The following post was published on Monday at Keith Burgess-Jackson’s blog.
Logic and Politics
Suppose S has a link to Jihad Watch on his blogroll because S is anti-Jihadist. T, who is always on the alert for Islamophobia, calls S “anti-Muslim.” What must T think about Muslims in order for this to follow? There are five possible relationships between Muslims and Jihadists:
|1.||No Muslims are Jihadists. (In other words, the classes are disjoint.)|
|2.||All and only Muslims are Jihadists. (In other words, the classes are identical.)|
|3.||All Muslims are Jihadists, but not all Jihadists are Muslims. (In other words, the class of Muslims is a proper subset of the class of Jihadists.)|
|4.||All Jihadists are Muslims, but not all Muslims are Jihadists. (In other words, the class of Jihadists is a proper subset of the class of Muslims.)|
|5.||Some and only some Muslims are Jihadists. (In other words, the classes overlap, but only in part.)
In order for “S is anti-Muslim” to follow from “S is anti-Jihadist,” either 2 or 3 must be true. But notice that in both of them, all Muslims are Jihadists. So T, unwittingly, is saying that all Muslims are Jihadists! It would be funny if it weren’t so sad. It’s even sadder if T is a college student.
Hat tip: Mark Spahn.