Fact Free principles: Romney equates a piece of trash video with American principles worthy of

[patrice]

a response demonstrating the resolve of our armed might to show "our values" and to defend "our interests".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=mfwEUbgG-dc&feature=endscreen

Also, notice the logic problems in this: aggressive "defense" of "principles", principles are super-ordinate categories of values, which have more than one sub-type/examples/manifestations. The sub-types are identified deductively, moving from principle analytically to examples of that principle applied to empirical information. Deduction produces truths that are more logically necessary, more probable.

Moving in the opposite direction in reasoning, moving inductively from a particular fact to a general principle is less logically necessary, because various principles can inher in one degree or another in a given phenomenon. A variety of things can be inferred from a given fact, many of which are improbable all of the way to impossible. Remember the example of this from Science class, about the barnacles on the bottom of the boat & the question, "How did they get there?" and an example of inferential reasoning could be something like, "Spontaneous Generation" or "We threw pottery in the water, so pottery generates barnacles."

That's what Romney is doing here, TTE, "Someone posted a video about Muslims on the internet. Muslims did violence on our embassy. Therefore, Muslims are a threat to our 1st amendment rights worthy of the resolve of our armed might and Ambassador Patterson should not have apologized for any unintended insult to anyone's religion and President Obama should not have supported her."

Q. How does one piece of trash video become grounds for going to war on "principles"?

A. DYSFUNCTIONAL logic.

And it will be very interesting to see which Americans CAN'T or REFUSE to recognize this particular dysfunction.