(Report comment)

On the off chance we’ve never met and you’re really this motivated, I’ve gotta say: there’s a difference between arguing a point and just scoring damage, and there’s nothing but meanness involved in the latter. Either way, I’m out of it. You’re intent on making this personal, and I’m not interested. Kisses!

(Report comment)

And after all that, you wonder why I might use the word “dopey”? And you wonder why I don’t appreciate your high and mighty attitude.

(Report comment)

(Report comment)

I can’t remember whether it was me or my editor who wrote this lead. I can understand why it would bother you, but again: only if you take a narrow read of what’s really intended. Anyone in a new environment can get turned around – a new job, a new city, etc. There’s no claim of superiority, implied or otherwise. Why do you insist on reading something darker into this?

You seem more concerned with my humility than your inflamed sense of self-righteousness. You call my article dopey, and now I’m an elitist, an egotist AND racist? Right. No ad hominem there. So either the article is dopey because of the mood, or elitist because I use big words. What is your summary problem? Not sure who pooed on your birthday cake as a child, Mike, but it wasn’t me. If it helps, I’ll buy you another balloon.

Putting aside the namecalling, let’s get to the heart of your gripe. You claim I make no strong connection between logic and travel. I agree, there’s no greater or lesser relationship between logic and travel than there is between logic and, say, vacuuming. So what? What if a website devoted to used cars posted an article about fallacies you may run into when buying a car? Would you be this irate? Call them racists, maybe? Jesus, Mike – it’s is just a light intro to a subject people find intimidating. Can you be okay with this, Mike? Can you try, really hard?

In the spirit of the holiday, Mike – you win. Travel and logic have nothing to do with each other. It was wrong of me to introduce informal fallacies to people who may not know about them, and sheer arrogance to come up with examples where they may occur in unfamiliar environments. I’m very full of myself, and use big words when I’m not being “dopey.” This was a thin article at best. Whew! Glad to get that guilt off my chest. I’ll try not to be so “misguided” in the future.

Now that you’ve knocked over your anthill, is there anything else you’d like for Christmas?

(Report comment)

And that probably has a lot to do with why your article is so misguided. My impression was that you needed to write about travel, but you were having a hard time coming up with an idea, so now you’re forcing a subject that doesn’t really fit just so that you can have something to write about.

Enter stage left: white man’s burden. Your comment: “In a foreign land, you are more susceptible to illogical arguments. Fight back with the tips in this guide.” That’s arrogant and elitist: “Western civilization needs to bring to task the all irrational barbarians teeming around.” By making such a claim you are trying to provide plausible relevance to an otherwise overly strained topic. Without that, you haven’t established much of a connection between logic and travel, therefore your whole article is based on your oversized (if not racist) ego.

And throwing around big words doesn’t make your personality any more acceptable. If you knew what you were talking about, you’d know that ad hominem arguments are not in and of themselves fallacies. Not only did you fail to demonstrate a fallacy, you also were incorrect in claiming that it was ad hominem in the first place. That depends upon the argument, and considering that the argument at hand was your arrogant attempt to force a weak topic, I think it’s clear that what I said was very on point and relevant.

(Report comment)

Yes, logic is just as necessary in everyday life as it is in travel. Using travel to discuss logic (to many a dry subject) is like using cooking to understand ratios. OF COURSE you don’t need to bake for 20 people to learn about math, any more than you need an exotic trek to employ logic. Good catch, Mike – I am SO busted.

I can agree with one point from your otherwise bad-tempered comments: “The traveller is in no more need of logical skills than anyone else.” Again, I am stunned by the profundity of your insight. “Everyone could do with more logic in their lives, not just travelers.” Bravo, Mike!

But I have to ask: in light of the ad hominem drive-bys, the blanket statement applied to BNT based on poor comprehension, and your overall misunderstanding of the article’s gist, what is it that motivates logical skills in your life? Whatever it is, I hope you can go a little further next time. Good luck, Mike!

(Report comment)

(Report comment)

(Report comment)

(Report comment)