{ Natural VS. Unnatural?: Proclaiming that the natural should always take precedence over the unnatural is an antiquated, unsupportable idea. First, nothing can be truly unnatural. Since nature encompasses all of existence, everything that exists is automatically part of nature. Suppose that everything that wasn’t *originally* part of nature should be considered unnatural, and therefore wrong. That would condemn wholesome and beneficial things such as glasses, hearing aids, medicine, organ transplants, prosthetic limbs, and most machines. Even beaver’s dams, beehives, bird’s nests, hornet’s nests, and termite mounds, let alone houses and skyscrapers, would be unnatural, since they are all designed to seek shelter from nature and therefore defy it.
Also, “natural” life forms such as the HIV virus are logically considered enemies to attack, not something that should thrive. So natural trumping unnatural postulations must be discarded, unless we mean what benefits nature overall verses what harms nature overall. Then it should be foundational. So instead, we must define and formulate that everything is governed by universal laws, discover what they are, and live accordingly. Neither must we acrimoniously believe that we have mastered Nature or humanity’s disordered desires. We must be grounded in reality, never acquiescing to wishful thinking or relying on others to behave as expected. Everything should be based on the Universal Order, and geared toward what is best for everything around us as a whole. This principle unifies every subject that I cover.}
{ Genetic Reasoning (or Origin) VS. Genetic Fallacy: Genetic fallacy is misappropriating any position or phenomenon solely in terms of its origin, and dismissing it summarily. Furthermore, it is fallacious to either endorse or condemn an idea based on past rather than present merits or demerits, unless it past somehow effects its present value. Genetic fallacy occurs whenever an idea is evaluated based upon *irrelevant* history. Some examples of fallacious reasoning are: someone is judged by how they acted at age three, someone’s parents taught them this or that, so they assume it must be true, and assuming that a credible source is *always* true, while an un-credible source is *always* false.
However, genetic fallacy is only committed when someone dismisses another’s position based on its origin alone. Genetic reasoning is not fallacious when evaluating someone’s idea based on that person’s overall background or the overall background of that idea. Someone’s ideas are ALWAYS influenced by others and the outlook of those people. We don’t gather grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles. And fountains do not send forth both fresh water and sewage; neither do apple trees bear oranges. Therefore, genetic reasoning is an important premise of mine; please remember this.}
{ Compromise Fallacy, Point/Counterpoint, Persuasive Writing: The compromise fallacy (or golden mean fallacy, grey fallacy, or fallacy of moderation) is an assertion that the most valid conclusion is one that reflects the best compromise between two competing arguments, and “extremes” are always wrong. However, many who insist that others must compromise refuse to compromise. Secondly, this fallacy allows any position of compromise to be challenged by deceptively presenting another more radical position to oppose the one you disagree with, forcing the middle ground closer to your desired position. Most importantly, sometimes only extremes are acceptable. For example, shooting dope in any quantity is always wrong.
There is a trend of having two opposing viewpoints presented and explained in a book to supposedly be fair and honest. However, by presenting both black and white, we get grey. Now if someone who is undecided on an issue (in the grey zone) reads the book, how can that help them decide instead of just giving more greyness? I see the value in reading a debate book, where two men argue an issue, because one man often does a better job of arguing his point. But this doesn’t happen when purposely trying to make both sides seem equally viable. So I only discuss issues I’m passionate about. Using persuasive writing, I make an argument to support a particular viewpoint or position, then present a clear stand and follow up with supporting facts and examples.}
{ Logic: Logic is the criteria for valid conclusions, principles of reasoning, science of correct reasoning, rational deduction, and something that convinces or proves. In other words, a complex way of saying common sense. Whereas common sense takes the most basic forms, such as when it is twenty below zero, we conclude that it won’t rain, logic often takes the form of two premises and a conclusion. Example: if there’s a quarter in my hand, and that hand is in my pocket, concluding that there’s a quarter in my pocket is simple logic. Even with complicated examples of logic, such as the Pythagorean theorem, valid premises always have an inescapable conclusion.
Many people, realizing that their position is illogical, claim that “God is greater than logic.” Yet that’s like saying “God is greater than common sense.” If there is a god, the most complex logic would be to him as simple common sense. So you measure the outside of a door; it’s 2 meters tall. I wouldn’t open the door to measure its other side. Yet someone may say “The other side could be three meters tall; with God it is possible.” Despite the temptation of wringing the person’s neck, I would simply avoid such unreasonable people. For Christian believers, the Christian god supposedly cannot lie or deceive. If he was outside of logic, he would be a crook.
In fact, EVERYTHING is either logical, or illogical and therefore automatically false. Being unable to determine something does not create a third possibility. The necessary information to decide exists somewhere. Since the nonreligious cannot use an Appeal to Heaven fallacy, when their position is illogical and they won’t concede, they may change the subject, make personal attacks instead, claim that only science is valid, or cut off dialogue completely.
Regardless, logic must replace the platitude “You never know until you try.” We must not try things that are extremely harmful or will likely waste precious time and/or resources. We must focus on what is likely to produce desirable results; applying logic helps achieve this goal. If we use persuasive argumentation which demonstrates superior logic, others should concede their position and adopt our better one. And vice versa.
K C Sunbeam 