Logic 101

Exhibit A -- Peter King (not the football writer, the Congressman):

Guy is a terror suspect, can we:

1) tap his phone?  Yes.
2) listen in on all of his communications?  Yes
3) place him on 24 hour surveillance?  Yes
4) send him to a CIA black site?  Yes.
4) waterboard him?  Yes.
5) take away his right to a public jury trial?  Yes.
6) send him to Guantanamo forever with no trial at all?  Yes.

7) Make it difficult for him to obtain a gun?  Whoa, whoa, whoa, the man has due process rights!!!!


Exhibit B -- LeBron James detractors:

"The guy's game is deficient in many areas."
"The guy doesn't try hard"

But he  leads all playoff performers in various stats. "F you, stat nerd!"
His team has lost only 5 games and won 14.  "Only the Finals matter!"
And LeBron has been the best player in the Finals.  "He should be better.  He doesn't try!"
How do you judge whether he tries or not?  "When he tries, he goes 40-10-10.  He could do that every single night easily."
So the issue of whether he is trying is determined by the stat line he can put up?  "Yes."
But when he has the #1 stat line overall, that does not matter and is not a fair measure of his play?  "F you, stat nerd."
If his game is deficient in many areas, doesn't that mean it is a miracle he is even good at all in any round of the playoffs?  "Apologist!"

So is he a great talent?  "No."
But if he tried he could go 40-10-10 every night?  "Yes." 


Not sure which Exhibit is worse, but what each has in common is that the speaker(s) come into the discussion with a clear conclusion (I can never say anything bad about guns; LeBron sucks) and really refuse to see the glaring logical problems with their position.