<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">Joe,</SPAN></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">I see your point, very interesting and insightful, and thank you for putting it more clearly. I am <SPAN style="RIGHT: auto" id=misspell-0><SPAN>afraid</SPAN></SPAN> still though, you are comparing to different things and arguing against a point never made. I am not arguing the statement is not logical, I am arguing it is not <SPAN style="RIGHT: auto" id=misspell-1><SPAN>persuasive</SPAN></SPAN> and the premise is wrong. They are not one and the same as you seem to be <SPAN style="RIGHT: auto" id=misspell-2><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto" id=misspell-0><SPAN>claiming</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>. An argument can be more <SPAN style="RIGHT: auto" id=misspell-1><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto" id=misspell-1><SPAN>persuasive</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> and less valid and <SPAN style="RIGHT: auto" id=misspell-4><SPAN>logical</SPAN></SPAN> at the same time. People are not logical in their
behavior, attitudes, and beliefs even though generally they are logical and <SPAN style="RIGHT: auto" id=misspell-2><SPAN>rational</SPAN></SPAN> most of the time. There is a lot more going on in their heads than simple logical computations.</SPAN></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">Association of Nazi behavior with the behavior of truck drivers hauling megaloads plays negatively against them because of the <SPAN style="RIGHT: auto" id=misspell-4>strength</SPAN> of the word Nazi not the logic of the relationship you claim exists. It's evil is so unmatched that anything connected to it is tainted psychologically. In fact, so much so, that it triggers a since of injustice has been done against the truck driver. That is where the argument becomes <SPAN style="RIGHT: auto" id=misspell-5><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">unpersuasive</SPAN></SPAN> and works against the writer's efforts. </SPAN></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">It doesn't matter if it is a logically structured argument or not. The psychological association, not the logic, damages the <SPAN style="RIGHT: auto" id=misspell-6><SPAN>persuasiveness</SPAN></SPAN> of the argument. <SPAN style="RIGHT: auto" id=misspell-7><SPAN>Never-mind</SPAN></SPAN> the fact that the premise is completely false--Truck drivers never falsely argued in court to "just doing their jobs" after breaking <SPAN style="RIGHT: auto" id=misspell-8><SPAN>international</SPAN></SPAN> laws. <VAR id=yui-ie-cursor></VAR></SPAN></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">Donovan Arnold</SPAN></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> </div>
<div><BR></div>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 0; MARGIN: 5px 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; HEIGHT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 0px; BORDER-TOP: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-RIGHT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 0px" class=hr contentEditable=false readonly="true"></DIV><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe@gmail.com><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020@moscow.com> <BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Friday, April 27, 2012 4:59 PM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> [Vision2020] Fwd: Award Well-Deserved<BR></FONT></DIV><BR>No.<BR><BR>You should never use fallacies as you are using them: as proof of<BR>fallacious reasoning. Most fallacies are, from a logical point of<BR>view, very close to sound arguments. False dilemmas, for instance, fit<BR>the form of
disjunctive syllogism: A or B; not-A, so B. All instances<BR>of begging the question are technically valid. Appeals to<BR>non-authorities is fallacious but not appeals to genuine experts, yet<BR>both have the same logical form.<BR><BR>Thus, you can't just say "appeal to emotion" therefore it commits the<BR>fallacy of appeal to emotion. I am very emotional. It would be unwise<BR>to think I can't reason well.<BR><BR>The real point is that an appeal to emotion adds nothing to the<BR>strength or weakness of an argument. Certainly you admit that it adds<BR>nothing to the strength! But how can it ADD to the weakness of an<BR>argument, make the conclusion LESS probable given the premises? It<BR>can't.<BR><BR>That something fits the form of a fallacy is prima facie evidence that<BR>something fishy is going on. But sorry the logic of the real world<BR>doesn't come on a silver platter. You can't use superficial<BR>indications of fallacies to judge that an
argument is actually<BR>fallacious. You have to do the dirty work and check it out case by<BR>case, e.g., do some logic.<BR><BR>---------- Forwarded message ----------<BR>From: Donovan Arnold <<A href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</A>><BR>Date: Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 3:45 PM<BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Award Well-Deserved<BR>To: Joe Campbell <<A href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A>><BR><BR><BR>Joe,<BR><BR>You are incorrect. You are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.<BR>Emotional appeal is relevant when it comes to persuading an audience<BR>of the general public. If it wasn't advertisers wouldn't use it, and<BR>celebrities wouldn't be paid millions to endorse products. If the<BR>general public was completely logical, only then would you be right<BR>that emotional appeal isn't
relevant.<BR><BR>As far as logic goes, no, emotional appeal doesn't withstand its own<BR>weight. I agree.<BR><BR>The degree is the emotional unappealing element of the argument. The<BR>morality of the professions and the law breaking is very different.<BR>The truck drivers were following their orders within the law. The<BR>Nazis were not following orders within the law. If truck drivers were<BR>drunk, running over people, hitting other cars, and running wildly<BR>over the speed limit, and then claimed to be following orders to get<BR>it there as fast as possible, there would be a more relevant argument.<BR>The professional drivers followed, local, state, federal, and<BR>international laws while doing their jobs. Nazis did not. They were<BR>unprofessional in the performance of their duties as soldiers and<BR>knowingly so. That is the fault line in your logical argument, your<BR>premise is completely wrong and it turns the
argument into one less<BR>appealing to an otherwise willing and sympathetic ear.<BR><BR>Donovan Arnold<BR><BR><BR><BR>From: Joe Campbell <<A href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A>><BR>To: Donovan Arnold <<A href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</A>><BR>Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 1:26 PM<BR><BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Award Well-Deserved<BR><BR>Again, you are wrong. The emotional appeal carries no weight and makes<BR>NO difference. What matters is the example provides a counterexample<BR>to the validity of this inference:<BR><BR>I did it because the boss told me to do it; therefore I'm not<BR>blameworthy for doing it.<BR><BR>That inference is invalid. Nazi guards serve as an example<BR>illustrating this fact. Consider:<BR><BR>Nazi Guard X says: "I did it because the boss told me to do
it;<BR>therefore I'm not blameworthy for doing it."<BR><BR>This is pretty clearly a bad argument. Arguments are good or bad (in<BR>this sense, in terms of their inferential strength) generally<BR>speaking. Thus, if the argument is invalid in one context, it is<BR>invalid in all contexts. That it is carries an emotional appeal is<BR>IRRELEVANT. Clearly it doesn't increase the strength of the point. Nor<BR>does it decrease the strength of the point. It is IRRELEVANT. Joe<BR><BR>On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Donovan Arnold<BR><<A href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</A>> wrote:<BR>> Joe,<BR>><BR>> I agree with your technological analysis of logical reasoning in which you<BR>> are addressing and are able to exercise considerable expertise, just not the<BR>> emotional appeal attempted by the writer, which is not the logical.<BR>>
Arguments that are logical are not always persuasive, and ones that are not<BR>> sometimes are--as you well know. The Nazi analogy makes an otherwise good<BR>> argument go flat, not because of flawed logical reasoning, but because it is<BR>> emotionally repelling, intellectually unimaginative and lacking originality.<BR>> Nazi comparisons are cliche and overly dramatize a situation beyond its<BR>> station.<BR><BR>><BR>> Donovan Arnold<BR>><BR>> From: Joe Campbell <<A href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A>><BR>> To: Donovan Arnold <<A href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</A>><BR>> Cc: Tom Hansen <<A href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</A>>; Aaron Ament <<A href="mailto:aaronament@moscow.com"
ymailto="mailto:aaronament@moscow.com">aaronament@moscow.com</A>>;<BR>> JimPrall <<A href="mailto:bermanprall@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:bermanprall@gmail.com">bermanprall@gmail.com</A>>; Lois Blackburn <<A href="mailto:loisb@q.com" ymailto="mailto:loisb@q.com">loisb@q.com</A>>; Kathy Judson<BR>> <<A href="mailto:ponysnpups@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:ponysnpups@gmail.com">ponysnpups@gmail.com</A>>; BorgHendrickson <<A href="mailto:chicory@wildblue.net" ymailto="mailto:chicory@wildblue.net">chicory@wildblue.net</A>>; Friends<BR>> oftheClearwater <<A href="mailto:foc@friendsoftheclearwater.org" ymailto="mailto:foc@friendsoftheclearwater.org">foc@friendsoftheclearwater.org</A>>; Moscow Vision 2020<BR>> <<A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>>; Jeanne McHale <<A href="mailto:jeannemchale@hotmail.com"
ymailto="mailto:jeannemchale@hotmail.com">jeannemchale@hotmail.com</A>>;<BR>> FritzKnorr <<A href="mailto:fritzknorr@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:fritzknorr@gmail.com">fritzknorr@gmail.com</A>>; Brett Haverstick <<A href="mailto:bhaverstick@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:bhaverstick@yahoo.com">bhaverstick@yahoo.com</A>>;<BR><BR>> Marilyn Beckett <<A href="mailto:marilynbeckett@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:marilynbeckett@gmail.com">marilynbeckett@gmail.com</A>>; CherylHalverson<BR>> <<A href="mailto:basketmakeart@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:basketmakeart@yahoo.com">basketmakeart@yahoo.com</A>>; Linwood Laughy <<A href="mailto:lin@wildblue.net" ymailto="mailto:lin@wildblue.net">lin@wildblue.net</A>>; HelenYost<BR>> <<A href="mailto:helen.yost@vandals.uidaho.edu" ymailto="mailto:helen.yost@vandals.uidaho.edu">helen.yost@vandals.uidaho.edu</A>>; Dr. Dinah Zeiger <<A href="mailto:dzeiger@uidaho.edu"
ymailto="mailto:dzeiger@uidaho.edu">dzeiger@uidaho.edu</A>><BR>> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 12:42 PM<BR><BR>><BR>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Award Well-Deserved<BR>><BR>> That is irrelevant wrt the issue of validity, whether an inference is valid.<BR>> But don't trust me. I've only been teaching logic for almost 30 years.<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> On Apr 27, 2012, at 11:37 AM, Donovan Arnold <<A href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</A>><BR>> wrote:<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> True, Joe, but a poor one at that. Comparing an ant hill to Mt. Olympus.<BR><BR>><BR>> Donovan Arnold<BR>><BR>> From: Joe Campbell <<A href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A>><BR>> To: Donovan Arnold <<A href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com"
ymailto="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</A>><BR>> Cc: Tom Hansen <<A href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</A>>; Aaron Ament <<A href="mailto:aaronament@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:aaronament@moscow.com">aaronament@moscow.com</A>>;<BR><BR>> Jim Prall <<A href="mailto:bermanprall@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:bermanprall@gmail.com">bermanprall@gmail.com</A>>; Lois Blackburn <<A href="mailto:loisb@q.com" ymailto="mailto:loisb@q.com">loisb@q.com</A>>; Kathy<BR>> Judson <<A href="mailto:ponysnpups@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:ponysnpups@gmail.com">ponysnpups@gmail.com</A>>; BorgHendrickson <<A href="mailto:chicory@wildblue.net" ymailto="mailto:chicory@wildblue.net">chicory@wildblue.net</A>>;<BR><BR>> Friends ofthe Clearwater <<A href="mailto:foc@friendsoftheclearwater.org"
ymailto="mailto:foc@friendsoftheclearwater.org">foc@friendsoftheclearwater.org</A>>; Moscow Vision<BR>> 2020 <<A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>>; Jeanne McHale <<A href="mailto:jeannemchale@hotmail.com" ymailto="mailto:jeannemchale@hotmail.com">jeannemchale@hotmail.com</A>>;<BR><BR>> Fritz Knorr <<A href="mailto:fritzknorr@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:fritzknorr@gmail.com">fritzknorr@gmail.com</A>>; Brett Haverstick<BR>> <<A href="mailto:bhaverstick@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:bhaverstick@yahoo.com">bhaverstick@yahoo.com</A>>; Marilyn Beckett <<A href="mailto:marilynbeckett@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:marilynbeckett@gmail.com">marilynbeckett@gmail.com</A>>;<BR>> CherylHalverson <<A href="mailto:basketmakeart@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:basketmakeart@yahoo.com">basketmakeart@yahoo.com</A>>; Linwood Laughy<BR>> <<A
href="mailto:lin@wildblue.net" ymailto="mailto:lin@wildblue.net">lin@wildblue.net</A>>; HelenYost <<A href="mailto:helen.yost@vandals.uidaho.edu" ymailto="mailto:helen.yost@vandals.uidaho.edu">helen.yost@vandals.uidaho.edu</A>>; Dr. Dinah<BR>> Zeiger <<A href="mailto:dzeiger@uidaho.edu" ymailto="mailto:dzeiger@uidaho.edu">dzeiger@uidaho.edu</A>><BR>> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 12:20 PM<BR><BR>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Award Well-Deserved<BR>><BR>> It is not a comparison. It is a counterexample to an inference.<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> On Apr 27, 2012, at 10:20 AM, Donovan Arnold <<A href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</A>><BR>> wrote:<BR>><BR>> I am aware of the remark's origin, Mr. Hansen, as is the entire educated<BR>> world. And it no less weakens the argument because it is a poor
comparison.<BR>><BR>> Claiming the excuse, "I need to feed my family" from someone driving a truck<BR>> to Canada to ship oil, a needed product, is not the same as claiming, "I<BR>> need to feed my family" from someone who helped slaughter millions of<BR>> innocent lives against international law and basic human morality. One is<BR>> far more legitimate than the other. Truck drivers are little more guilty of<BR>> destroying the earth than you or me for the oil we demand by driving our<BR>> cars and polluting the Earth. Someday, truck drivers are going to park and<BR>> people will cry out for them as they run out of everything and anything they<BR>> need from apples to toilet paper to removal of their own trash.<BR>><BR>> Those that use the Nazi comparison weaken their argument. It cheapens the<BR>> lives that were lost in that great atrocity, nothing compares to it in<BR>> modern history. It also
shows a lack of creativity in comparison and visual<BR>> illustration when the Nazi comparison is made. It is way over used.<BR>> Certainly, there are other ways of making a point clear without bringing up<BR>> Nazis all the time.<BR>><BR>> The focus should not be the construction flaggers, truck drivers, the<BR>> mechanics that put the tires on the trucks, the police, the gas station<BR>> attendant that let the truck driver fuel this truck or the trees and wind<BR>> for not blocking their path. It should be on those in political office that<BR>> allowed the megaloads up 95 and into Canada and corporations that yield<BR>> considerable power and influence over those politicians.<BR>><BR>> Attacking the powerless for the actions of the powerful is a fruitless<BR>> venture.<BR>><BR>> Donovan Arnold<BR><BR>><BR>> From: Tom Hansen <<A href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com"
ymailto="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</A>><BR>> To: Joe Campbell <<A href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A>><BR>> Cc: Donovan Arnold <<A href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</A>>; Aaron Ament<BR>> <<A href="mailto:aaronament@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:aaronament@moscow.com">aaronament@moscow.com</A>>; Jim Prall <<A href="mailto:bermanprall@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:bermanprall@gmail.com">bermanprall@gmail.com</A>>; Lois Blackburn<BR><BR>> <<A href="mailto:loisb@q.com" ymailto="mailto:loisb@q.com">loisb@q.com</A>>; Kathy Judson <<A href="mailto:ponysnpups@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:ponysnpups@gmail.com">ponysnpups@gmail.com</A>>; Borg Hendrickson<BR>> <<A href="mailto:chicory@wildblue.net"
ymailto="mailto:chicory@wildblue.net">chicory@wildblue.net</A>>; Friends ofthe Clearwater<BR>> <<A href="mailto:foc@friendsoftheclearwater.org" ymailto="mailto:foc@friendsoftheclearwater.org">foc@friendsoftheclearwater.org</A>>; Moscow Vision 2020<BR>> <<A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>>; Jeanne McHale <<A href="mailto:jeannemchale@hotmail.com" ymailto="mailto:jeannemchale@hotmail.com">jeannemchale@hotmail.com</A>>; Fritz<BR><BR>> Knorr <<A href="mailto:fritzknorr@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:fritzknorr@gmail.com">fritzknorr@gmail.com</A>>; Brett Haverstick <<A href="mailto:bhaverstick@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:bhaverstick@yahoo.com">bhaverstick@yahoo.com</A>>;<BR>> Marilyn Beckett <<A href="mailto:marilynbeckett@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:marilynbeckett@gmail.com">marilynbeckett@gmail.com</A>>; CherylHalverson<BR>> <<A
href="mailto:basketmakeart@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:basketmakeart@yahoo.com">basketmakeart@yahoo.com</A>>; Linwood Laughy <<A href="mailto:lin@wildblue.net" ymailto="mailto:lin@wildblue.net">lin@wildblue.net</A>>; HelenYost<BR>> <<A href="mailto:helen.yost@vandals.uidaho.edu" ymailto="mailto:helen.yost@vandals.uidaho.edu">helen.yost@vandals.uidaho.edu</A>>; Dr. Dinah Zeiger <<A href="mailto:dzeiger@uidaho.edu" ymailto="mailto:dzeiger@uidaho.edu">dzeiger@uidaho.edu</A>><BR>> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 9:55 AM<BR>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Award Well-Deserved<BR>><BR>> Mr. Arnold -<BR>><BR>> Basic Logic 101<BR>><BR>> "it was just my job" = "I was just following orders"<BR>><BR>> The quote on the left was the repeated response, given by management (as<BR>> well as drivers), to the question "Why?" repeatedly during the past year or<BR>> so, as the megaloads marauded their way up
US95.<BR>><BR>> The quote on the right was the repeated response to the question "Why?"<BR>> repeatedly during the Nurnberg trials, by those defendants charged with<BR>> crimes against humanity.<BR>><BR>> Seeya round town, Moscow.<BR>><BR>> Tom Hansen<BR>> Moscow, Idaho<BR>><BR>> "If not us, who?<BR>> If not now, when?"<BR>><BR>> - Unknown<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> On Apr 27, 2012, at 8:44, Joe Campbell <<A href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A>> wrote:<BR>><BR>> "it was just my job"<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR><BR>=======================================================<BR>List services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<BR> <A href="http://www.fsr.net/"
target=_blank>http://www.fsr.net</A><BR> mailto:<A href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>=======================================================<BR><BR><BR></DIV></DIV></div></body></html>