Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter is having some fun educating Mario, in a hilarious manner, about syllogisms and their value in arguments.
While Mario’s ideas have gathered no relevant acceptance beyond his own blog, and in fact where mostly rejected by the Courts in US v Wong Kim Ark and in Re: Wong Kim Ark, and other court rulings, it’s fascinating to see how Mario uses logical fallacies to support his position.
Do not fail to also read her other articles such as this one
In her Squeeky style show observes How Apuzzo:
Once again he dives head first into a four inch deep pool of Aristotelian Logic to critique one, Bob Quasius of Cafe Con Leche Republicans
and then continues to outline the fallacies in Mario’s claim
The purpose of this article is not to discuss all that is substantively incorrect with Apuzzo’s argument. I will save that for a future post. To show the problems with his logic it is only necessary to lift the legal covers enough to properly frame the issue. Since Poor Mario spends a lot of time jumping up and down about an 1875 U.S. Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett, let’s use it to set the stage:
Never miss a posting at Squeeky Fromm’s blog…
I always thought it to be hilarious how Mario lost his arguments to a recent female graduate from law school… Seems that he cannot earn himself the respect he so desperately seems to crave.