Countering the counter-counter argument

M.C. Barsenas has written a rebuttal to my objective analysis. Since I am currently too drunk on scotch to write a proper response, I will let my highly-intelligent, logical younger brother Greg write a counter-rebuttal. Greg's analysis is after the jump.

Some Notes:

Your original post was titled, "Sarah Ryley's Argument: An Objective Analysis." I don't know what perverted definition of "objective" you use, but I was under the impression that "objective" meant that emotion, bias, and opinion were not present. All three of those are present within your "objective" analysis:

Emotion:

I know Joe doesn't like us to comment on the South End's activities too much, but I could not contain myself after reading an article by Sarah Ryley, entitled "Inaugural speech signals dark times for America, the world".

Bias:

This was written by one or more conservative bloggers, probably without any liberals reading through it / fact-checking / providing any kind of support. Therefore, the entire analysis is inherently biased towards conservativism.

Opinion:

Lastly, Ms. Ryley claims that God is "a universal term that describes what is outwardlyand inwardly beautiful" ? That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life.

Counter-Counter-Analysis I:

Sarah Ryley wrote in the South End:

Even in the months preparing for his second term, the use of the word “mandate” to justify his policies and the air of infallibility signal that this administration views its missionas one dictated by God.

You wrote:

Ms. Ryley claims that President Bush used the word "mandate" to justify his policies, an "air of infalliability" in his administration, and clearly indicate that President Bush feels his mission is dictated by God. Ms. Ryley failed to cite where exactly President Bush said "mandate" because that would provide the astute reader with some context and would more then likely dissolve Ms. Ryley's argument.

You misrepresented what she said. She never said President Bush used the word "mandate." She said the administration used it. And they did. That's what Jeff pointed out with that Cheney quote.

So you pretty much started the whole "straw man" thing by misrepresenting what Sarah Ryley originally wrote.

Also, the prayer delivered by Reverend Dr. Louis Leon during the ceremony has the following excerpt:

We pray that you will shower the elected leaders of this land and especially George our president and Richard our vice president with your life giving spirit. Fill them with a love of truth and righteousness that they may serve you and this nation ably and glad to do your will.

If asking God to "fill them with a love of truth and righteousness" and to make Bush do "God's will" doesn't introduce an air of infallibility, I don't know what does. And the prayer itself signifies that there were religious overtones in the inauguration.

So where's your objection to what Sarah Ryley wrote? There were religious overtones in the inauguration, the administration used "mandate" to justify Bush's policies, and the prayer pretty much delivers an air of infallibility.

Sarah Ryley's argument appears to be valid, at least so far.

Counter-Counter-Analysis II:

[Jeff] takes a single quote from the Mein Kampf and from that concludes that the remainder of the Mein Kampf is somehow representative of this statement.

I find it funny that you're taking one piece of Nazi literature and concluding that the remainder of Nazi ideals are somehow representative of it. Is a genuine excerpt from "Mein Kampf" less "objective" than your interpretation?

Osama Bin Laden has never even ran any government, and is a lunatic terrorist that lives in a cave.

He may never have personally run a government, but he was VERY close to the leaders of the Taliban government in Afghanisan. He even supplied the Taliban with most of their money and military supplies. He also moved to Kandahar, their stronghold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_Bin_Laden). So Osama had major influence over the Taliban government. Sure, you can pick nits and say he never personally ran that government, but it was a terrorist-training government that was largely backed by Osama. And guess what the Taliban's motivations were for training all those terrorists...

Counter-Counter-Analysis III:

About that logic thing:

Let's say we have these two premises:
A->B
C->B

You cannot say that A->C with those two premises. You can only do it if B->C, but you can't if C->B.

Suppose that:

Chicken is poultry.
Turkey is poultry.
Therefore, Chicken is Turkey.

That's how your "logic" worked in that argument.

Let me demonstrate:

Well, if Ms. Ryley believes that liberty and freedom are good, and further that God is good, then she must, by logic, believe that freedom and liberty would be willed by God.

Freedom&Liberty -> good
God -> good
God -> Freedom&Liberty

You are essentially trying to prove that chicken = turkey. I call "foul".

Counter-Counter-Analysis IV:

Since you claim Jeff didn't answer your primary questions, I will now do so on his behalf.

For reference, here are the questions:

Ms. Ryley claims thatU.S. forces will be "sweeping over the Third World". Why should we believe that? U.S. forces didn't sweep over the Third World in President Bush's first administration. Why would he do so now?

1) Because he's already got a foot in the door (Iraq).
2) Because he doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected now.

Oh, and by the way, since you seem to have an obsession with strawman fallacy accusations, let's discuss this little misrepresentation of what Sarah Ryley said:

It went from:

And so, as some Americans listened ethereally inspired and others stunned to despair, few could deny that our military may soon be sweeping over the Third World — we only differ on our opinions as to what it’s truly going to be for.

to

Ms. Ryley claims thatU.S. forces will be "sweeping over the Third World".

Where did the "may soon be" go? I love how it turned into "will be" when you represented it in your "analysis." I hope the Scarecrow Society forgives you for beating down one of their members.

Counter-Counter-Analysis V:

Allow me to put two of your quotes side-by-side for a second:

I argue that there is no reason to believe Ms. Ryley's claims regarding these issues because Ms. Ryley did not provide any evidence for them.

versus...

If all the world's scientists disagreed on whether the world was flat or spherical, would this somehow change the reality of the earth's shape?

So you're suggesting that you shouldn't believe Sarah Ryley's claims because she presented no evidence? So if I say "The Earth is round," you should then say "I shouldn't believe you because you didn't present any evidence for those claims!"

The Earth is still round, buddy.

Counter-Counter-Analysis VI:

How has the Republican party shamed homosexuals? By calling them big dumb gay-heads? That is a ridiculous assertion on Ms. Ryley's part. Furthermore, not everyone shares the same sexual rights. Pedophiles and rapists are not permitted to explore there sexuality (thank God).

Please tell me you aren't denying that conveniently bringing up two of the most illegal (and incendiary) sexual activities as examples of people who do not share the "same sexual rights" as homosexuals is shameful at best, and a horrible guilt-by-association fallacy at worst.

Oh, and by the way, you have no room to talk when it comes to criticizing people for the fallacy of composition. Didn't you guys write a sensationalist front page article in your Volume II, Issue 3 in December 2004 with the headline "Declaration of Independence: BANNED!: Political Correctness Run Amok In Schools Across America" ? First of all, you said "Schools Across America" when it was in one school in Cupertino, California. So right there you're committing a fallacy of composition. Also, I believe that the real story is that a teacher was pretty much advertising his church to his students with additional and unnecessary handouts (that happened to have the most religious excerpts of the Declaration of Independence on them), and THAT'S what got banned. So you pretty much blew the whole thing out of proportion.

Counter-Counter-Analysis VII:

Lastly, Ms. Ryley claims that God is "a universal term that describes what is outwardly and inwardly beautiful" ? That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life. A daisy is a pretty flower, but it certainly is not God. I just...don't even know how to approach this absurdity.

Mr. Jeffrey is responding to my flat-out rejection of Ms. Ryley's definition of God. My response to Mr. Jeffrey is: No. I will not play Mr. Jeffrey's epistemological game, because it descends into absurdity.

Okay, so let me get this straight: Sarah Ryley's definition of God is an absurdity, and Jeff challenging you to provide a definition of God (since you appear to be the end-all-know-all of what God is by shooting down her definition) is also an absurdity. I think the only thing that is absurd here is you.