MH talks some smack… can he back it up?
I teach logic and I would politely suggest that you have no familiarity with the concept. However, your site has served of some use in providing more real life versions of fallacies to employ in my critical thinking courses.
Bring it on, teacher man. Choose the subject and we’ll see how your “logic” and “critical thinking” holds up. Make it an example for your class. I’ll be happy to post your arguments and critiques in their entirety.
Do you teach the concept about walking the walk as well? Or are you just an academic who teaches because he can’t do?
UPDATE: Hey, at least he’s not a chicken:
The claim that intelligent design is a scienfitic theory which should be taught as an alternate to evolutionary theory in the high school curriculum. State your view and give an argument and I will respond.
Though I was never a fan of George Bernard Shaw, the author of the “can’t do” remark that conservatives are so fond of invoking as a subtitute for argument, I will wager that one thing you cannot do is argue or refrain from the ad hominem comments which is all I found at your website.
Hmmmm.. perhaps we can find something that we actually disagree on. I have never claimed that intelligent design is a scientific theory, nor have I ever asserted that it should be taught in the high school curriculum. (I think MH is confusing me with some of my readers.) I am an evolutionism skeptic, I am not a supporter of intelligent design in or out of the curriculum.
How about the following: The American public school system is detrimental to human liberty. Since MH is a teacher, I assume he’d disagree with that.
I will, by the way, take that ad hominem bet. Did you see any in the discussion about the utility of air power yesterday?
If I remember correctly, the salutation of my initial email was “to whom it may concern” and was sent in response to a short piece which consisted in nothing but ad hominem abuse of liberals. Your response included an attack on people who teach, the cliché adopted from Shaw, which is offered with remarkable frequency from conservatives as if it is an argument. So, the ad hominem claim I made was well substantiated by what I encountered in the initial piece and your response.
I didn’t know your view on intelligent design. I suggested it because of the popularity among conservatives and especially among Southern Baptists, since the convention assumed an official fundamentalist position some years ago, our benighted president seems to endorse its teaching in our schools, and the recent legal battles over its status. I’m not particularly interested in the topic you suggested and I don’t think it is well focused enough for an actual thesis. I am also not a public school teacher but teach philosophy in a community college.
Suggest another topic and if I have time I will respond. I don’t normally devote much time to any political websites, irrespective of ideology, usually only visiting them and the occasional talk show to maintain a stock of recent examples of “real life” fallacies. Many critical thinking and informal logic texts draw from such sources as well as the more traditional letters to the editor. They are gold mines for a variety of informal fallacies which are taught in all such courses.
Given you describe yourselves as a “Christian libertarian” website, why not a topic on religion?
That’s fine… of course, there’s also five years worth of columns and three years worth of blog posts to choose from. “To whom it may concern” did seem a little strange, considering that there was only one individual involved. Obviously, you’re not quite as familiar with my work as you first made it seem. Regardless of the apparent soundness of your reasoning, it obviously led you to an incorrect conclusion…. [As for the subject] how about this: Islam excluded, religion is not among the major causes of war.