Speaking of Embarrassing Pitfalls...

I  on recorded a Capitol TV segment last week with Republic editorial writer Kathleen Ingly and the Guardian's Dennis Welch.  Kathleen pointed out that there are hate groups that like SB 1070 and that's a problems for Conservatives. 

The argument is so fallacious that I thought it was a one-off event, but then I read this in Cap

Neo-Nazi political trap
For conservative Arizona politicos, especially those on the forefront of the debate over illegal immigration, connections to hate groups have become an embarrassing pitfall.

When I was at UA, I was required to take "Introduction to Logic" Philosophy 112.  I never thought I would need to use formal logic with i's Algebra-like diagrams, but I must admit that it has come in pretty handy. 

The first lesson is that a lot of statements that are true going one direction are not necessarily true going the other direction.  So this works:

"Everyone who falls out of a plane dies.   Bill fell out of a plane...therefore Bill is dead..." 

But this doesn't work.  "Everyone who falls out of a plane dies.  Bill is dead.  Therefore, Bill fell out of a plane." 

Here's a corollary that isn't so obvious;  "Everyone who likes Hitler is bad.  Hitler liked the music of Richard Wagner...The music of Richad Wagner is bad.

Nope.

So how's this..."Everyone who likes Nazi sympathizers is bad.  Nazi Sympathizers like SB 1070.  SB 1070 is bad."

Nope.  Doesn't work.  But it makes for fun stories. 

Times.

Comments

[Andy]

I have it on good authority that most members of hate groups like pizza.

I like pizza.

I can see where this is headed.

[stephen]

You reversed the operative term and introduced a new relationship. One clue is your logic exercise doesn't pass the smell test because if you continue to go to parties where you have common interests with folks and those people are Nazi's, perhaps you should ask some questions about your interests, that is unless you don't care that you and Nazi's have similar interests.

If you continue going to pro-life rallies and they are attended by abortion doctors, perhaps you should question your position or at least the common interests.

What you are doing is introducing a term (Wagner) that cuts the logic of your original relationship. To remain consistent with your original, and correct, exercise of Bill falling from the plane resulting in his death is the following.

People who sympathize with Nazis are doing something bad.

Bill sympathizes with Nazis (in liking SB1070).

Bill is doing something bad (in liking SB1070).

In your SB1070 exercise the correct logic would be:

Everyone who likes nazi sympathizers is bad.
SB1070 likes nazi sympathizers.
SB1070 is bad.

I do not study logic, so I can be wrong, but I am pretty sure I am correct and your exercise is misleading. Also, you may disagree with the original statement, "people who sympathize with nazis are doing something bad". Perhaps you do.

[Jim Torgeson]

That's a poorly prepared equation.

[todd]

The thing is I don't think what conclusions one might draw is coming from a syllogism.

The authors of SB1070 claim that the bill was written with no motivation of racial animus. This is called into question by some of the actions/statements (for instance Pearce's new claim that the 'invasion' is 'racial') of said authors and the organizations they belong to/look to, for instance, FAIR. So, do we take them at their word that there motivations are 'clean' when we have some evidence to the contrary and the fact that people who are vocal and unabashed racists also strongly support this bill makes these denials even less persuasive.

As to the last example, Wagner's music is very beautiful, but if one were to ask if there are themes or theories behind his music that promote a view that is racist and nationalist the fact that he was a vile anti-semite AND the fact that Hitler was such and admirer and ascribed these qualities to the work and used the music in that way certainly adds to the support for this argument. This is why even today Wagner's music is not performed in Israel.

[stephen]

Back to the Wagner exercise:

Original:

"Everyone who likes Hitler is bad. Hitler liked the music of Richard Wagner...The music of Richad Wagner is bad."

Should be:

"Everyone who likes Hitler is bad. Wagner liked Hitler...Richard Wagner is bad."

or:

"Everyone who supports Hitler's ideology is bad. Wagner's music supports Hitler's ideology...Wagner's music is bad."

So now I wonder. Now that the logic has been worked out. Does espressopundit still sympathize with Nazi's?

[WhoHa]

Don't forget that politics also "makes strange bedfellows" and that logic is often defied for political purposes. Building a coalition to support a political agenda is a tricky business, I think that's the Republic's point. And the other side has the exact same problem with the groups that want to re-fight the "War of North American Invasion" that put Arizona in the hands of whites.

[stephen]

WhoHa, perhaps, but only in the imagination of the "cultural purists" who somehow see the continuation of the natural movement of humans as some conspiracy to conquer the USA.
While I am not a particular fan of MEChA, I don't think any member is serious about reconquering the Southwest and it is more an attempt at political self determination, cultural (not racial) pride and empowerment.
http://www.nationalmecha.org/about.html

They are against SB1070 because it is an affront to those values.

By contrast, Neo-Nazis and white nationalists are pretty clear about their goals. They want to preserve their white bloodline and maintain the so-called ownership of the USA by racial whites, regardless of cultural background. They are for SB1070 because it advances their goal of white purity.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/
http://www.americannaziparty.com/

Are there crazies on both sides? Sure and taking sides with folks who are crazy should be cause for concern. But, while introspection is encouraged, Espressopundit is looking at these associations with racists in the face and is not only dismissive of the very real concern one might think would come to mind when you're standing shoulder to shoulder with racists on a cause, but he is mocking those associations. He is wholly indifferent to them and willing to come up with faulty logic to substantiate the comedy of those associations. It would be very concerning to me if someone were defending a position that , say, jihadists were actively supporting. Though I'm sure if it were jihadists, we wouldn't see such dismissiveness. One might ask why.