(no mainpaging please not that you will)

Kirov has an interesting piece written about Richard Dawkins, and it's made me want to just put this out there for you.

Here is the logical fallacy set up by Dawkins that remains a serious problem in his reasoning. Well, one of them, because honestly, there were MANY logical fallacies in his defense of that rape vs. rape comment.


The logical fallacy is the false assumption that emotion and logic are opposites.

Exhibit A:

Thank you, Wikipedia for this image.

All joking aside, the opposite of logic is not emotion. Emotional people can still reach logical conclusions. In fact, emotion can help make good decisions as well as bad. Emotions like fear can protect as well as constrict.

Logic and emotion are not opposites.

Logic and logical fallacies are opposites.

Here's a place to look for logical fallacies, if you need definitions. www.fallacyfiles.org


Logical fallacies are defined as mistakes in logic. Sometimes, they are driven by emotion. Sometimes, they are driven by lack of information or ignorance. But, it is they, not emotion, that are the opposite of logic.

Just a thought the next time someone tells you are being too emotional. We can extend this idea to emotions and women and how women and their emotions are associated with the idea of weakness, which makes Dawkins' choice of rape as the subject a very interesting choice indeed.

I would not be surprised to hear the word "hysterical" come out of his mouth next.

And this is the look it will receive from me if it does:

I will be angry. Not illogical. Angry.

Just thinking aloud.