"Specious" isn't synonymous with "you're absolutely right"

Typically I don't waste my time having discussions with people, because either they're right and there's nothing to discuss, or they're wrong and they're never gonna let go of it. But one thing I always find interesting is when you can tell that a position is probably stupid, simply by observing how its proponents reason.

First of all, obviously, any kind of "argument" that is based on emotional reasoning is irrelevant.

Second, when people with bad logic congregate in defense of one opinion, it's a fair sign that that position is flawed.

So where this has something to do with dogs is: are the people with bag logic pro- or anti-Cesar?

Let's see some examples of bad logic from the blogs.

• Dogs are not wolves. Wolves don't do that. Therefore dogs don't do that. (anti-Cesar blog)


• I don't know how to rehabilitate aggressive dogs. I don't do it like Cesar. Therefore Cesar is wrong. (anti-Cesar blog)


• Treats work. Cesar doesn't give treats. Therefore Cesar's way doesn't work. (anti-Cesar blog)


• "Dominant dogs like to sleep higher than the pack" is the same as "every dog who sleeps in a high place is the dominant dog in his pack." (anti-Cesar blog)


• My dogs sleep on the bed. I'm the bottom of the totem pole. Therefore dominant dogs do not sleep higher than their pack. (anti-Cesar blog)


• Operant conditioning works. Therefore Cesar is wrong. (anti-Cesar blog)


• Cesar got bit. I got bit. Therefore Cesar is wrong and I'm right. (anti-Cesar blog)

Ok. All these are nonsensical statements. All these come from anti-Cesar blogs. Oddly, I'm not getting a gigantic harvest of failed logic from the pro-Cesar blogs.

So. People with bad logic are anti-Cesar. And Cesar's way works. Therefore... yeah, it still looks like Cesar rules.