Matt Slick: Merely for Your Personal Pleasure

It is always wrong for you to torture babies merely for your personal pleasure.

Matt Slick has developed this proposition over the years to support his claim of “absolute morals”. As he states in the link:

“If it is always wrong, then that supports a universal moral absolute. But how is it possible in a worldview that contains no God and/or does not allow universal moral truths?

So let’s respond to the “If it is” and the “If it is not” as Slick explains at his carm.org website:

“If it is always wrong (to torture babies to death for personal pleasure), then that supports a universal moral absolute. But how is it possible in a worldview that contains no God and/or does not allow universal moral truths?”

Incoherent/does not follow. A well-known Atheist Community Youtube commenter expresses this very well: “If you have to use a very specific example ‘raping babies for mere pleasure’ in order to demonstrate an objective moral standard, the moral standard can't be very objective (at least not in the transcendent, god given morals, kind of way ).” (Shaar roambeams , YT comment on BTWN Show, 8/7/2016)

Reductio Ad Absurdum. Slick is attempting to find something he can claim is universal in that no one can deny it, but in doing so, raises its specificity to an absurdity The immediate question arising is: who would EVER torture babies to death “merely for personal pleasure”?  It is the specifier, the "merely for personal pleasure" clause, which takes the proposition to this level.

At his carm.org website, Slick tries to extend this appeal-to-emotion-framed statement to a table of “objective" wrongs:

Notice that they are set up in a table which perfectly reflects the false dilemmas he sets up.  He starts with a universal ("always") in the first column, with another universal (for "anyone/everyone") then to the act, and then obscures it with the emotionally-infected false choice "specifier".  The second proposition about mothers is obviously a thinly-veiled reference to abortion.  The choices make these propositions, again, something that would only be done by a sociopath, someone mentally ill, because of the "personal pleasure" phrasing.    The appeal to emotion "specifier" in the last column is meant to remove any compelling rational reason for an exception, but also renders it almost impossibly uncommon (reduces it to an absurdity).

Straw man/Reification. Where does it say that an atheist worldview cannot allow universal moral truths? Matt’s insinuation is that only a theist worldview can support them, I’m assuming because it has a ”morality giver” (which of course is his version of god). In other words, universal moral laws require having a “law giver.”

Altruism and empathy can be used to develop objective, universal moral truths in both a theistic and secular world.  Five of them will be discussed later in this post.

Divine Command Theory. Slick tries to get around the DCT quandary in various ways, but it always comes back to the fact that any act his god would command him to perform is morally permissible. This is expressed well in a Personal Challenge by Raymond Bradley in his book “God’s Gravediggers: Why No Diety Exists”—

Consider First Samuel 15:3 in which the Lord commands his people: “Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him: but put to death both man and woman, child and infant."

Now ask yourself three questions:

(i) Was "put to death both man and woman, child and Infant" the very word of the Lord whom you believe and worship?

(ii) Is it conceivable that your Lord could again issue the same command in our time?

(iii) If you did believe you were so commanded by your Lord, could you and would you obey?

If you answer "No" to question (i), you deny the authority of God's so-called word, the Bible. If you answer "No" to question (ii) (perhaps because you think your Lord might have mended his ways), then you deny that God's commands have the kind of universal applicability which is a necessary condition of their being in accord with, let alone the source of, moral truths [Note from Karen: you also deny that God is “changeless” as defined by the Westminster Confessional definition of God]. If you answer "No" to question (iii), you must think that it is sometimes right, or even obligatory, to disobey God. You thereby admit that moral truths are independent of, and may even conflict with, God's dictates. You admit that, as most philosophers since Socrates have long insisted, ethics is autonomous; and that we must, therefore, do our moral thinking for ourselves. But if you answer "Yes" to each question, then I submit that your belief in the God of biblical theism is not just mistaken but morally abhorrent.

My Answer to Slick
Torturing babies “merely for personal pleasure” is an appeal to emotion that entails that one enjoys giving pain, which is sadism.  Sexual sadism disorder is the “medical/psychological condition for sexual arousal [i.e., personal pleasure] from inflicting pain/humiliation on unwilling, non-consenting victims.” Babies are by definition “unwilling, non-consenting victims.” So it’s not wrong as indicative of someone who has a psychological disorder who needs to be helped (i.e., with empathy, altruism). The person who is “deriving personal pleasure” may not think it is wrong, because they have a psychological problem—they are “sick” from a mental condition which requires treatment.

Trey Jadlow's Argument From Authori-Trey

In certain respects, I may be "a day late and a dollar short" on analyzing Trey Jadlow's Argument for the Existence of God.  He's been taken on by many well known YouTube atheists.  But there will be new ones, or those who want to take it further, and of course, those who wish to go over it again (and after listening to him in the videos I reviewed, I don't think his argument will change).

For those of you that want it all laid out, my recent video of the same post title (and the table below) is what I gleaned from multiple hangouts which I partially scripted and then analyzed.  Sometimes in trying to learn a complex concept or subject, we may learn slowly at first, taking a lot of notes, everything very fluid...and then we have a moment where all that we've learned suddenly solidifies, and the learning curve takes a sharp steep curve upwards (at least that's how it is for me).  That moment for me came when I listened to the video with Trey and Jim Gardner, the fifth or sixth after about 20-plus pages of script.

Jim made the statement to Trey that he was putting words in his mouth, and that was when it hit me--so I e-mailed my good friend Deconverted Man, to ask him what "putting words in the mouths of others" might be in terms of a fallacy.  Deconverted Man came back with "this is a form of straw man."  I also began to realize that Trey's redefinition of the principle of Causality was the lynch pin--or perhaps more like the Achilles Heel--of his argument (along with misuse of the Law of Non-Contradiction).  For that, I knew there was only one thing I could do:  ask Ozy (Ozymandias Ramses II) to confirm the correct definition of Causality.  Hint:  it wasn't the one Trey uses.

With a series of bare assertions, his own definitions, and a lot of false choices thrown in for good measure, Trey Jadlow has designed an argument of sophistry like a game of "Heads I win, Tails you lose."  No wonder he trolls YouTube for people to debate with.

Like the one I did for pre-suppositional apologetics, below is a table breaking down Trey's Argument with some explanation and counter-responses, which follows my recent video breaking it down, but goes a little further on Trey's "necessary corollaries."  If I have anything philosophically (or otherwise) in error, please let me know and I will edit the table.

	Trey Jadlow Claims	Objections/Commentary	Counter response (s)
1	P 1:  Contingency exists. P 2:  Contingency requires aseity. C:  Therefore, aseity exists (From Convo with Dave S) (To Alex Botten who asked for Trey's "child argument"): "Johnny, are you dependent for your existence, did you happen... and he says yes...and I say oh, well, then Johnny, god exists."	Begs the question: Contingency is everything other than aseity. If Trey will not consider other gods as possible candidates, then there is only one object in the "self-existent aseity" set, which is his god. P1 is a mask for "everything [except aseity] is contingent." (Secular Web/Ontological Arguments for God)	Can the aseity only be your god? Yes:  it begs the question (circular). God exists, therefore you're contingent. You're contingent, therefore god exists.  (pumped up with "for the law of non contradiction/identity to hold") No:  Trey must grant other possible solutions or hypothesis (See # 6 )
2a	His argument is "scientific proof" of god.  Trey states this in almost every discussion.	Error:  Scientific methodology is "provisional and tentative."	Do you hold your argument to be true?  If yes, then NOT scientific. If no, then explain how it would be tested (falsifiability).
2b	Natural versus supernatural/ transcendent "God is part of the universe and so he exists." (3/14 Fox & Floyd 1:04:30)	Error:  Science is only capable of investigating natural phenomena.   Trey avoids supernaturality; he told Alex Botten his god is "timeless, spaceless, non-corporeal."  He even asked what was meant by "natural."	Can your god  be detected by natural means (other than theologically)? Yes -- (go to next step on "falsifiability") No -- If "not natural" then cannot be investigated by science, therefore not scientific.
2c	Falsifiability   Dave S asked Trey if what he meant by universe was everything other than God and he answered yes.	Error (not falsifiable):  The scientific method includes falsifiability; that is, its theories and models must be continually tested to see if they are correct.	What is the data you observe that makes your argument scientific? If "You, or Existence or reality" How do you falsify reality? Because everything* is reality, then it can't be tested, and so is not scientific. *Also, "micro events" (radioactive decay) have no known causes.
3	The principle of cause and effect (PCE) is an analytic truth.  Trey has repeated this many times strenuously. To Matthew Steele:   "The principle of causality is an analytic truth, it's a tautological statement." "A statement is an analytic truth or falsehood if it can be proved or disproved using only definitions and logical laws; otherwise it is synthetic." (Google search)	Equivocation:  Trey tries to use it as both analytic AND synthetic.  An analytic truth is basically defined within the statement and is independent of reality. Trey then invokes the Law of Non-Contradiction when speaking of existence (reality) as violating PCE, but since it is an analytic, it cannot validate existence, so he is trying to have it both ways. Trey has been told this by Fox in the Know (3/14) and in commentary.  Has also been verified with Ozymandias Ramses.	Do not grant use of PCE in both ways, and always ask:  Is that which exists reality? (Because with an analytic definition, PCE cannot be used to define reality). Trey's USAGE of PCE makes it a synthetic since he's applying it ontologically--to prove existence, reality.  Facts about reality cannot be proven by (are independent of) analytic statements.  So to agree that it's analytic for the sake of argument, and then have Trey use it as a synthetic (to "prove" reality), is misleading.
4	Presupposes reliability of senses	Trey uses this to support "scientific argument" (empirical observation) as he explains "we as the inquirers"	It needs to be pointed out that this contradicts his assuming PCE as an analytic, because empiricism is not needed for an analytic statement to be true.
5	Principle of cause and effect  (PCE) is "inextricably linked" (Trey's words) to the law of non-contradiction (LNC). "If you hold the law of non-contradiction, then self-existence [his god] must be.  If it doesn't, then you would not exist."  (Trey, at start of Mathew Steele debate) "Causality is the law of non contradiction in application." (3/14 Fox & Floyd Fp ~27:00)	Fallacy:  False Dichotomy (thru redefinition of PCE and scientific proof).  He uses it to claim opponents are violating LNC or law of identity, when he smuggles buzz words (acted on, happens) into the debaters' mouth to invoke his ipse dixit "necessary or break LNC (or law of identity)." It's applied to almost every objection to create a false dichotomy of contingence versus self existence, as well as its "necessary" attributes as defined by Trey (ipse dixit).	Cite sources.  Where does it say these are linked, how are they one in the same?  How would you justify such a link? Also see #3, analytic statements cannot be used to prove reality. The crux of scientific investigation is falsification, but by positing a contingent or self existent false choice, Trey is denying any attempts at falsification. Trey's argument is abductive (inference to his "best" explanation) which allows for the possibility there are other explanations. So Trey cannot deny there might be other explanations.     Since it's HIS proposition these are linked, and any inquiry is denied by positing a false dichotomy, the LNC link cannot be granted.
6	There must be something self-existent: "...there must be something somewhere somehow with the attribute of self-existence to have made me." (To also end infinite regress of cause and effect)  Trey usually goes over this at every discussion.	Fallacy:  Argument from Ignorance (God of the Gaps) Note:  When Matt Steele asked why an explanation (for a prime mover) is required, Trey replied "But then you're going to have to deny the law of non-contradiction because you have to concede that contingency exists."  (See #3)	Please explain "somewhere, somehow."  (That is what scientific explanations are meant to do.) See above: We can grant this is an abductive argument (inference to best explanation).  As such, other explanations can be considered, and they do not violate LNC or law of identity.
7	PREDEFINED ATTRIBUTES	Fallacy:  Ipse Dixit (Appeal to Authority)/Special Pleading Trey will claim these are "necessary corollaries" of self-existence.  If you posit anything with one of these attributes (as part of self-existent entity: being with volition, singularity, omnipotence, unchanging, actuality, no potential, language of accommodation), he will insist you must justify it/or it violates LNC or law of identity.	As noted above, if you can get to where Trey must grant there are other possibilities, you cannot grant that any of them must be justified.  You can also do a reductio ad absurdum as to how this entity acquired any of these attributes. Who says it has to be ______?  Why does it have to be _______?  Where did its _______ come from (if he answers "his being", then where does he get his being?)
7a	Must be a  singularity Must be "superlative" (3/14 Fox & Floyd 29:40) "logically impossible"	Ipse Dixit:  According to Trey, the self-existent entity must be a singularity because when there is more than one entity with these attributes, one must necessarily have "acted upon" the other for existence.	As Trey "sneaks in" the words "acted [up]on" to invoke the ipse dixit that this necessarily means contingency, therefore LNC denial, you must ask him where you said "acted upon" and why he is putting words in your mouth. Do not grant they are necessary and follow by reductio.
7b	Must be omnipotent	Ipse dixit:  According to Trey, it must necessarily have omnipotence OR something (with omnipotence) acted upon it, making it contingent	As Trey "sneaks in" the words "acted [up]on" to invoke the ipse dixit that this necessarily means contingency, therefore LNC denial, you must ask him where you said "acted upon" and why he is putting words in your mouth. Do not grant they are necessary and follow by reductio.
7c	Must be sentient or have volition	Ipse dixit:  According to Trey, it must necessarily have volition/sentience OR something (with sentience) acted upon it, making it contingent (could also be a category error because he is assigning being to first cause)	As Trey "sneaks in" the words "purposed" (or "intentionality") to invoke the ipse dixit that the self-existent entity must necessarily be a being who "acted [up]on" (which he might also sneak in) the entity proposed, you must point out that he is putting words in your mouth. Do not grant they are necessary and follow by reductio.
7d	Is "Pure Actuality" http://www.desiringgod.org/ conference-messages/thinking-deeply-in-the-ocean-of-revelation-the-bible-and-the-life-of-the-mind "He alone eternally is. He alone is pure actuality. What is God’s potential? How can the Lord get any better? He is already perfect."	Standard, dictionary definition of Actuality: As a matter of FACT, current; Synonyms are "  real, true, genuine, authentic, verified, attested, confirmed...existing, existent, manifest, substantial, factual, de facto, bona fide..." Antonyms:  "Spiritual, counter-feit, fictitious, imaginary, hypothetical, false, theoretical..." As Trey has admitted it is immaterial/non-physical, he is defining it as a conscious (see primacy of existence, next column.)	Here it appears Trey (or R. C. Sproul?) has created  this property of God in order to define him into existence (deny it is supernatural) Trey also told Alex Botten he agrees with "primacy of existence."  Since his god has attribute of "being" and is "sentient" does he exist as a consciousness? If he does, then Trey is contradicting the primacy of existence and showing he believes in primacy of conscious, because consciousness cannot create anything ("wishing doesn't make it so" per Dawson Bethrick). AND/OR Do not grant they are necessary and follow by reductio.
7e	No potential (see above, pure actuality from desiring god website) Trey to Jim Gardner at about 23:00 (Jim asks him to tell him "what the cause is) "...therefore that which gives it (reality) existence (a self- existent creator) is that which CHOOSES to create it."	Special Pleading: Language of accommodation is the cover. Having purpose means being contingent, according to Trey. He will also claim this makes a "purposer" a necessary corollary, which is his god.	Does potential mean "God can't get any better because he is perfect?" If yes--Does perfect mean god is not purposive (since he has no need to be)? If yes-, is your god eternal in his perfection ? Yes:  Then why did he choose to create the universe?  or What was his PURPOSE in creating the universe? (Does he convey his purpose in language of accommodation?--then he's contingent, or go to 7g) AND/OR Do not grant they are necessary and follow by reductio.
7f	No potential / unchanging "He alone eternally is. He alone is pure actuality. What is God’s potential? How can the Lord get any better? He is already perfect."	Special Pleading:  A being with no potentiality who is perfect or is a maximally great being is like a maximally great number, or an infinitely great number; you cannot add to infinity since by definition it has insurmountable value.	You claim your god is the creator of the universe.  Did your god exist prior to his creating the universe? Yes: So he went from being a potential creator to the creator? (Note: Trey's response to a like question from Fox itk:  God must use analogous language to communicate = god doesn't change but we perceive it as change ...assertion as special pleading...and see #7g) AND/OR Do not grant they are necessary and follow by reductio.
7g	God "uses" analogous language as "solution" to "unchanging changer" to avoid contradiction 13Heathens (ShadowHeathen?)  teased this out of Trey in 3/14 Fox & Floyd hangout around 1:00:00 --  Humans "perceive" change even though God is unchanging.	Special Pleading:  God is unchanging but we perceive it as change when it isn't change by god (such as when Jesus came to earth)-- which could mean EVERYTHING we observe is an illusion because it's nothing but "analogous anthropomorphic communication."	Is the only way for us to know god exists through his analogous anthropomorphic communication? Then god is contingent on such communication (for his perceived existence and activities)  Is there actual change or is there just analogous communication where we perceive change? Actual Change - Then God is not unchanging. Just communication - Then we live in an illusion where change is only perceived.
8	Infinite regress of cause and effect is not possible (must begin with self-existent being): "..explodes into nonsense and every thing is chaos" (to Alex Botten)	Argument from ignorance: Trey's god fills in the gap of how to end the infinite regress of cause and effect, just the assertion that it's an  impossibility and irrational. (Also see #6)	Please explain how infinite regress  of cause and effect comes to an end with an "unmoved mover" without ad hominem or other emotive descriptors.
9	God "is logic"	Trey insists this is true because of the word "logos" in  John 1:1	God is inside/part of the universe according to Trey.  Do the laws of logic obtain outside the universe (or if God did not exist)? No  -- it's circular (begging the question Yes --  God is redundant (Occam's Razor)
10	Going from self existent being to his god "[The Bible is literally true] is my conclusion." (3/14 Fox & Floyd ~26:30)	(1) 12,000 manuscripts (2) Sir Walter Ramsay (That's as far as he got with Alex Botten)	This, along with Trey's view on morality, will be reserved for another occasion.

By Commenter Request

A commenter to one of my YouTube presuppositional apologetic series asked where to get a copy of the presuppositional "bingo card." After some googling failed to find one, I decided to retrieve the one I had done.

A Conversation with Jason Petersen, Part 8

The following is a table which describes many of the fallacies which riddle presuppositional apologetics; in this case, the "Clarkian" apologetic as used by Jason Petersen.  Although most of it applies to "VanTilian" presuppositional apologetics as well.

Fallacy	Fallacy Description	Evidence in  Clarkian PA
Appeal to Authority	Something is true because it's from an authority	The Bible (Biblical verses of God as "ultimate authority")solves the problem of skepticism.  The Bible (Biblical verses) reveal that "all other worldviews are false."
Argument from Omniscience	An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge	Best expressed in the Romans 1:18-21 verses that anyone who disbelieves knows (the Christian) god exists, but they suppress the truth.  Using Bible as "omniscient" source, omnisciently revealed, with the revelations omnisciently verified to be true.
Appeal to Ignorance	Opponent's inability to disprove a conclusion Is proof of its validity.	"We know all other worldviews are false...and since we know all others are false, that makes the Christian worldview true."
Ipse Dixit	A dogmatic statement which the opponent is expected to accept as valid.	"The First Principle" that the Bible is the Word of God.  "The most basic way to distort an issue is to deny that it exists."  Believers deny recognizing that "The First Principle" is not an axiom because it is not self-evident as it is premised on the unproven supernatural.
False dilemma	Only 2 outcomes are inevitable	(1) Non-believers must accept the Christian worldview because  (2) the Bible says all other worldviews are false (and therefore irrational).
Ad hominem/ Poisoning the Well	Damning /discrediting the source.	Condemning Biblical study sources; condemning other philosophies; saying that non-believers "suppress the truth" as if they are lying, and claiming non-believers are "fools."
Tautology	Qualifying argument in such a way that it makes it impossible to disprove.	The Bible is the word of God. We know this because the Bible itself tells us so.  (Notice that impossible to disprove supports unfalsifiability)
Shifting the Burden	Burden of proof is shifted to the side which is not making the positive claim	Asking non-believer for solution to problem of skepticism, or asking them to account for "reality" or how their reasoning is valid (when the believer cannot account for their god.)
Special Pleading	Someone or something is exempt from standards for no good reason	In the above example, the believer will say their god does not have to be accounted for, as it is exempt from any accounting. Claiming the same circular reasoning used by Christians is exempt from circularity because it is labeled "virtuous."
Reification	Creating a concrete "thing" out of an idea	Logical absolutes are termed "laws" which were "created by" or "part of " the Christian god.
Equivocation	Using terms in two ways in the same sentence	Claiming the "laws of logic" are "followed" as if they were "laws" when it really means "no exception (known) to the concept" (used at the same time as the conceptual usage)
Proof by Assertion	Proposition repeatedly stated regardless of its contradiction	"The First Principle" that "The Bible is the Word of God, because the Bible itself reveals that it is" already indicated to be a tautology.

 

A Conversation with Jason Petersen, Part 7

Jason Petersen recently published his third "rebuttal" to my finding that his presuppositional argument is unfalsifiable and therefore cannot be accepted as believable or rational.

It should be said that all religions are in themselves unfalsifiable; however, the presuppositional argument makes additional claims:  it not only claims certainty (which moves it beyond a faith claim, as faith by definition must contain an element of uncertainty), it makes a comparative claim that it is the "superior" worldview while all others are "inferior."  This should make it applicable to reality, and therefore testable.  By dismissing any testing, Petersen has made its application to reality non-demonstrable thereby putting the entire apologetic back in with religious faith.

His response has been to attack my ability to respond to him, instead of directly answering the question.  This is traditional, and predictable, for presuppositionalists.  Whenever a presuppositionalist challenges the non-believers' ability to criticize or object to the propositions of their argument, they are evading their burden of response (even though they are likely perfectly capable of having an answer). 

Even if Jason Petersen presented a cogent argument that I was a raving lunatic, it does not change the irrelevancy of his "can't ever be wrong" argument:  it's still unfalsifiable.  His argument has failed to meet the criterion of testability.  And regardless of his claims about me, the unfalsifiability of his argument has been established by Petersen's own statements about it, not any by me.   

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!)