Chuck Norris put forth the following argument in an editorial piece he wrote for Townhall.com:
- Because Obama was elected by the popular vote, I accept his presidency
- Proposition 8 was passed by popular vote
- Therefore everyone should accept Proposition 8
I know what you’re thinking – this argument isn’t even valid, let alone sound! What kind of moronic imbicile penned this drivel? Unfortunately it was authored by the prophet himself, Mr. Walker Texas Ranger.
To review, here’s a valid argument:
- If A then B – If I eat then I’m happy
- A – I eat
- Therefore B – I’m happy
The conclusion (I’m happy) will always be true if the premises are true (If I eat then I’m happy; I eat)
A sound argument is just a valid argument with all true premises; so the argument above is both sound and valid. However, if it wasn’t true that “If I eat then I’m happy” or “I eat” then the argument would be valid but not sound.
Here’s Mr. Norris’s argument in symbolic terms:
B= Barack Obama
e= was elected/passed by a popular vote
a= should be accepted by the general public
P= Proposition 8
- Be -> Ba
- Be (implied premise)
- Pa – conclusion
This argument isn’t valid becuase even if premises #1,2, and 3 are true, the conclusion (Pa) could be true or false.
Thus, little Chucky’s “serious” political diatribe is actually quite funny becuase even if the premises he puts forth were true (e.g. points 1&2) there’s still absolutely no reason for concluding “people should accept Prop 8.” It’s cute really. Kind of like the boy in Kindergarten who draws a purple dog… not exactly right but at least he’s trying.
What’s missing, and the most difficult part of the argument (no surprise Norris left it out) is this:
Meaning there are enough similarities between B and P that for the purposes of the argument everything that applies to B also applies to P.
Barack Obama and Proposition 8… why, they’re virtually twins!