Crimes Against Logic By James Whyte Analysis

Crimes against Logic, written by James Whyte, presents a variety of arguments and information pertaining to different styles of writing. He presents ideas with a witty yet dry sense of humor, while also presenting good cases with his arguments. For example, in chapter five, titled “Shut Up”. At first the argument as a whole seems a bit extreme but it becomes more valid throughout. Whyte provides an example in the beginning of the chapter. That shows how easily his argument of shutting up can be proven. The example explains that if someone makes a ridiculous enough argument that the person with whom you are arguing with will simply stay quiet. Which in Whyte’s eyes means that the person who made the ridiculous argument is automatically right. This is just one of the ways that Whyte breaks down the idea of “shutting up” as a form of refuting an argument. In the first section of the chapter “Shut Up” titled you’re Not Allowed to Speak. The idea that someone who is irrelevant to a situation cannot have a valid opinion in the argument being made. The reason behind this is that the opinion
The claim is made that if your opinion is associated with something bad it is automatically wrong. Basically if you share similar or the same values with that is considered wrong, you are wrong too. Whyte uses an example involving Hitler and Lenin, both communist leaders who did some pretty bad things. But Whyte shows, that there is favoritism for Lenin and good things are associated with him, for example if you were to state one of his ideas it wouldn’t be seen as wrong automatically. But on the other hand if you were to explain or agree with one Hitler’s, ideas it would be seen as wrong the majority if not all of the time. The idea that Whyte provides is that two bad things can’t or shouldn’t outdo each other. Arguing two wrong arguments against each other doesn’t change the fact that they are both