Some things are true.
Some things are false.
Therefore, all things are somewhat true.
Were this a mere joke, and not a reflection of the dismal understanding of reasoning in the West today, one could pass over the science of Logic without a cursory glance, a second thought, or a tinge of ignorance guilt. The truth is a sadder state, the matrix, a web of lies. Logic allows a person to trace the strands of the web to their points of introduction and completion, to deconstruct and analyse them.
In the nineteenth century Reverend Whately* wrote a treatise on the Elements of Logic in the introduction he gives this tidbit description of the needed qualities of a scholar who might attempt to write a book on the history of the science of logic, it is applicable to every thinking man:
[He] should be on thoroughly on his guard against the common error of confounding together, or leading his [hearers] to confound, an intimate acquaintance with books on a given subject, and a clear insight into the subject itself. With ability and industry for investigating a multitude of minute particulars, he should possess the power of rightly estimating each according to its intrinsic importance, and not (as is very commonly done,) according to the degree of laborious research it may have cost him, or the rarity of the knowledge he may in any case have acquired. And he should be careful, while recording the opinions and expressions of various authors on points of science, to guard both himself and his [hearers] against the mistake of taking any thing on authority, that ought to be evinced by scientific reasoning; or of regarding each technical term as having a sort of prescriptive right to retain for ever the meaning attached to it by those who first introduced it. -Rev. Whately, Elements of Logic
Some women feel butt-hurt that they were born ugly and not men,
All alpha man-juice works as an anodyne for butt-hurtness,
Therefore, Alphas should share the love with ugly, butt-hurt feminists.
Modernism, in all its resurrecting head, creates a potpourri of doublespeak, equivocation, and doubt shaming. The wave break with such intensity and rapidity that one avoids being pulled under only when he becomes a bulwark against the break. Moreover, the exercise of logic against the tide engenders in the mind the ability to recognize the pieces that make the puzzle. Logic is the study of the science of reasoning, which is to say that it is the study of how the pieces fit together; this, however, leads to the corollary skill, by practiced puzzling, assembling and disassembling the multitude of pieces, building the ability at sight or sound to know the axioms and assumptions which underly bad logic, and good logic. After all:
Reasoning is in all cases the same, the analysis of that operation could not fail to strike the mind as an interesting matter of inquiry. And moreover, since (apparent) arguments which are unsound and inconclusive, are so often employed, either from error or design; and since even those who are not misled by these fallacies, are so often at a loss to detect and expose them in a manner satisfactory to others, or even to themselves; it could not but appear desirable to lay down some general rules of reasoning applicable to all cases; by which a person might be enable the more readily and clearly to state the grounds of his own conviction, or of his objection to the arguments of an opponent; instead of arguing at random, without any fixed and acknowledged principles to guide his procedure. Such rules would be analogous to those Arithmetic, which obviate the tediousness and uncertainty of calculations in the head; wherein, after much labour, different person might arrive at different results without any of them being able distinctly to point out the error of the rest. A system of such rules, it is obvious, must, instead of deserving to be called the “art of wrangling,” be more justly characterised as the “art of cutting short wrangling,” by bringing the parties to issue at once, if not to agreement, and thus saving a waste of ingenuity. -Rev. Whatley
The student of logic not only can explain why such and such is good sense, and why this other such and such is fallacious, but also, he can spot the nonsense behind the sense. Assuming women are victims of a vicious despotic patriarchy such interventionist policies could be fortuitous, but you have yet to proof the state of victimhood. Or, even assuming victimhood such and such policy would incentivize further victimizing. Yes, if wolf shirts were as awesome as you claim, and if also awesome shirts are worn only by awesome people, then I must conclude that you are awesome.
Tremble before the awesome power of logic:
Taxing exercise is good for all men,
All governments exercise taxing,
Therefore, all governments are good for all men.
Anarchism defeated. Forever. Suck it sane people.
Whately’s Elements of Logic is in the queue for a future rework and formatting by this gentleman, but until then you can read it over at Google. Enjoy.
Veritas numquam perit,
*This is the same Whately that wrote: “It is not that pearls fetch a high price because men have dived for them; but on the contrary, men dive for them because they fetch a high price.” A nice critique on the labor-theory of value.