Bryce L. Stampley
Prof. Silva
ENG1020
October 27 th , 2008
Crimes Against Logic, a list crimes against our intelligence.
The book Crimes Against Logic by Jamie Whyte is a text that tears the faulty arguments of those we hold as figures of authority in our society to shreds. He uses a powerful sarcasm throughout the entire book, paired with an even stronger appeal to Logos and Ethos. Along with this, he uses their faulted arguments as a call to action of sorts, by showing us how society attempts to keep us quiet, among many things.
In itself, the book is like a list. He is straightforward in the way he presents the argument.
Whyte does not waste time to tell us that our opinions are and always will always be wrong,
“You don’t really have a right to your opinions. And the idea that you do, besides being false, is forever being invoked when it would be irrelevant even if it were true.” He then says that, they are subjective to authority by using an example.
“…your parents have the power to decide certain matters. For example, your parents have the power to decide when you will go to bed. Hence, in answer to the question “Why is 8:00
P.M. my bedtime?” the answer “Because I say so” is quite right; your parents are, quite literally, the authors of your bedtime.”
Is it just our parents that dictate certain things over us? Of course they don’t, take the churches for example. Do you question how the Virgin Mary had a baby without initiating intercourse with someone? You don’t, because The Bible says this has happened, and the authority behind this event is God. Do you question God? If you attend church, you don’t, therefore your opinion has been twisted.

Bryce L. Stampley
Prof. Silva
ENG1020
October 27 th , 2008
By using the logos of others against themselves, I think he forms his own ethos in doing this.
There is a meaning his humorous sarcasm. Whyte turns these arguments against their users, by showing them for what they really are,
“How does someone who thinks “emotion is quasi-aesthetically disconnected” from something—be it the apparently conditioned mundanity of cause and effect or anything else— differ in his opinion from someone who believes this disconnection to be genuinely aesthetic?
Or perhaps nothing has gone wrong with the language here. Perhaps the point of such language is not to communicate your ideas to the reader but simply to give an impression of being learned while saying almost nothing at all.”
By taking shots at the empty words of that are “well-learned” in our community, he has proven that their words really have little meaning to begin with. While they are conveying their point, they present it is in a very hollow fashion. Or even when these people are making a point, the way they say it can be a way to confuse you, or to just get you to agree,
“This notion of leverage has a perfectly natural extension in finance, often called gearing. If you invest $50,000 of your own money and borrow the rest to buy a $500,000 home, then your leverage (or gearing) is 9:1---your debt is nine times your equity. The extension is sensible because the financial case, like the physical case, involves a precise ratio. In consultese, however, “to leverage” just means “to use.” “Leverage” is leveraged in sentences that have nothing to do with ratios, like this one and like our example sentence.”

Bryce L. Stampley
Prof. Silva
ENG1020
October 27 th , 2008
Whyte seems to say that not just our opinion is subject, but even our reason is taken to be soft. By using, “special words” they can downplay the levity of a situation. Instead of saying something with a directly so that we can understand, and see what is wrong with that is said. It must be masked, so that their motive can be reached, it is a good ploy, nonetheless.
Our thoughts can be eventually snuffed out, even if it an opinion that has been proved to be true. Repetition is the reason. “When you hear something over and over it is likely to become dull. But its truth value does not. An opinion that was true on its first outing does not become false through overuse. Yet it is a common objection to an opinion---as if it constituted a refutation---that we have heard it all before.” Is it the fact that the opinion is boring that people make the choice to not hear it and essentially declare it false? Your point, while true has been shot down due to its lack of bite, and age. “The truth can be boring. It is a little disappointing, perhaps, like the fact that your husband watches too much football on television. But if you love it you will put up with dull moments.”
Another way your ideas can be spirited away is by just being associated with ideals that do not agree with the society you live in. Violent in purpose, or not. “Hitler is a great favorite, but refutation by association does not require his services. Other objectionable individuals or groups will do just as well if the association can be made to stick. Religious fundamentalists are quite good. Victorians aren’t bad either. I have heard certain strands of feminism dismissed on the ground that they are a kind of neo-Victorian Puritanism, which nicely gets in both of the

Bryce L. Stampley
Prof. Silva
ENG1020
October 27 th , 2008 above associations. Whether the feminist ideas in question are correct is irrelevant, but it should do to shut up feminists, who like to think they are modern and secular.”
Truth does not matter, to Whyte, it must depend on first of all, does your argument make you sound smart? Second, does it agree with the people who are taking your argument’s ideals?
Only in the end does it matter if it’s true or not.
All of these things, it all adds up to one thing. Whyte is issuing a warning to anyone that would listen. Watch out for these things, and adapt. Showing what our authority figures are really saying would open the eyes of most. Unscrambling the word play of salesmen would make us smarter; why not show this to people?

Bryce L. Stampley
Prof. Silva
ENG1020
October 27 th , 2008