I excelled in logic in school. ::glances at the math degree on my wall::

I'm sure it must be very pretty. No disrespect, but you must be aware that the considerable bias you exhibit negates any weight that your studies might contribute to your argument?

Your counterpoint is very valid, but as you allowed yourself a clarification, I must hereby tender my own.

There's nothing inherently wrong with arguing a position that is illogical. There is nothing inherently wrong with arguing a logical position in an illogical fashion. What is completely wrong (morally wrong, because it misleads those whose thinking is vulnerable to such rhetoric) is to use the tools and constructs of logic to attempt to legitimize an argument that cannot be sustained by logical devices, and furthermore, may not even need to.

This is why I strongly agree with your contention that logic, or rather, the outward trappings thereof, can be used for obfuscation and deception. But it cuts both ways; if it can be used by others as a smokescreen for the topic we want discussed, we can also use it to distract others from a topic we don't want discussed.

My strongest critique of your rhetoric is, and has always been, your insistence on what I call "using the weapon of the enemy." You feel marginalized, so you marginalize in return. You feel segregated, so you segretate in return. You feel vituperated, humilliated, wronged on many levels, so you do the same unto others, in the safe haven of the mostly sympathetic confines of LJ.

"But you don't understand", will be the inevitable reply. "You can't understand, you're not a victim like me!" Well, madam, my ability to empathize with your plight goes exactly as far as your willingness to alienate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alienation) me.

As evidence, this choice quote:

The human brain doesn't care about logic when you're being raped, okay?

Brace yourself, I'm about to cut loose.
What a perfectly abhorrent rhetorical device. Completely uncalled for. In a single stroke, you rationalize your prior lapses by taking on the mantle of the Victim (and not just any victim, mind you, but the victim of the repulsive act of rape) as an all-inclusive, get-out-if-the-jail-of-rational-argument card which of course trumps any opposing position, but also construct the argument in a way that I cannot counter without either appearing unsympathetic (and by extension, complicit to the rhetorical, non-existant rape).

So, having now been characterized as an insensitive clod (and a probable rapist, given half the chance), I cannot now include myself in your thinking in an agreeable way, for the same limbic reasons you alude to. Eye for an eye, ad infinitum. Where does it stop?