Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Dan Savage Shows Ignorance of Logic
From the article:
Way back when, Santorum gave a speech about the Lawrence v. Texas decision which declared sodomy to be a Constitutional right. Rick Santorum utilized the reductio ad absurdum form of argumentation.
This form of argumentation takes a premise and follows it to a ridiculous, but logical, conclusion. Thus showing that the original premise was flawed.
The Lawrence v. Texas decision said that state governments cannot have sodomy laws because it invades privacy rights. It may be a bit more nuanced than that, but that was basicly it.
Rick Santorum argues that if you follow that logic you have to allow other sex acts that Dan Savage alludes to in the above quote. Dan Savage, and others like him, do not seem to understand that Rick Santorum utilized the reductio ad absurdum form of argumentation. They think Santorum's comments about Lawrence v. Texas are... well, absurd. Dan Savage believes that Rick Santorum equated sodomy with beastiality or incest.
So, personally, I find Dan Savage's reaction to Rick Santorum, and the reactions of others like him, fully of irony tinged with sadness.
Hey, Dan Savage if you are reading this: Rick Santorum wasn't equating those practices with sodomy. That was the whole freaking point.
Dan Savage needs to go reread Rick Santorum's speech in the light of logic.
From the article:
"He can't distinguish between a gay adult relationship and child rape and bestiality. How would he feel if I compared his marriage to raping children and f---ing animals?"
Way back when, Santorum gave a speech about the Lawrence v. Texas decision which declared sodomy to be a Constitutional right. Rick Santorum utilized the reductio ad absurdum form of argumentation.
This form of argumentation takes a premise and follows it to a ridiculous, but logical, conclusion. Thus showing that the original premise was flawed.
The Lawrence v. Texas decision said that state governments cannot have sodomy laws because it invades privacy rights. It may be a bit more nuanced than that, but that was basicly it.
Rick Santorum argues that if you follow that logic you have to allow other sex acts that Dan Savage alludes to in the above quote. Dan Savage, and others like him, do not seem to understand that Rick Santorum utilized the reductio ad absurdum form of argumentation. They think Santorum's comments about Lawrence v. Texas are... well, absurd. Dan Savage believes that Rick Santorum equated sodomy with beastiality or incest.
So, personally, I find Dan Savage's reaction to Rick Santorum, and the reactions of others like him, fully of irony tinged with sadness.
Hey, Dan Savage if you are reading this: Rick Santorum wasn't equating those practices with sodomy. That was the whole freaking point.
Dan Savage needs to go reread Rick Santorum's speech in the light of logic.
