Monday, October 31, 2005


I find it incredably irritating when I either hear or read someone using logical fallacies. I guess that's what I get for having a philosophy professor for a required English class and than later taking an intro to philosophy class. I bring up logical fallacies because as I was leaving the library on Friday. I notice a flyer that some Loony Left Moonbat(term borrowed from Third World County) had put up. It was comparing Clinton's lie about his sexual relations, with Bush's statement about Saddam having Weapons of Mass Destruction. I'm basing this post on the assumption that Bush truely didn't know that Saddam didn't have those weapons but was going on bad intelligence.
The flyer said someting to the effect of, keep mind that I'm paraphrasing:
(there was a picture of four soldiers carring what is supposed to be a casket here)
 The cost of a lie.
"I did not have sex with that woman."
Lives lost: 0
"Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction."
Lives lost: 2000
So is it just me or is that full of fallacies? How can you really compare a deliberate lie with a statement that could be more difficult proving to be an intentional lie?