A Logic Classroom in Lost Angeles
Just after the Election of 2016
By Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.
“And now I’m going to tell you about a recent Logic class and Donald Trump.
The past week I had students present their papers on fallacies they found in the media and popular culture. They didn’t realize I was going to have them present their findings to the class. But, it’s good for them. So I called them up, paper by paper, to briefly share what they found.
Every single one of them talked about Donald Trump.
Every single one.
I’m not kidding, every single one.
And virtually all of them had significant problems.
Let me narrate a bit. Here’s a few examples.
One group–these were group papers–came up and began on the Muslim registry and how that’s hasty generalization. Now, this is a short semester–I have them for 8 weeks–so they haven’t been subjected to my academic wrath for the other 8 weeks, and much of what we’ve done so far is deductive stuff–formal stuff. And I threw them into informal fallacies with only one and a half lectures–long lectures, probably about 4 hours total of lecture. But they looked nervous. I don’t mean to make them nervous (by the way, the class is all female except 2 males–seriously). I asked what the conclusion of the argument was. She said that Muslims need to register. To whom do they need to register? No answer. What government agency? By what authority? No answer. No clue. (This person works in the Jewish community in West Los Angeles and has a son at an Ivy League school, just to give you some context–I got lots of older students and some 17 year olds). Okay, what’s the premise? No premise.
I then reminded the class that arguments commit fallacies, not statements.
After about 15 minutes, we realized that Muslims don’t need to register for anything and that’s a scare tactic by the Left. You should have seen all their faces melt.
Another girl said that Trump committed hasty generalization when he said we need to build a wall. I said what’s the premise. Because Mexicans are rapists, murders and drug dealers. (Btw, this girl was an 18 year old Hispanic. A very attractive one, I might add. She’s sweet, too. But she’s just repeating what she’s heard in her social circle and on campus). So I gently asked, did he say that about all Mexicans? She didn’t know. But she did say that he said some Mexicans were okay. Some were good people.
So then I asked, if he thinks some are good people coming over illegally or uncodumentedly or whatever, does that mean he thinks all of them are rapists and murderers and drug dealers? The look on her face. She melted. I guess not. So, if he didn’t say “all”–and we had the transcript, he didn’t say “all”, and he didn’t say “no”, both universal quantifiers, he probably meant “some”, right? Right. And everyone agreed. And is that controversial? No. And everyone agreed.
And I wasn’t strong arming anyone. I was just sitting back asking questions. Questions they have NEVER heard anyone ask on campus. That’s the scary thing. These are such basic questions. So he thinks some Mexicans coming over are drug dealers.
Any fallacy there?
No, they said.
And then the sexual assault comments. A black girl came up and said that Trump committed ad hominem when he supported sexual assault. I didn’t sigh. I didn’t fart. I didn’t look down. I just asked what he said on the video. And we looked at the transcript–she had it. And I pointed out that he said that the women let him do it. Which implies consent. Which implies non-assault. The looks on their faces. They melted.
Unless you mean by consent what Democrats here in California try to mean: you have written agreement before contact. If that’s the legal definition of consent, then I sexually assault my wife every single time I kiss her on the cheek. 15 minutes of discussion on this, people, in Lost Angeles. Everyone agreed with me. All Liberal women. And one Mexican guy who likes ARs, loves that I had an NRA hat on. So, they did or didn’t let him do this. If they didn’t, it’s assault. But he wasn’t bragging that they didn’t let him do it, and he did it anyway. That’s not what he said.
Scales were falling from eyes. Over half the class came out of the closet and said they were never really that bothered by that anyway and they are sick of the manufactured hysteria. I think there were some open to being against Hillary in there. They began to peek out, at the end of the semester. They had a safe space. The safe space was created by asking questions, getting clear about what was said, and thinking carefully and charitably , rigorously and critically, and courageously taking on Political Correctness.
And they are mostly, if not entirely, with me.
And this is after–AFTER–I completely destroyed Roe v. Wade a few weeks ago, after I laid open Obergefell and company the week later for all to see its fallacious guts, after we discussed McDonald v. Chicago and the KKK (see footnote 20). That was the day I first wore the NRA hat.
It’s why I do what I do. I see it right in front of me. These people want, desire, a Republican who knows what he’s talking about, who can challenge all of the stupid beliefs daily laid upon them by the ubiquitous, totalitarian Politically Correct Left.
Anyway. Another day, another $1.25.”
Copyright Lucas J. Mather 2016
All Rights Reserved
Originally posted to Facebook December 16, 2016
Reposted on Lance Wallnau Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 10:37 pm
