Faulty logic really changes nothing

To the Editor:

I would like to respond to Mr. (Bruce) Sanders' comments on my last letter to the editor.

I want to thank Mr. Sanders for his thoughtful response to my letter on evolution and (the lack of) human rights.

I must admit that I do not know what a "libertarian, Ayn Randian, right-wing, psychopathic notion" is. It sounds nasty. I sure hope I don't have any of those. (Did he forget to put in the word "extremist?")

But one thing he said didn't make sense. He stated that, "Individuals in societies that stipulate and enforce human rights may very well be better off, and thus . . . and thus . . . and thus . . ."

Maybe he means it might or it might not. So this is kind of an iffy statement. We are left with the idea that these individuals might be better off or they might not be better off. Then he concludes that, "Hence, there is no inherent conflict whatsoever between the notions of human rights and evolution."

He has made a very strong conclusion based on a weak premise. This sounds to me like faulty logic. So I am sticking with "if evolution is true, then there are no human rights."

John Leonard

Greencastle