THIS

Progressive politics, ideas & culture

Menu

fun with syllogisms

This Magazine Staff

Today in the Toronto Sun, columnist Peter Worthington wrote:
“Like most Canadians who don’t have AIDS and aren’t HIV carriers, Harper probably isn’t much interested in the topic.
Sure, he thinks it is a terrible affliction, but not one he’s likely to get.”

I’ve been mulling ever since, trying to see how this logic translates cross-platform (as the geeks say) for the average neo-conservative.
The “logical” construct Worthington uses goes like this:
We don’t need to be interested in diseases we probably won’t get.
Stephen Harper probably won’t get AIDS.
Therefore, Stephen Harper doesn’t need to be interested in AIDS.
Nothing I agree with there, but that’s not all that surprising for a neo-conservative argument. But start shifting the variables a bit, and the same trouble starts for neo-conservatives.
We don’t need to be interested in oppression we probably won’t suffer under.
George Bush probably won’t suffer under Saddam Hussein’s oppression of his citizens.
Therefore, George Bush doesn’t need to be interested in Saddam Hussein’s oppression of his citizens.
You see the hitch?

Show Comments