Logic and RHetoric By J. D. Pudie

 Christopher Hitchens died in December of 2011. Although he is gone he has left us much of his work to ponder over; articles, books, YouTube videos and movies. For anyone who reads or listens to his world with any facility, one will find that most of the things he writes and are both very logical and come from an evolutionary foundation. This is still the case when he writes the work “Why women still aren’t funny”. And if I read and understand his argument correctly it went a little bit like this.

1.      All life evolves

2.      Evolution only allows for traits that advance the species and help ensure survival

3.      Historically speaking, women being funny has done nothing to advance the species nor ensure its survival

4.      Therefore, women aren’t funny.

In my logic class I learned that if the argument is sound and all the premises are true then the conclusion is true. In the article “Who says women aren’t funny” they build a really good case for why they think women are funny, but it didn’t really address if his argument was sound or if his premises are being true. I wonder if the writers of the second article don’t understand the logical structure thereby producing a response that wasn’t actually responding. Or speaking against the idea of Evolution is so taboo in public forms that it compelled then to write a completely different argument. I do think that Christopher Hitchens argument is sound, but I also know that woman or funny.

J. D. Purdie