Responding to Annoying Liberal Remarks on Facebook, III – The Logic 101 Edition

As you know, tutoring is my day job. In 2005, I started off as an ESL tutor; these days, I teach science and math in addition to the usual ESL work.

I’m bringing this up because I have had several clients over the years who have requested help in Geometry, and Virginia’s Geometry curriculum includes a section on basic logic. In my area, syllogisms in particular are taught using examples such as these:

Valid Syllogism

  • Major premise: All mammals are warm-blooded.
  • Minor premise: All black dogs are mammals.
  • Conclusion: Therefore, all black dogs are warm-blooded.

Invalid Syllogism

  • Major premise: All mammals are warm-blooded.
  • Minor premise: A robin is warm-blooded.
  • Conclusion: Therefore, a robin is a mammal.

Note the pattern of the valid syllogism:

All a are b.
C is a.
Therefore, c is b.

In order for your conclusion to be valid, your minor premise has to be connected to the first half of your major premise, not the second.

In discussing the motives of the Arizona shooter, supposedly “brainy” liberals all over Facebook are employing the sort of faulty logic used in my example of an invalid syllogism. Essentially, they are arguing the following:

  • The Tea Partiers have expressed anti-government sentiments.
  • Loughner has expressed anti-government sentiments.
  • Therefore, Loughner is a Tea Partier, and Tea Party leaders can be deemed accessories to mass murder.

Non sequitur, lefties. Non sequitur. This is what is known as the fallacy of the undistributed middle. Your conclusion rests on the implied belief that all people who express anti-government opinions must be Tea Partiers — and that is a categorically false-to-facts assumption. Anarchists are, by definition, anti-government, but anarchists and Tea Partiers have very little in common. As a matter of fact, I’m willing to wager that any anarchist would be insulted to be labeled a Tea Partier.

In any case, your major premise is false to begin with. The Tea Party is not anti-government; it’s anti-BIG-government. We Tea Partiers recognize the government’s vital role in preserving the rule of law. What we do not accept is this idea that government should be permitted to grow unchecked so that favored groups can become dependent upon it. And by the way, unlike the aforementioned anarchists, we act upon our core beliefs by gathering in peaceful rallies and exercising the power of the vote.


The left’s highly orchestrated rush to use the atrocity in Arizona to slime conservatives and the Tea Party – and yes, the fact that accusations of Tea Party malfeasance started even before we knew whether Giffords had survived strongly suggests orchestration – is nothing less than an attempt to squelch legitimate dissent. Already, I am seeing calls for legislation to police political speech. That’s the left’s knee-jerk response whenever they encounter opinions they don’t like.

2 thoughts on “Responding to Annoying Liberal Remarks on Facebook, III – The Logic 101 Edition

  1. I just don't get it. Loughner has nothing at all in common with the tea party…as soon as his YouTube videos came out, I thought that would be the end of this nonsense…it's ridiculously obvious that he was a schizophrenic suffering from grandiose delusions about plots to brainwash people and control us through currency and the reshaping of spiritual ideas (he ranted against the inclusion of a bible in his military recruiting package, e.g…most in the tea party are Christian). He doesn't have any ties at all to the tea party…none. And The “climate of violence” supposedly created by the tea party? Most of the violence was caused by left wing REACTION to tea party rallies…so if anything, the climate of violence that “gave rise” to Loughner's attack was caused by leftist hatred…not by the tea party…of course I don't blame lefties either…THE GUY WAS CRIMINALLY INSANE!!!!!!!!


    I sometimes seriously hate politics.


  2. The left can't win at the ballot box, and they're desperate. Thus, they resort to spreading a blood libel. As I suggested, it is a calculated attempt to discredit their opposition and, possibly, to sow the seeds for legislative restrictions on political speech.

    Leftists been waiting – waiting – for something just like this to happen. They've been sitting at the edges of their seats salivating over the possibility. And no, I don't think I'm being too harsh here. Even before the smoke from Loughner's gun had cleared, leftwing partisans were out there in force promoting their mendacious narrative. That to me smacks of premeditation.

    Until a little while ago, I was dangerously close to putting all Democrats on my permanent shit list. That is how angry I was. If I hadn't seen the CBS poll I just posted, I probably would've terminated all contact with several people I generally consider my friends.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s