Site Meter

Teaching Pigs to Sing


I thank Joy for articulating the “penis envy” concept and I am also thankful that I now know Joy’s view regarding her lack of desire to have a penis. I am now one step closer to having lived a fulfilled life.

My views are not sexist. The reader that scrolls this blog will certainly find no evidence that I have sexist, racist, liberal or conservative views. I try to think rationally. I try to articulate my views with a little ingenious humor.

The facts, as I see them, is that Joy directed argumentum ad hominem at W.F. Buckley, Jr. Alan and myself addressed the futility of this attempt on two subsequent posts.

Now the ad hominem attack is directed at me. Here we go again. Am I seeing a pattern?

Is it that when all else fails and Joy is unable to continue the debate, she invoked logical fallacy number 1 (see below.) This not only is pollution the rational world with irrational thoughts but is an attempt to redirect the debate from the topic to the person (ad hominem).

I thought my afternoon post of 10/28 would have stimulated thought and perhaps a response?

Let's get back to the reasoning.

posted by Randall 12:24 AM


The myth that is known as penis envy is a lie perpetuated by men. I have not ever, during any point of my life, wanted a penis. In fact there are many times I have been gratefull not to have one. I firmly believe that the "hand that rocks the cradle rules the world".

When all else fails and Randy is unable to convince me that he is right and I am wrong his rational for being right is "because I have a penis".. Of Course Randy's response to this post will be that I once again am "polluting the world with my irrational thoughts". What Crap!!!!!

What coulld make a man as intelligent as Randy have such sexist views?
posted by Joy 9:25 PM

"What pennance must I pay for the crimes against humanity I have commited? Being vocal? Is it because I say what I want to say when I want to? You should really try it sometime, takes a load off body and mind, nothing is pent up. Sure, sometimes it comes off as being a pretentious little ass, but don't we all at one time or another? The world is full of have's and have not's, but most people don't realize that it is all subjective and relative, some people view an income of $200K to be very much a have, while some can view $3 mil. as still not enough. This is what drives most of mankind, the desire to "have", if not we'd be communist and would all be told that what we have is what we need, no more, no less. Only a have not can turn himself into a have, when they can come to terms with what they do have is what satiates them."..... from "Jerry McGuire's" mission statement.

"Some people are white and some are black, some people are happy and some are sad, some people shop at JC Penny's and some at Fred Segal, some people are smart and some are stupid. We are each cast lots in life and its our job to either roll with the punches and deal with it or take charge and try to change it, sitting around crying, bitching, and blubbering will accomplish nothing, the only course of action is exactly that, action. If you don't run your life, someone else will, and it doesn't have to be by a direct means, seeing what they do, have, and say can influence you and cause you much grief, whose fault is that but your own?" from a Business/Economics major at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

posted by Randall 12:45 PM

Thanks, Alan. An analysis of the essay and your mother’s response makes it clear your mother is polluting the logical world. At first I thought her reading skills were impaired until I read your post.

Let's look at the essay.

Has there been “A Shift in Abortion Sentiment?”

Buckley starts by discussing Gerald Ford’s interview and an opinion poll conducted by The New York Times. Ford is encouraging the GOP to stay away from the abortion debate. The poll indicates the American people are roughly split with half of the people believing that abortion is murder.

He talks about paradoxes and points out that the poll results are a paradox. “…Americans who believe that abortion is murder but who nevertheless (one-third of them) don't believe laws against abortion should be binding.”

Buckley proceeds to develop two points to answer the question.

The first point developed is that the GOP is changing.

The second point that Buckley provides in support of the proposition that there may be a shift in abortion sentiment has to do with race but certainly a reasonable person could not possibly conclude that Buckley is either a racist or, for that matter, against abortion.

Buckley develops this relationship by pointing out Roger Rosenblatt’s view that “… American people are moving against abortion but on the moral, not political, plane.” Buckley then talks about this moral plane “notwithstanding its ugliness”. He is simply providing data.

Buckley started the essay with a question in the title. He ends the essay with a question: “Is this cultural polarization what the polls are now telling us about?”

I don’t think a rational person could read this essay and infer Buckley is a racists or a proponent of abortion.

Joy - anything else you don't like about W. F. Buckley, Jr.?
posted by Randall 12:46 AM


As an outsider to this argument I would like to throw my 2 cents in. I dont believe that my mother is arguing with logic. It is a flaw that she has carried and will continue to carry the rest of her life. For her an argument isn't about what is statistically correct or not but more about what her personal morals and feelings are towards the subject. While I dont agree with all of Buckley's arguments or reasoning I do believe that his arguments carry some validity particularly in reguards to abortion. If you look at the root of abortion I do think that you will find that it was a racially motivated practice of preventing the blending of blood between whites and all other races. This practice dates back to the early 1800's and further. We do not and should not be a society derived around the ideas of a melting pot society. This is what I think Buckley is argument is about.
posted by Albert 10:21 PM



posted by Joy 10:09 PM

It isn’t enough to simply express disagreement without specifics. What policy or position is in debate? Is it rent control, minimum wage, capitalism or the after-shave that Buckley uses? Could it be that Joy doesn’t know her reasoning for the disagreement?

Good people everywhere, for the most part, have the objective of doing well. If the objective is to help those who are less fortunate than others, then the question becomes, “Which is the better path?”

Thomas MaCurdy, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and Professor at the Department of Economics, Stanford University, points this out during a discussion on the minumum wage link here. “… See one thing that is very important to understand on the debates over the minimum wage. This is not a debate of whether we should help low-income families or the level of which we should help low income families. This is a debate over how we can best help low income families.”

On with the debate. Where is Buckley’s reasoning flawed? Or could it be that it isn’t Buckley’s reasoning that is flawed?

posted by Randall 6:52 PM

This is her.

I think I expalined to during dinner last night which of Buckleys ideas I find flawed, and explained to why they re flawed.

We are obligated as humans to help those less fotunant than ourselves. There are more important things in life than the dollar in our pockets, that is of course unless the dollar we are talking about is the one you wanted me to leave as a tip last
posted by Randall 10:49 AM


This is him.

Which of Buckley's ideas does her find flawed? Attack the idea not the man. Logical fallacy number 1: argumentum ad hominem.

The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favorable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps. There are three major forms of Attacking the Person: (1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion. (2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances. (3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practice what he preaches.

I find Buckley's reasoning to be based on logic. Where has he failed?
posted by Randall 5:51 PM

This is her.

Let me start by saying that the premise is a good one....I like anything that encourages the free exchange of thoughts and ideas.

Let me also set the record straight....I did not say I didn't like Buckley’s voice, I said I found his accent annoying, and I father said that besides not liking his voice, I liked even less what he had to say...which is always somewhere right of right. while my point of view is generally somewhere left of middle.

Yes both of my kids are winners, they are just taking different paths to get to where they are going. Juniors brother knows where he wants to go in life, Junior on the other hand is not quite sure, but I am convinced that she will find her way.....just like everything else in her life this far has been, she will find it in her own time and in her own way, She is her own greatest asset and her own greatest enemy. She is often so much life myself that I worry for her.

posted by Randall 3:44 PM

this blog is a shared effort between a guy (thats me) and a girl (thats her.) we don't live together. i work professionally. her works. her has two kids, junior and junior's brother. both kids can be winners. one has a head start. the other has minimal academic goals. they are both great kids. her has potential if her would listen and follow direction.

i am motivated to create this blog so that i can document some of the totally hilarious happennings in my life. a great example was today. i attempted to explain to her the fact that william f. buckley, jr., is a pretty sharp ole fella whose logic is better that good. her response: i don't like him because his voice is different. go figure.

i also hope to use this as a tool to encourage conversation between all four of us. her and i don't talk as much as we should mostly because i work too much and play too hard. i spend less than 1 hour each month with junior and junrior's brother. I also work out at la fitness about 10 hours per week.

my sincere hope is that her and i can come closer together, or at a minimum, her doest get hurt when the declaration is made. this effort is also attempted so that we can have some fun and maybe, or maybe not, give other people a laugh at us.

The rules: comments encouraged. Bloggers: keep it short, to the point, and "blog" at least 1 day in 5, for 15 minutes. blogging for 15 minutes implies ~12 minutes thought followed by ~3 minutes typing. never commit one of the five logical fallicies [i will leave it to you to discover these fallacies.] test next dinner meeting.

remember there are four bloggers. a vote of 3 to 1 has value.

lets have fun. let's grow.
posted by Randall 12:12 AM

Powered by Blogger Weblog Commenting by


To teach a pig to sing is futile; it wastes the time of the teacher and annoys the pig!


view my guestbook | sign my guestbook
get your free guestbook