An implicit declaration of (civil) war

What is the essence of some­one pre­tend­ing not to notice the essen­tial aspect of the cen­tral alle­ga­tion with respect to an emi­nent­ly essen­tial mat­ter to which he is an inter­est­ed par­ty, aspect that he eas­i­ly and obvi­ous­ly pos­sess­es the intel­li­gence to notice, of some­one implic­it­ly say­ing A while explic­it­ly stat­ing B? A refusal to engage in ratio­nal dia­logue, which lat­ter is in turn the sin­gle way to avert vio­lence between hold­ers of oppos­ing view­points: an implic­it dec­la­ra­tion of (civ­il) war.

I am obvi­ous­ly talk­ing about the Georgia SecOfState and his assistant(s), in the above video between minute 8 and 10, claim­ing that in the night­ly vote count­ing at State Farm Arena every­thing had been done cor­rect­ly, while not address­ing with a sin­gle word as prob­lem­at­ic that the par­ti­san poll watch­ers had been sent away for the night so that the count­ing was with­out any doubt ille­gal. Sterling implic­it­ly nar­rates the fact as such, while at the end of those two min­utes claim­ing that all count­ing had been done cor­rect­ly “with observers”.

This is a bla­tant case of will­ful dis­tor­tion of log­ic in the pur­suit of one’s own advan­tage (the GA SecOfState and his assis­tants like Sterling know they are at fault and refuse at all cost to admit it, appar­ent­ly in order to pro­tect their rep­u­ta­tion which in this way they taint only that much fur­ther). It was in the occa­sion of such a case that in Dante’s Commedia an assis­tant dev­il uttered the phrase head­ing this web­site (“Perhaps you did not think I was a logi­cian!”) to the soul of Guido I. da Montefeltro, tak­ing it from the hands of St. Francis, and then down with him to hell. St. Francis in turn was pow­er­less as the dev­il had log­ic on his side.

So what Raffensberger & Co. com­mit­ted is what is known to Christians as “blas­phe­my against the Holy Spirit” to which Dante refers in the men­tioned pas­sage of the Commedia, which “blas­phe­my”, as we shall deduce on this site, is essen­tial­ly noth­ing but a con­scious nega­tion of log­ic, the only sin that can­not “be for­giv­en, either in this age or in the age to come.” And just as Guido I. da Montefeltro, to whom loico’s sig­na­ture phrase is being uttered in the Commedia, Raffensberger & Co. will roast in hell eter­nal­ly, log­i­cal­ly speak­ing. And unfor­tu­nate­ly for them, log­ic has the uncom­fort­able aspect of unavoid­ably real­iz­ing itself, lat­er or sooner.

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on whatsapp
Share on pinterest
Share on vk
Share on linkedin
Share on xing
Share on google
Share on email
Share on print
“The delta vari­ant is like a com­mon cold, but …”: Matteo Bassetti, noto infet­tivol­o­go tele­vi­si­vo: “La vari­ante Delta è come un sem­plice raf­fred­dore ma sono con­tento se si usa per fare ter­ror­is­mo per vac­cinare la gente!” Un medico che sposa la strate­gia del ter­rore deve essere denun­ci­a­to e radi­a­to dall’Albo dei medici. pic.twitter.com/YnPEvv0Mhe — RadioSavana (@RadioSavana) August 3, 2021 Why would one want to get vac­ci­nat­ed against the com­mon cold (which coro­n­avirus­es have caused prob­a­bly since humans exist)? A pro­fes­sor of med­i­cine who states such illog­i­cal­i­ty vio­lates his hip­po­crat­ic oath, and not only. He is respon­si­ble for phys­i­cal harm that vac­ci­na­tion caus­es

Leave a comment / join the discussion

What is the essence of someone pretending not to notice the essential aspect of the central allegation with respect to an essential matter to which he is an interested party, implicitly saying A while stating B? A refusal to engage in rational dialogue, which in turn is the only way to ultimately avert violence: an implicit declaration of (civil) war.