The Logic for Grammarian Meddling in Language

I love languages. A string of symbols and a group of rules coming together to convey meaning, is utterly fascinating. So I suppose I'm in a biased place against grammarians who want to standardize English.

Language is intended to convey meaning.
Language should be standardized in order to clearly convey meaning.
-------------------
All language should be the same and logically structured in order convey meaning in the best way.

Which I go onto argue leads to a universal language to the exclusion of all others. I suppose this isn't exactly interpretative charity. And I'm certainly ignoring other arguments!

1)People are generally lazy
2)Some people are not lazy and are creative
3)People that are not lazy are productive
4)Those that are productive deserve reward
---------------------------------------
Therefore, corporations have the right to ignore union contracts and exploit workers.

This argument is supposed to make corporations look bad, but is obviously fallacious. I suppose in a way its a straw person argument, attacking a weaker form of an argument a corporation might promote.

The Logic Against the Emancipatory Project

I picked this argument up somewhere in one of Eric Olin Wright's essays online:

1)Socialists and communists wish to end poverty and class divisions
2)Socialists and communists take over in other countries they impose a statist autocracy, ignoring poverty and creating new class divisions
---------------
3)Therefore, the first premise is false and those goals cannot be achieved.

Valid, maybe the last bit about the goals makes it invalid though. I would argue that the class of 'socialist and communist' is a big issue for soundness. The sort of ideals that are existent in these two (separate) ideologies run totally against what happens in supposedly 'communist' countries. So the class of 'communism and socialism' in the first premise may not be the same as the term used in the second premise.

Note, Really Existing Socialism fits the lexical definition of Fascism extremely well "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" (Merriam-Webster)

Ad Hominem Comment

Any one notice that an ad hominem argument often supports the conclusion of the argument before it, as well as ignore it.

"Your a terrible person"
Ad Hom. Response: "Well,your a terrible person too."

Validating Žižek

Thanks for the comment Jon David, I was thinking a different approach:

-The true ideals of Christianity are embodied in the free egalitarian community of believers united by love
-OWS is a free egalitarian community of believers united by love
----------------------------------------
Therefore, OWS embodies the true ideals of Christianity

A is c
B is c
---------
A is B

Well, this is an invalid form, but maybe a step to a valid argument for his underlying intentions.

Žižek at Occupy Wall Street

"They will tell us we are un-American. But when conservative fundamentalists tell you that America is a Christian nation, remember what Christianity is: the Holy Spirit, the free egalitarian community of believers united by love. We here are the Holy Spirit, while on Wall Street they are pagans worshipping false idols." -Slavoj Žižek, Liberty Sq. Plaza New York

I really appreciate the rhetoric of this little bit here but it also contains an argument.

1) Christianity is the Holy Spirit
2) The Holy Spirit is a free egalitarian community of believers united by love
3) Occupy Wall Street is a free egalitarian community of believers united by love
----------------------------------
4) Occupy Wall Street is Christianity/Christian

I needed to insert the conclusion here because he sort of steps over it. Unfortunately his argument is invalid.

C is H
H is E
O is E
-------
O is C

Cats are in the family felidae
All members of the family felidae are mammals
Dogs are mammals
--------------------------------
Dogs are cats

Still a solid piece of rhetoric though:
http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/736-slavoj-zizek-at-occupy-wall-street-we-are-not-dreamers-we-are-the-awakening-from-a-dream-which-is-turning-into-a-nightmare

Diotima's Beauty

We read Plato's Dymposium in art and philosophy. Diotima (Socrates' 'teacher in the art of love') gives a sort of poetic argument about the nature of beauty:

1)Humans love
2)To love is wanting to posses the good forever
3)Humans are mortal
--------------------
Humans cannot achieve the object of love

1)Beauty is a good which last forever (or a long while)
2)Humans cannot achieve the object of love but strive after it
--------------------
In attempting to achieve immortality and union with the good humans create beauty

I feel there's a way to strengthen the inference in the second arguement, any thoughts?