Two things from this morning

First item:

My nephew:

Van Hagar > Van Halen

I direct anyone who disagrees to these recent live recordings.

Me:

Agreed, but your argument is invalid. It's like arguing about who was a better athlete in their prime based on who's better now.

My nephew's friend:

Sorry--Wrong. Sammy Hagar was always a better singer than Diamond Dave ever was. Dave was a performer--nothing more. Sammy was a successful singer in his own right long before Van Halen. Sammy - Van Halen = Sammy. Dave - Van Halen = Nothing.

Me:

I'm not disagreeing with you *at all*. I never liked Dave precisely because he was all show. I'm just saying that using a recording made this decade as proof of that point isn't valid. I'm quibbling. Sorry.

If the reader didn't already know: I'm somewhat of a stickler for logic, and generally won't support a poor argument even if I tend to agree intellectually or emotionally with its conclusions.

Which is why this rant is problematic for me even though I am evidence of the false premise near the end of it. Second item:

Okay maybe he served his time or whatever but that does not change the fact that he did something to a child . . . . Sick bastards always do something again. Shoot every damn person that touches any child.

On one hand, I recognize the glaring flaw in the premises of the argument. On the other, I know that a poor argument doesn't equal a wrong conclusion. Emotionally, I've been dealing again with my teen-aged relationship with my stepfather, and that makes me vulnerable to this sort of rave.

You'd think I'd get past this over the course of a couple decades, given the evidence of my own life (and probably my step-father's, for that matter; I don't know that he ever abused another minor), but it's always a kick in my head.

Today I am fighting a desire to hurt myself.