My Logic Hurts

When you see that today’s (well, yesterday’s, now) opinion article in the Exponent is titled “Laws encourage drinkers to drive while intoxicated,” you know you’re in for an, um, interesting argument.

The writer’s premise is that, since the campus police like to bust drunks for public intoxication when they’re wandering around, the police are therefore effectively encouraging these people to drive drunk instead.

Huh?

First off, there’s the obvious false dichotomy the writer’s arguing. The only two options after leaving the bars are walking and drunk driving? What about a designated driver? Or the “drunk bus” — the buses that run late at night?

Also note that absolutely no evidence (besides the phrase “Does anybody think this may…?”) for this position is presented. I’d expect that kind of thing from the random people who write letters to the editor, but the Opinions Editor?

And then there’s this gem of a paragraph:

If someone is walking home after a night of drinking, the only life being gambled is his own. Few people die after hitting a deer at 80 mph, and I doubt many people would die after hitting a drunk student on State Street.

Wow. First off, I’m pretty sure hitting anything at 80 mph is going to be a very bad, very lethal, thing. Plus — and please correct me if I’m wrong — the writer’s argument for why drunks stumbling around on the street is OK is “hey, if they get run over, it’s not like the driver’s going to get hurt, right?”

Now I’m not accusing anybody of anything, but the entire column reeks of someone who got busted for public intoxication the night before and is whining about how unfair it is.

4 Responses

  1. The first time I saw this lady in the opinions, I knew she was trouble. I don’t think she really focuses on writing coherent articles or arguments…just making activist noise.

  2. WTF Mate? Seriously. Maybe we should give her credit at trying to be satirical rather than stupid

  3. I don’t think it’s satire; it’s not quite over-the-top enough for that. Unless it’s just poorly executed satire. I’ve been pretty bad about reading the Opinions page this semester, so I don’t know if this sort of thing is typical of her writing or not.

    Now, as far as the letters to the editor go, it’s not unusual to find that’s ridiculuous yet written such that I honestly can’t tell if the writer’s being satirical, trolling, or honestly expounding on his beliefs.

  4. TROLLING’D!

Comments are closed.