“Look, I know that it’s big and gray; that it has a trunk, tusks, and big ears, but we don’t have absolute proof that it’s an elephant. After all, it could be a parrot, or an antelope. Believing that it’s an elephant is a logical fallacy.”

Left-brain thinking run amok.

“african american” voting for McCain

I’ll say it again, so pay attention this time: Believing that correlation necessitates causation is a logical fallacy. In the end, you very well may be right, that the book coming out this year was indeed part of a left-wing master plan. (Of course, you would still be ignoring my request for the proof that the book indeed came out this year, but since you are ignoring my request, I guess I will too.) Even if, in the future, all of your baseless claims turn out to be spot on, that does not change the fact that this is the present, nothing has been proven, and (drum roll): Believing that correlation necessitates causation is a logical fallacy.

Now, moving on:

“You cite the excuse that it was chosen because it was a good speech, despite the fact that there are better speeches, given by more famous figures in our history.”

My “excuse” was a guess, nothing more; I even used the word “guess”. I base my opinion on nothing, nor do I claim to. I would have no way of backing it up. Now, on to your “fact”. You claim that it is a “fact” that better speeches exist. How do you plan on displaying this fact of better speeches to us? Is there a proven way of ranking speeches that I am currently unaware of? You are trying to factualize an OPINION. Good luck on that.

So, since you have no factual or logical basis for your rebuttal on either point, I consider this discussion over.

The entire justice system is built upon reasonability: reasonable doubt, reasonable suspicion, reasonable justification.

You keep saying that there is no reasonable suspicion surrounding the appearance of Obama’s in this textbook in an election year. You cite the excuse that it was chosen because it was a good speech, despite the fact that there are better speeches, given by more famous figures in our history.

That’s unreasonable.

Boy, if I had a nickel for everyone who’s said that to me today…

“You’d defend the coincidence theory of yours just as strongly?”

I am not posing a theory. I am using logic. Believing that correlation necessitates causation is a logical fallacy. You may not like it, but that does not make me any less right.

And for the record, I’m a libertarian who doesn’t like either major candidate.

John,

The connection is one of smoke and fire. If you’re not able to see suspicious coincidence, then there isn’t much point in talking to you.

In any event, it’s funny how this book comes out in an election year, isn’t it? Just amazing.

Of course, you’d have no problem at all if it were a McCain speech, would you? You’d defend the coincidence theory of yours just as strongly?

Correlation fallacy. Logically, one has nothing to do with the other. It is you who is making the connection.

On that note, I have seen no evidence that this book was printed in an election year. It is you who made that assumption. The burden of proof lies on you.

So, of aaaaaaall of the speeches ever given in the history of the United States, the best one they can find is one by Obama. In an election year. In which Obama is running for President.

Asinine.

And a lame excuse from you, to boot.

On what terms? How could you justify it? Did you even bother to figure out WHY he’s in a textbook, or did you just react with a typical American kneejerk reaction?

The book in question is an English book. The article in question is a speech Obama gave during the 2004 National convention. It is used as part of a lesson plan on how to write a good speech. I guess they used his speech because it was well-written. My guess is as good as those who are going to immediately come to the half-baked conclusion that Obama (or Bill Ayers) had something to do with this.

I expected more from you, America.