Logic and raison d’être

4536458-women-in-a-natural-beaver-lamb-fur-coat-isolation-on-the-white

Had a shock just now because in looking for a pic of a lady in a fur coat, I saw this one [left] and in thumbnail form, I could have sworn it was my ex-gf [mentioned below in the context of fur coats].   Enlargening the pic revealed it not to be her and so the heart settled down again and brekky could be quietly had.

There was a moment at work yesterday when a lady customer made a comment on her daughter wearing a coat with holes in it – a sort of coat version of ripped jeans but her arms and chest were basically bared to the elements.

In the name of fashion.

The ridiculousness of this in sub-zero temperatures [at that stage of the day] reminded me of a certain ex-gf who wore a fur coat with open neck in minus 20 temperatures and no hat because she’d just had her hair done.

She’d come down with two weeks of flu of course, as a result, a result she flatly denied, blaming it on the weather.

The lady yesterday asked what I’d said to the ex-gf and I replied that it contained the terms “logic” and “night follows day”.

“Bet you didn’t win that argument. Never use the L word to a woman. What did she say?”

“She said: ‘It’s my logic and my logic is as good as yours any day.’ ”

“There,” said a second lady who’d heard all this, “I knew you wouldn’t win that one. You had no hope.   And she was quite right.”

A third lady who was tuned into the banter might have mentioned something about “tilting at windmills” but I can’t be sure.

I thought it wiser to allow the ladies the last word yesterday – my daddy taught me that decades ago.   It helps preserve life and limb and enables one to live to fight another day.    What really is illogical in all this is that their “logic” actually endeared them far more than if they’d been log … er … of another opinion.

The priceless Cherie has coined the F-word to mean something different to … er … the other F-word. The F-worders, to employ this Cherie-ism, would have called that remark patronizing and misogynist.

So yes, it would be nice not to hear the F-word and yes, to address another stunning lady from a few days ago – it would be lovely to have strawberries and cream [I tried to follow her logic but it was an uphill battle - it mentioned strawberries for some reason] … but not to mention at NO what is topical would be illogical.

The logic behind and the raison d’être of this blog

The blog was set up to debunk humbug in whatever form it occurs. It may be that in twenty years, the F-word will not be topical any more and the way women are savagely turning on these harpies …

… gives one hope that that will be so and the iniquities which the F-worders have wrought will have bitten the dust but while topical, it therefore needs to be mentioned with each new outrage.

Just as with Cameron, Them, Obama, loss of freedom, the banksters and corporate raiders, PCism and anything else iniquitous in our society today – smoking banners for example.   If it’s topical and iniquitous, then it gets debunked.

Ofttimes it will be une bête noire which mainstream consciousness has not yet latched onto but which is doing its damage behind the scenes, e.g. Chatham House and Common Purpose [post by Ken at OoL later today]. What – should the CP-word or the CH-word not be mentioned at all, on the grounds that members of Them might be sick and tired of reading it?

Similarly, the peerless Julia M continues her one woman campaign against PCishness.    Should she desist because people are sick of reading about PC atrocities on the minutiae of everyday life?    Or should she continue because that is her bête noire?

Twisted logic

Which is not to say there’s not a certain perverse logic in desisting. That perverse logic states that:

1. Yes something is wrong;
2. You will have little effect because though the bête noire continues on rampantly, readers themselves are tiring of your message;
3. Therefore you should stop attacking wrong.

There is another interesting logic which says:

1. It’s much better to be nice to people and use soft words because they’ll respond to you better;
2. Unreasonable people, e.g. the F-worders and Them, have no interest whatever in niceness and softness except as a smokescreen for what they’re up to, i.e. they use feelgood words to describe their iniquities;
3. Therefore it’s best not to mention anything wrong these people do because to do so might be not nice and not couched in soft language.

There is another logic behind NO and it was summed up years ago by the highly estimable Tom Paine:

James’ posts are so frequent, his interests so varied and his contacts so extensive that his blog is rather like the Scottish weather. If you don’t like it now, just wait a few minutes.

There are many posts on different topics and so, if you don’t like certain topics, then read others.   We have a few authors at our place and I, for one, enjoy their posts immensely.   Not only that, they free me up to be able to pursue bêtes noires in a more focussed way.

The shelf life of a blog

As the incorrigible Bucko has shown, blogs often have a shelf-life.  In the case of NO, it can be external factors, e.g. the host moving on and so later today I might be getting the news of the demise of this blog.  If that is so, one of the other blogs will be reactivated for the nonce, although real life events are threatening like recent weather and that could kill my blogging semi-permanently.  Timeframe is the next couple of weeks.

All things eventually come to pass

Sadly that is so.  No man and no blog is immortal.

14 Responses to “Logic and raison d’être”

  1. Sackerson January 20, 2013 at 13:21 Permalink

    Don’t forget to download your blog material to your computer!

  2. Chrysalis January 20, 2013 at 16:51 Permalink

    Now now, James – feigning being obtuse doesn’t become you, even for the purposes of humor ;)

    If you truly didn’t “get” the “strawberries” reference/metaphor or I wasn’t clear, all you need do is ask :)

    Here, let’s try a valid logical syllogism:

    Premise A: : After 15 years together, Pepper says Tony doesn’t listen to her.

    Premise B: Tony brings Pepper strawberries – the only food she’s deathly allergic to.

    Deductive Conclusion : Therefore, Tony doesn’t listen.

    Or this point I made before the “strawberry” reference:

    Premise A: James’ good friend, Cherie (along with other female commenters), expressed irritation when James posts so many gender-specific/gender-targeted complaints (more than once a month?)

    Premise B: James posted gender-specific posts 4 times since, only now under the guises of a compliment for Cheri.

    Deductive Conclusion : Therefore, Cherie/female commenters continued to feel irritated, unwelcome and uncomfortable – despite the “strawberry” compliments on top.

    The point was, perhaps the most logical course, for either Tony OR you, would be to just move on for now, rather than approach the delicate subject. :)

    BTW – I aced Logic courses at University, scoring the highest in my class (male and female) on the mock LSAT (Law School Admissions test), which is composed entirely of deductive logic/reasoning questions.

    And you know, it’s funny – the LSAT didn’t ask me my gender? :)

    Interesting “last word”, you cleverly incorporated into this post, 2 days later.

    But it is your blog, so you should have the last word…please proceed :)

  3. CherryPie January 20, 2013 at 17:54 Permalink

    Ah but the F word often appears in the comments thread on other posts too. It starts of as one topic and then in the comments section, there is that word again! That was part of my point ;-)

  4. James Higham January 20, 2013 at 18:16 Permalink

    Sackers – Yes.

    Cherie – as always, you’re right. When are we going on that flight?

  5. CherryPie January 20, 2013 at 18:29 Permalink

    More to the point, where shall we go?

  6. James Higham January 20, 2013 at 18:34 Permalink

    Majorca?

  7. James Higham January 20, 2013 at 18:55 Permalink

    Chrysalis – I don’t know how many times it needs to be written. Women are always welcome, it’s feminists who have some explaining to do. The point which certain people are refusing to acknowledge is that the feminists have done enormous damage – you might like to look at this:

    http://youtu.be/hLJHR0MpKos

    Women are acknowledging this. In the middle, she doesn’t take those who’ve fallen for the narrative to task – she takes the pushers of the narrative to task.

    It’s well worth watching, Chrysalis but I bet you won’t because it says things many women who’ve fallen for the narrative would find uncomfortable.

    i also addressed why so many posts – because there are so many new issues come up. Why so many posts on Them? Because there are so many issues Them cause.

    This is a reactive blog – someone does or says something stupid, so it needs addressing, doesn’t it? If the feminists gave it a rest, so would I. I devoted quite some time to explaining that in posts passim and no doubt I’ll need to do so again.

  8. CherryPie January 20, 2013 at 18:56 Permalink

    Possibly… There are some interesting historical sites.

  9. Wolfie January 20, 2013 at 19:01 Permalink

    You do rather sound a lot like those bitter divorced blokes in my office who dribble over the younger women and moan about women this and women that with the [happily married] guys .

    We all have their numbers.

    They need to get laid. Badly.

  10. James Higham January 20, 2013 at 21:46 Permalink

    Ah, insult the blogger night tonight. Getting an earful at OoL too.

    I’m out of the game now so kindly don’t include me in neanderthals in an office. I think I do it considerably better than that type. If I weren’t out of the game, I’d not have run the topic.

    No, what I need and what many need is for the bloody PCism to stop. And that is more important than anything Google’s doing.

  11. CherryPie January 20, 2013 at 22:29 Permalink

    I don’t think anyone is trying to insult you James. In fact reading all the comments I know they are not.

    You have got focused on a particular issue almost to the exclusion of all other issues.

    If I was at work and someone was doing that I would say that they were getting down into the weeds when they should be focusing on the bigger picture.

  12. James Higham January 20, 2013 at 23:19 Permalink

    The short answer to that is to count the posts on this issue and the posts on other issues on the page. Try it.

    Doesn’t hold up, does it?

    Reason it seems a certain way? If a person doesn’t like a point of view, then the writer is always said to be obsessed by it. So with maybe two posts in ten on it, that constitutes obsession?

    Actually, the issue I’m on most about is parachutees. Just a quick copy and paste:

    The gay mafia and youth
    Logic and raison d’être
    All 270 JS Bach Organ Works For Free
    Rhapsody in balls
    Doing the rounds just now
    How to get someone’s attention
    Sexist Sci-fi covers
    What’s with Google lately?
    Spilt the coffee …
    Odd sax [8]
    A Brazilian take on the Queen over the years
    Maths
    Cave World
    Severe weather warning

    Most viewed today were:

    Logic and raison d’être
    Been there, done that.
    The gay mafia and youth

    Most viewed yesterday were:

    Sexist Sci-fi covers
    What’s with Google lately?
    Doing the rounds just now

    So, though it was two from fourteen on the verboten topic, those two were actually at the top of the rankings. ;-)

    And it’s interesting that I’m accused of obsession with this topic here but over at OoL, I’m obsessed with religion apparently. :)

  13. CherryPie January 20, 2013 at 23:35 Permalink

    As I said you are down in the weeds and over analysing rather than focusing on the bigger picture ;-)

    You don’t need to analyse your stats!!

    Just tell us about the bigger picture :-)

  14. James Higham January 21, 2013 at 08:42 Permalink

    There were three comments which didn’t make it to the thread because they sensed a kill and went in for the personal barb. That person is an absolute mistress of it but I’m not playing.

    The blog rules are that one sticks to the issues. Now even Cherie is slipping into the personal comments rather than addressing the issue itself and this is what always happens from that political side of the fence when the evidence can’t be refuted. It becomes personal and the talk is of obsession.

    The James Higham factor really needs to be left out of it and the issues themselves need to be the focal point. Nothing brought up in political posts by me is something I’ve invented, they are cogent issues others have brought up and I’ve latched onto.

    Please stick to the issues, people.