The real problem will be when someone tries to make the last book into a movie. That one's really not-PC.

Debbie,

I'm currently a student at the Ohio State University majoring in Philosophy. One of the main branches of philosophy is Logic (correct reasoning), so it is of course part of my curriculum. In one of my courses it is required that I keep a Logbook of fallacies through out the quarter. We were supposed to take examples of basic Logical fallacies from the media (they’re nearly infinite) and record them in our logbook. Well, I recently turned it in and just got my grade back, I received an A. The only reason why I'm telling you any of this is because your website and the things you say everyday was the primary source of the logical fallacies I used in my logbook. It’s an odd thing, despite your utter contempt for elementary reasoning; you are held to be a voice of authority in the political realm and are a practicing attorney. In any case, I just wanted to thank you for helping me continue my education, and let those fallacies keep comin’ because it’s boosting my GPA.

Nice horse laugh there, Nicky. Are you sure you got an A for the paper or the act of deriding a conservative commentator? To be true, the rules of debate shouldn't be applied to casual, deliberate, and comical mockery. Otherwise Oscar Wilde would've just been a prissy.

List a few of Debbie's supposedly fallacies, Nicholas. Let's see if you can back up your claims, logbook boy.

I have a few things you can put in your logbook, too.

I had some classes like that in college. Anything written or said was golden as long as it was left wing. It was really pathetic and about as intellectual an exercize as taking a dump (pardon my French). The only tension was how low the Republican kids would sink to go along.

Shleppy.. I had some surprisingly liberal professors at Kansas but fortunately the majority welcomed open discussion.

What do these celebrities drink? acid kool aid? Clooney has gone off the deep end, but at least he has lots of company in Hollyweird. They hate America so much, why don't they leave. Remember when Johnny Depp was stating how he was glad to be living in France, and how America has gone crazy with all those conservative 'extremists'. Now, after the riots, Depp is saying he is leaving France - it's bad and crazy, and he is moving back to America. What did Depp see in France that changed his mind? I wonder. All those Mohammedans rioting, screaming Allah Akbar, and setting a disable person on fire or beating to death that infidel trying to put out a set fire in the dumpster outside his apt. Didn't you like that Johnny?

http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/depp%20i%20cant%20stay%20in%20riot-ravaged%20france

DEPP: 'I CAN'T STAY IN RIOT-RAVAGED FRANCE'


Also see:
JOHNNY DEPP
FINDING NEVERLAND

Hollywood star JOHNNY DEPP is so shocked by the riots raging through France, he's considering abandoning his home in the country.

The FINDING NEVERLAND heart-throb moved to Europe when life in Los Angeles became too violent.

He has since divided time between the two continents - but he fears France will be scarred permanently by the current troubles.

He says, "It's insane, that setting cars on fire is the new strike.

"I went there (to France) to live because it seemed so simple.

"Now it's anything but. I don't know how they'll recover from this."

18/11/2005 17:31

"nicholasedward"?? Mr. Log Book Boy?? Cat got your tongue?

You don't have to post a whole log book of Debbie's "fallacies", just one or two.

I'm giving you an F for punctuality so far.

The_Man- My apologies for not responding sooner. I haven’t checked back because I intended that to be the last post I made, but here I am. I'm not going to go through each and every single logical fallacy she commits because there is so many (probably at least one or so every day), but here’s a good example of BASIC logical fallacies she commits: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2005/11/celebs_who_supp.html

On that entry you'll find Ad Hominem fallacies- Tu Quoque, Circumstantial and Abusive

Melek Taus- The grade I received was legitimate. Logical fallacies shouldn't be applied to comical mockery but Debbie schlussel is far from being remotely funny. Any kind of comedy she attempts is negative and mean spirited, in short, she comes off as a hateful bigot. Most of what she says has to do with everyone being a terrorist or supporting them, none of which has any comedic value.

Shleppy- Politics didn’t play a role in my class. From what I understand, Ohio State has got a better philosophy program than Yale’s (at least at the moment anyways), so its not a joke program where simply hating republicans will get you a good grade. Besides, attacking professors for being liberal only makes you look like an idiot. The smartest people in the country are our college professors and if the majority of them happen to lean to the left, that only hurts your cause.

Nicholas, sounds like your arguments are just your opinions.

You showed no examples, just linked to a Debbie article. Be more specific.

It's your opinion that Debbie is not funny. Who said comedy cannot be "negative and mean spirited"? Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor, and Howard Stern among others are frequently "negative and mean spirited", but many people find them funny.

How do you know Ohio State's has a better philosophy program than Yale?s? "The smartest people in the country are our college professors..." Proof?

Nicholas, you are entitled to your opinions. But, you have provided ZERO evidence to back up your opinions. Why should anyone take your opinions over someone like Debbie Schlussel, who is far more accomplished?

Nicky, Log Book Boy, is that it? You using the Roger "Debbie is a meanie" Ebert defense?

Not asking for a book, just a couple examples. All you provide is a link and silly "look at me use big words"? You DID say you logged Debbie's so called fallacies. What did you do for your big "A", copy and paste her articles?

College professors are the smartest people in the country? Please tell me you aren't that stupid and gullible.

The_Man- I'm not talking to you like a four year old so please don't speak to me that way, a little courtesy goes a long way. You accused me of implying "look at me use big words" or something like that. Listen man, don't try to make me look stupid just because you’re too lazy to look up the definition of a word you aren't familiar with, that’s the terminology for the fallacies she committed, what else could I have said, should I make up words?

Alright well I've got a lot to answer here so I better get going. I suppose I'll start off with Ohio States philosophy program. Every two years the philosophical gourmet report is released ranking the top 50 programs in the country. If you’re in the top 50 at all, you have a very good program. In the most recent report, Ohio State's program was tied with Brown University at #21 overall, Yale’s was ranked at #25. Here’s the most recent report- http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/overall.htm

I think it’s quite a stretch comparing Debbie Schlussel to Richard Pryor. Unlike funny negative comedians like oh say Lewis Black, Debbie's "humor" is driven by her own prejudices and mindless hate. If a black guy tells a joke about black people its no big deal, but if a Klan member tells that same joke its pretty obvious they think its funny for different reasons. Her distain for everyone loosely affiliated to Muslims takes away from anything which could be called an attempt at humor. Maybe that’s not a real good example, think of it this way. It’s like when the Kid who doesn't get hugged enough makes fun of the other kids for being fat or weak to mask his own feelings of inferiority. Sure, it’s technically a joke but the joke is entirely at someone else's expense, it isn't insightful, witty and it sure as hell isn't warranted. Haven't you noticed a lot of the times when she gets pictures of people she’s speaking about, she'll show horrible pictures of them, like Star Jones in a bathing suit or Katie Couric's sagging skin. What the hell does that have to do with Couric being an unfit anchor or Jones being an idiot, its just unnecessary shots below the belt.

What the hell are you talking about Professors aren’t the smartest people in the country? Its not like the guys are just hired based on political affiliation (Not to say that you were implying that). What could possibly make you think they aren’t intelligent? This is where knowledge and wisdom come from in our country. Anthropologists, leading psychologists, philosophers, Mathematicians, sociologists, archaeologists- Most of them find work at colleges teaching the new generations.

None of that is really all that important though, alls you really cared about was showing a fallacy or two. Ok if you go back to the link you’ll find Debbie attacking all of these celebrities for supporting Tookie. It does get annoying when celebrities use opportunities like this to show that they care but she doesn’t address any of their viewpoints. Instead of researching or examining any of their personal opinions or reasons for why they support tookie, she instead insults them as means to make them look discreditable. These are all Ad Hominem fallacies.

Example 1-
Jackson "I beat my girlfriend" Browne

Abusive- This is an attack on Browne’s character rather his reasoning for supporting the life of Williams.

Example 2-
Kerry Kennedy Cuomo (You always need a Kennedy of some ilk, all the better if she was cheated on, then dumped by a Cuomo.)

What the hell does that have to do with anything? Why would you even mention that? Does her having been cheated on really have relevance to Williams death sentence? She only said this to make the woman look bad. Its dirty comments like these that fuels most of my rage for Debbie Schlussel.

Example 3- George Costanza (Jason Alexander), who is at least consistent; He stands up for Palestinian terrorists, too.

That link takes you to a snoop dogg rant so I don’t know what she’s talking about, I would assume its because he’s occasionally a spokesperson for the Anti Defamation League but I could be wrong. In any case lets assume Alexander actually does support terrorists and that Williams is a terrorist as well. This would be an example of Tu Quoque, which basically means going after somebody on the grounds that they are affiliated w/the group in question. This is a fallacy because their political affiliation or whatever it is that makes them relevant to the group does not establish that they’ve reached an invalid conclusion. Take Laura Schlessinger for example. She calls for family unity but won’t speak to her parents. Clearly she’s a hypocrite, but that doesn’t mean she’s wrong. It’s the same thing with Jason Alexander. Even if he does support terrorists (and that’s a pretty shaky thing to say), that doesn’t mean Stanley Williams should be put to death.

Well that’s three there and I am unbelievably tired so that’ll be all for now, if absolutely necessary I’ll produce some more later. But until then, I’m gonna get some rest. Happy holidays everybody.

From the philisophicalgourmet link, "Please give your opinion of the attractiveness of the faculty for a prospective student,..."

It's someone's opinion. Not discounting it totally, still it's someone's opinion.

What I get from Debbie's posts, especially the one about the celeb support for Tookie, is that you can't separate a person's character from their positions. If you want to call them "fallacies", fine.

I don't totally discount what they say because nobody is totally consistent in their behavior, but I DO in fact think it's important to consider the behavior of a person along with what they say.

Dismiss it as a "fallacy" all you want, but character counts to me. Else, it's just empty words.

Call it what you like, but most people I know call it plain common sense.

Well its not just someone's opinion, rather many peoples. The rankings are "based on reputational surveys completed by 266 philosophers throughout the English-speaking world." That isn't to say its absolute, because when you rank anything its subject to error, but I think its similar to the Oscars. A lot of the times I personally feel the Academy awards fail at choosing the best picture but if a movie gets nominated at all its probably a really good picture. So if your on that list I think a school is probably a really good school, but in terms of actual ranks its certainly isn't infallible.

"but I DO in fact think it's important to consider the behavior of a person along with what they say."

I agree with you, and I think most people would too. Character should considered, But judging someone solely on past actions without even addressing their position is what makes it a fallacy. Plus what what about Kerry Kennedy, what does her being cheated on have to do with her character?

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: