A Conversation with Jason Petersen, Part 6

An Example of Jason Petersen "Logic"

 

As part of my "Conversation with Jason Petersen" series I had planned to do a post where I described Petersen's tortuously conjured presuppositional methodology in attempting to prove I was not being logical. It was essentially taking certain words I was using and then ascribing them to a worldview; for example, if I referred to a "practical application" of something, he would say my worldview was that of a pragmatist, and then, almost as if he was scripted, he'd transform that into "the pragmatic worldview was not rational" and therefore I was not rational.

Lo and behold, George at the blog Misplaced Grace did something even better: he wrote up a parody following a similar discussion he had with a presuppositionalist, which precisely describes what Jason seems to be doing. I don't need to do anything further, because this is so illustrative. The names have been replaced with mine and Jason's. Please enjoy.

Jason: Let’s talk about that dog over there. Would you say that that dog is gray?

Karen: That is an elephant, Jason. It’s ten feet tall and has a big trunk. It is an Elephant.

Jason: I didn’t ask you if it was an elephant, Karen. I asked you if that dog is gray. Just answer the question. But be careful, you will have to accept the consequences of your answer.

Karen: Seriously. It’s a goddamn elephant. If your question is “Is that quadruped gray?”, then yes, yes it is.

Jason: I told you to be careful how you answer the question. You should have listened to me. You see Karen, if you answer yes, you are saying that that animal is a dog, and you are committing the fallacy of mutual contradiction. An elephant can’t be a dog, you see. If you answer no, then you are saying that it is not gray, and by their nature all elephants are gray. So again, you are wrong.

Karen: First off, that is the most retarded thing anyone has ever said to me. Second, what about albino elephants? Are they not white, or at least cream colored?

Jason: See, you lost the argument when you answered the question. I am not obliged now to answer any of your arguments because you are wrong no matter how you answer. I claim victory. You admitted that you are incapable of simple color recognition or of species identification, so in your world any animal can be any color, or any species. That makes no logical sense.

Karen: Seriously? Are you even sane?

Jason: I cannot argue with someone who cannot grasp simple logic. Have a nice day.

(aside) Wow, I sure showed her. I got her to admit that an elephant was a dog. What an ass.


That is the logic that he follows. Then he tells everyone that he saw an elephant with an atheist who insisted it was a gray dog. 

Update 5/14/2014:  Compare the above to this, which Petersen actually stated in his last posted comment to me:

One may ask, what else is a Christian supposed to do? There is no authority that is higher than God Almighty(Hebrews 6:13). Since The Bible is my first principle, I will inevitably appeal to it when I defend Christianity. Karen apparently doesn’t understand the nature of axioms, when you defend an axiom, you will have to appeal to it. If you appeal to another principle to defend your axiom, then what you are asserting your axiom is is not really your axiom. Further, I previously asked Karen how she knows her reasoning is valid. By Karen’s logic, she can’t appeal to her own reasoning, because she would have to appeal to it in order to defend it, and of course, Karen thinks that appealing to first principles is fallacious. Karen then offers me rope to hang myself with, but I suspect that I am not the only one who will find her offer to be ironic.

(Face palm!)