Logic Problems - no comments

Idiots for Labour, who devote their time to trawling the blogosphere for examples of inane, poorly-thought-through, and downright illogical comment from our own side, are asking readers to help track down dodgy and embarrassing articles, and submit them via email.

Free speech is a fine thing, but any blogger who puts their opinions into the public domain - especially if they have influence, and take it upon themselves to be a representative of the left, and especially the Labour Party - should expect these opinions to be challenged in a robust manner. That's not to say I4L is necessarily always going to be correct (though they seem to be doing pretty well, so far), but the challenge can be a wake-up call.

Leaps, and failures, of logic are phenomenally widespread. The BBC's article on train fare rises is pretty dangerous territory in that regard, as well as the first half-a-dozen or so user comments I could be bothered to read this morning. See also Tom Hamilton's article on dangerous dogs. Now I don't want people to think I'm picking on Compass, but one recent comment is a bit of a classic, and has remained unchallenged since 21 December (OK, I do disagree with it, but there's more). This is Lee Roberts on Trident renewal:

The Government's lack of logic needs to be relentlessly attacked.

Why should Britain need an updated deterrent unless it plans to provoke attack by joining in future American-led acts of aggression ? [...]

He questions the Government's lack of logic and, in order to demonstrate that lack, takes a logical leap from an uncontroversial premise to a possible conclusion that is about as controversial as one could be, but also the most convenient for his own argument. The very next paragraph probably tied Lee in knots, forcing him to leave it in limbo:

Name one enemy, against whom a Trident update would be a deterrent, who has plans to attack Britain, given indications of such a desire, would have the incentive to do so, and would be crazy enough to actually attack given the devastating consequences of such stupidity.

He's having his cake and eating it: allowing himself the luxury of arguing against the Trident update, 'reinforcing' his argument with a conclusion that could only come from having it. Either way, given that supporters of the Trident update want nuclear attacks on the UK to be deterred, and don't particularly care by what mechanism this happens, Lee has provided a very good point in support of the upgraders. We now leave the world of logic, as the descent into lunacy is breathtakingly sudden:

Why should any erstwhile enemy of the UK believe government claims that the upgrade is purely for deterrent purposes ?
[...]
And why should an erstwhile enemey (sic) believe a government that is lock-step with a bunch of crazed loonies across the pond who frequently announce that their intention of using their nuclear weapons as a first strike, pre-emptive measure ?

Iranian TV sure must be compulsive viewing.

All the more reason to ensure that the Blairites dont remain in charge of the Party, and if they do, that they lose the next election.

Maybe thinking that someone who posts at Compass, and refers to "the Party", is probably from a Labour background was an assumption too far, but, no, I'm confident it's within Idiots for Labour's remit to fisk this chap ruthlessly. It is a charming idea that somehow "the Blairites" could lose, and yet not the Party, but I fear electoral rules are quite strict on this kind of thing. Anyone who fancies challenging those at the top needs to organise around a sensible alternative - Lee's approach is just a distraction.