from everyone. A medical update: final report indicates six broken ribs & new X-ray shows a pleural effusion.

When things like this and the baseball game shooting happen to our would-be rulers, it reminds them, if they’re paying attention, that they’re not invulnerable, and that people have their limits.

If they’re paying attention, if they have ears to hear, it will be better for everyone.

Miscellany 4: Son of Miscellany

(1) Anonymous Conservative:

Columbus was an innocent immigrant, who came here for opportunity and freedom, fleeing an oppressive monarchy and aggressively religious theocracy back home. When he got here, the evil nativist, nationalist Indians tried to close their borders to him, and deport him with violence. Who were they to create borders from thin air, and claim people shouldn’t cross them? …Fascists, are what they were.

(2) Vox Day: Deal With It, Commies.

Day quotes a couple of lefty “journalists” bitching about their jobs being threatened by competitors who will work for less. One whines,

“LAWeekly fired their staff in favor of unpaid ‘contributors.’ If you are an aspiring writer, and you submit to them, you are insuring it becomes impossible to make a living in this field.”

Ha ha! Looks like a couple of lefty reporters don’t like low-cost interlopers coming into their profession and undercutting them!

Let’s think: Is there another issue of the day with this phenomenon occurring? You lefties laugh when Americans have their jobs stolen by low-cost immigrants. And you call people bigots if they point out the harm that causes to American workers. Looks like low-cost competition is replacing you now! Ha ha! Eat shit and die, leftist assholes!

Enjoy living in the world you advocate!

(3) Regarding (2):

Why are leftists so against volunteering?

(4) Also regarding (2): Why do lefties always say they’re empathetic? No, they aren’t. They have no sympathy for American workers displaced by immigrants. I, in contrast, am employed, yet I have sympathy for the unemployed. I would like to see that problem solved.

Lefties just say they have empathy because, as always, they like to lie. No black nominees for an Oscar Award? Lefties shriek with outrage! Millions of people slaughtered by Stalin and Mao? “Yawn, you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs.”

(5) From Ace of Spades HQ, November 9, 2017:
ESPN has laid off 600 people over the last couple of years. That is, since they started experiencing the effects of their SJW stuff. As Ace notes, “Social Justice Warrioring is an expensive proposition.”

(6) Public Service Reminder:

You’re still boycotting Tor, right?

(7) On the recent mostly-leftist sexual harassment scandals (Harvey Weinstein, Al Franken, John Conyers, etc., etc.):

We always should have known the Left was a cesspit of sexual molesters. After all, what’s one of the things the Left always does? P R O J E C T.

(8) You might recall that in October two House Democrats, Bonnie Watson Coleman and Emanuel Cleaver, threatened Twitter’s CEO with censorship if he didn’t hew the line on politically incorrect speech. (It would be impossible – right now – to get this through Congress and the courts, but it’s the thought that counts.) Part of their threat to the CEO was:

We are disturbed by the ease in which foreign actors were able to manipulate your platform to advance anti-American sentiments…

Really? Then I guess we must fire all foreign citizens teaching political subjects at US universities. After all, if foreigners speaking about politics is “foreign interference/meddling in our election process”…

Roger Goodell: Moron, Loser

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell takes $89 million away from breast cancer and military charities to pay off SJWs:

http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2017/12/01/anthem-kneeler-says-nfl-siphoning-from-breast-cancer-military-donations-to-give-to-social-justice-causes/

Yeah, that will help with the NFL’s unprecedented decline in popularity and ratings.

Problem: Drop in viewer popularity and support.

Solution, by Roger Goodell: Offend your base more.

LOL, what an idiot.

No, idiots, Trump is not going to be removed from office

Trump is not going to be kicked out of the White House, people. Before you either lick your chops in anticipation (if you’re a leftist or a cuck) or run around in a latherous panic (if you’re a Trump supporter), do the electoral math:

Removing a President requires a vote on articles of impeachment in the House (simple majority) and then a two-thirds vote to convict in the Senate. We’re done. This is not going to happen. If you’re a Trump supporter, stop worrying. If you’re a Trump hater, stop clinging to empty hope. Move on with your life.

You can stop reading now, but if you have some time on your hands and are interested in the electoral arithmetic:

Here’s the Wikipedia page on the 2018 Senate elections:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2018
Infogalactic’s analogous page doesn’t have as much info, but if you’re curious:
https://infogalactic.com/info/United_States_Senate_elections,_2018

In the Senate in 2018, there are 25 currently Democratic seats that will be defended and 8 Republican seats. (Technically, 23 Dem seats, but two “independents” who caucus with the Dems, and 6 Republicans defending their seats, with 2 Republicans retiring so their seats will be open.) [UPDATE December 7: Now that Franken is resigning from the Senate, the Dems will be defending 26 seats, though the word around the campfire is that that seat is a pretty safe Dem seat.]

Republicans have 44 seats that are not open for election in 2018, so they will have at least 44 seats. Similarly, the Dems will have at least 23. The rest will be contested. Since the Dems are defending 25 seats and the Repubs only defending 8, the Dems are in a more precarious position. Some of each party’s seats are safe, of course, but that’s the basic idea.

Now let us think about it: The Reps have a locked in 44 seats. So the theoretical upper limit for the Dems – that’s if they win every election! – is 56. But they need two thirds, that is, 67, to convict! So even if they won every single Senate contest in 2018, which obviously is not going to happen, and even if every Dem Senator votes to convict – and some are from now-Republican-leaning states, so they won’t all dare to – they’d still need to pick up 11 Republican votes to convict!

Do you see now that this is seriously not going to happen? I can see, as an outside possibility, the notion that the House of Representatives might pass some articles of impeachment – though there’d be a lot of suddenly unemployed former House Republicans two years later – but the notion that the Senate would convict is beyond fanciful. Obviously the Dems aren’t going to win every Senate contest. Obviously not every single Dem is going to dare to vote to convict. Obviously they are not going to peel off 11 Republicans to vote to convict.

The best-case scenario for the left is that the House votes to impeach, i.e., to submit articles of impeachment to the Senate, and this is an annoying distraction for Trump and a short-run rhetorical victory for the left. In fact, this would be a significant long-term propaganda defeat for them, because it would be a pulling off of the mask that the left respects democracy. The more the left pulls hijinks like this, the more normies they wake up to their dictatorial nature.

So The God-Emperor is secure until he runs for re-election in 2020. At that point it’s moot, because he will either be re-elected or he won’t be. If he’s not re-elected, then the impeachment thing is obviously moot. If he is re-elected it’s a vote of confidence such that the Senate won’t dare to convict because his popularity will have been ratified twice.

Furthermore, after four years of “Impeach Trump!” it simply will have gone on too long. It be even more stale by then than it is now. Seriously, think about how stale it is now. Now imagine suffering through three more years of it. No one will even be listening to impeachment talk at that point.