Logic Saves: Foundation, Attitudes, and Values

TRIGGER: http://schoolsucksproject.com/143-logic-saves-lives-part-1-foundation-attitudes-and-values/

There are some people I’ve engaged that essentially act as though “everyone’s opinions are just as valid as anyone else’s.” Usually, this is in context of the individual holding self-contradictory beliefs and lacking the skills to think internally using Reason and Logic.

I could blame this on the shortage of proper teaching in Public Schools on how to properly use Reason and Logic. The Establishment doesn’t want individuals thinking critically and questioning everything.

For the unReasoned, they are not even aware that they fail to adhere to the Metaphysical Laws of Reason (as popularly described by Aristotle):

1. Identity
2. Causality
3. Non-Contradiction

Do the unReasoned choose to be so of “free will?” or is it simply because they haven’t been exposed to this information? Or are there psychological reasons outside of their control that compels them to remain ignorant and rebellious toward the Metaphysical Laws of Reason?

The Basic Intelligence Test on the Industrial Revolution

There is a basic intelligence test that occurs when someone points to the “Industrial Revolution” as an example of “Capitalism” run amok (I will also throw in today’s “sweat shops” also into the same realm of logical fallacy). They like to emphasize the Robber Barons, Child Labor, working conditions, soot, and other things, that when compared to today’s standard of living, seem criminal.

I will admit that I was once of the same mindset being brainwashed by the public education system, but I think I would’ve quickly realized my fallacious thinking had someone pointed it out to me.

The problems with the critiques against the “Industrial Revolution” is that it doesn’t properly compare conditions. The comparison should not be against the conditions of our comforts here in the United States in 2016, but should be compared against the actual, local conditions at the time in question, and those that preceded it.

Upon that view, it will become clear that the poorer working conditions of the Industrial Revolution (when compared to average working conditions and standard of living in the United States in the present) are actually SUPERIOR working conditions (when compared to average working conditions and standard of living in the locality of the specific time). And when you consider the incredible increase in the standard of living IN THANKS TO “Capitalism,” you really have to wonder if the “better alternative” really can be any “better.” It’s not to say that “Capitalism” doesn’t have its weaknesses, for which there exist. It’s all about perspective since life is all about trade-offs thanks to the scarcity of resources and time.

WARNING: this video presents the information with a level of mockery / sarcasm that’s not intended for those who fail to grasp this common logical fallacy. But if you don’t grasp basic logic, then you probably aren’t reading my posts anyway.



Progressives LOVE to point out how you’re being “hostile,” “impolite,” and “antagonistic,” when you disagree with their beliefs using rational statements in an attempt to discredit the substance of your argument. This “character assassination” is a common logical fallacy called the “Ad Hominem” fallacy.


Sometimes, it’s linked to “Willful Ignorance,” in that Progressives will espouse “Ad Hominem” attacks to justify why they will ignore other evidence, or use Circular Reasoning (“I cannot agree with that source because it is untrustworthy because it disagrees with me”.)


This is not isolated to just Progressives, and also applies to many “on the right” (ie. Drug War, Foreign Entanglements, etc.).

I see this quite a bit with my own family members as well (for which I will now learn to abstain from discussing matters of substance), and unfortunately, I see this behavior very commonly on Facebook when I attempt to discuss Anti-Statist perspectives.

For me, a rational discussion is the only way by which we can peacefully come to an understanding between two, diametrically opposed views. This is very difficult when the other side continually thwarts productive discussion by throwing in logical fallacies such as, Ad Hominem attacks, Circular Reasoning, and Willful Ignorance.

Let’s look at some definitions of words I used above:

HOSTILE – opposed; unfriendly; antagonistic
IMPOLITE – not having or showing good manners; rude
ANTAGONISTIC – showing or feeling active opposition toward someone or something

By definition, merely “disagreeing” with someone on Facebook has automatically labeled you “impolite” or “hostile.” In Korean circles (and probably many other Asian cultures), disagreeing with your Elders, even with rationale, is considered sacrilegious. Perhaps this comes from the Confucius roots, but damned be “the Truth.” The greater good is “harmony” within the community and not what is actually “True.” By disagreeing with an opinion, and voicing that disagreement, therefore is morally abhorrent and discredits any statements you make.

I’ll make a video that fleshes out these concepts as I’ve seen them in real life both in Korean churches, my personal life, and discussions in politics.