Someone not from Denison reads the Bullsheet (when his friend tells him to)!

I would like to start off this response with two disclaimers. One, I am not a student at Denison University, and as such have absolutely no experience regarding the demands made by the BSU or any of the issues that led up to this occurrence. All I know about it is what was published on the Bullsheet and that which was told to me by a friend.

Two, I am an atheist. This is in fact highly relevant. The initial article regarding the BSU’s budget demands makes it very clear to me that they believe the FC had ulterior motives for denying the BSU funding this year. As a group comprised entirely of a minority, it therefore stands to reason that if ulterior motive is suspected, a reasonable opinion would be discrimination against said minority.

So before anyone tries to play the race card on me, I would have it known that I belong to the most distrusted group in the entire United States.

Now then, to the issue. I will not be dealing with the BSU’s demands, because, as previously established, they do not concern me. However, I have to say that the reaction to the satirical response that he published leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Let’s examine them each individually, shall we?

Mr. Jack Hundley:

You quoted the infamous penny arcade comic dealing with anonymity (it was in fact your response that caused me to ask Linus to publish this under my own name), and added to it the claim "Real men claim their farts". I have little to say to this, because refutation of your argument is surprisingly brief.

Linus has described to me (though I have no doubt that it is a biased account) the actions taken against him by the BSU. While they are not perhaps out of line seeking a public apology (Though I do not believe that they deserve one, as the articles in question were both clearly satirical in nature), they are absolutely crossing the line in seeking anything further. As such, I feel the need to ask you this: Is it wrong to seek protection for your identity when you fully expect a reactionary response that poses a clear threat to yourself?

I say no, it is not wrong to do so. The fact that students were in fact willing to blow this out of proportion, and go to the lengths required to look up Mr. William’s real name based on his mailbox suggests that they are going to seek vengeance, and it is therefore absolutely justified to seek identity protection.

The second article warrants a slightly longer response, though it actually contains even less intelligent content, though some may find that difficult to believe.

Mr. Lewis Clark:

To begin, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the two logical fallacies known as "Argumentum Ad Hominem" and "Appeal to Ridicule". Knowing those two fallacies could have prevented the atrocity that was your response.

You seem to have intrinsically linked age and maturity, despite the very clear counterexample to the contrary. You yourself apparently possess age, but not maturity, as you are willing to stoop to personal attacks in order to try and win an argument.

Since we’re discussing logical fallacies at the moment, you should know that saying "age constitutes. Linus Williams lacks age, therefore, he lacks maturity" (a summary of your argument) is fallacious on two counts. One, it is a generalization, and it only takes a single example of someone who does not fit the generalization for it to be declared invalid, and, based off of your article, I can only conclude that you yourself are proof that this generalization is made in error.

Two, this takes the form of the fallacious argument known as "Denying the antecedent". If you define age as claim A, and maturity as claim M, this would be denoted as

M->A (M is dependent on A being true)

~A (Not A)

Therefore, ~M (Not M)

To give another example of an argument that takes the form of "denying the antecedent", I have provided a handy-dandy one below, as I understand that it can sometimes be difficult to see why these arguments are invalid (Courtesy of Wikipedia).

If Queen Elizabeth is an American citizen, then she is a human being.

Queen Elizabeth is not an American citizen.

Therefore, Queen Elizabeth is not a human being.


If you think that that is a valid argument, however, I have nothing further to say to you, as you are not intelligent enough to warrant my time. Denying the Antecedent is an invalid argument form because it does not justify the premise "M is dependent on A", but continues and bases the entire argument off of an unfounded premise. Therefore, in order for this to be a logically sound argument (although it requires rephrasing to be valid, even still), one must prove the premise to be true - This ties back into the generalization upon which the argument is based. I have already shown how the generalization is not a valid one, the argument is therefore neither sound nor valid.

Now that the mini-critical thinking lesson is over with, we can look at the rest of the response. Clark repeatedly makes negative aspirations regarding the character of Williams as a means of discrediting him, and thus, his argument. This shows that he cannot, therefore, refute the argument itself, and therefore must result to petty and immature tactics. He compounds this by ridiculing Williams, suggesting that he be "spanked by his mother".

It’s also curious that Clark associates some things that are widely regarded as being the most unsafe legal practices in the United States as being tied with maturity. Porn is highly addictive and has a strong negative impact on your social life. Tobacco is linked with a great many serious health concerns, as is Alcohol. As for driving, every time you get into a car you are running (relatively speaking) a huge risk of serious injury to yourself and others. Yet you make it sound like being able to access these things makes you more mature, which somehow correlates to being more capable of making a good argument.

I feel the need to ask, Mr. Clark, do you really have such a high opinion of yourself that you thought you could spout bullshit such as this and not have someone call you out on it?

As a final statement to everyone, I find it highly suspect that nobody has yet been able to field a response regarding the serious article that was published, and instead target the satirical one. This suggests to me that either a)no-one replying possesses the intelligence or writing ability to field a response, or b) they cannot find any flaws to which they can respond. Just a little food for thought.

Sincerely, G. S. Elmore, of Berry College

fuzzybaconpants@gmail.com