Response to "Not: Bear"

Ladies and Gentleman,

As you may already know my dear friend, Mr. Lopez, has been undergoing a certain level of self analysis as of late.  The blog "Things I Am Not" is a result of this self analysis. Excited and proud am I of Mr. Lopez's endeavors for self-actualization. Wishing to show my full support, I have kept up with Mr. Lopez's blog. But after reading each post I have often found myself puzzled and pondering. It is here that I have finally  discovered how best I can aid Mr. Lopez as he racks his brain about the meaning of his own existence. And so, in order to help him to grow as an individual I have decided that it would be highly beneficial to Mr. Lopez to humble question him in everything he posts. For what better way can we grow in knowledge than through conflict and refinement as one who smoothes away the rough rocky shell to reveal a priceless jewel beyond compare? But before we embark let me first note that whatever Mr. Lopez is not, one thing for certain he is my friend. And so, Mr. Lopez, for your own good and the ease of mankind, more specifically your friends, it is of the utmost necessity that I assess your arguments to the best of my abilities.

All in the name of FRIENDSHIP! 

To Mr. Lopez’s “Things I am Not: A Bear”:

Please review the following post: http://thelopezisnot.blogspot.com/2011/03/bear.html

Mr. Lopez has quite a way with words that leaves the reader with many mixed emotions. Whatever those emotions are, whether it be rage, hysteria, apathy, joy, they seem to appear in the form of laughter. Ladies and gentleman, though the blog be 'inspiring' we must not be bamboozled by his statements and pictures no matter how clever and funny they are, at least not until we have sound reason to. For if anything, this blog is a rally to reason and a higher level of thought. We can laugh, yes, but not with him. Next to him.

:D

And so we begin:

He brings up the necessity of nomenclature and classification with scientific graphs (we know he’s pulling out the stops when Mr. Lopez relies on science). But what is actually being said here? We can break down the beginning of his argument in this way:

I am not a Bear. I am not genetically related to Bears because I am a human being. Bears and humans have different Order distinctions in their nomenclature. Therefore I am not a bear.

To further the argument, Mr. Lopez continues by saying that Bears are of the Pinneped family, which Seals belong to. His argument follows that:

Further, I am not a Bear because Bears are related to Seals. I have threatened to club many a Seal. Because of this I am not nor cannot be related to Seals. Therefore, I am not a Bear.

Just for “FUNsies” we shall dwell a bit on what I’ll call the Pinneped Argument (some would call the Seal Clubbing argument… but I will not for obvious reasons). Mr. Lopez would like to distinguish himself from Bears further by asserting that because he has threatened to club many Seals he cannot be a Seal, or related to Seals, such as Bears are. But I ask you this important question, ladies, gentleman, and Mr. Lopez, on what grounds does threatening to club, or cause harm to some ‘being’ make you ‘not that being’?  Do Seals attack each other? I’m sure. Do Bears attack each other? Also certain. Do Humans attack each other? Of course (If you don’t already know the answer to this question, first, you ignit, second, please just Google something that’ll actually help you grow as a person and contribute to society.)

Now here’s the million dollar correlation: Do Bears attack Seals?

For this we shall take a look at the natural order of things-- nature’s way of keeping things in check. Seals though cute and cuddly, (face it we all fell in love with Andre) can be little vicious killing machines. If you have watched Animal Planet, you would know. The movie Happy Feet, is also a sufficient method of understanding how terrifying Seals can be. But, ladies and gentlemen, what keeps these vicious monsters in check? Polar Bears.

 word.

Ask any Polar Bear what they’ve had for breakfast (if they don’t eat you and you can speak polar bear, for being eaten or suffering from miscommunication are at risk when speaking to these arctic giants) you will learn that it was or should’ve been a daily dose of Seal, his Pinneped brethren, chalked full of vitamins to keep a growing polar bear happy and healthy.

Get your daily dose of Vitamin D!

Now out of a desire to be a charitable logician (for that’s what is necessary to explore ideas and grow closer to the truth) I grant that Mr. Lopez did specifically use the word “club” which refers to the manner in which one would inflict harm upon another, in this case, Mr. Lopez to Seal. Now unless “club” is the key to the concept of any form of bludgeoning, this is probably the only distinction between Mr. Lopez, and the rest of the Pinneped family.  But admittedly, I, not being a scientist, am not the one to say. To my knowledge, Mr. Polar Bear doesn't use a club because he simply doesn’t need to. But that does not mean he is incapable of using a club. I figure if Mr. Polar Bear can open a Coke bottle and make a living off of a huge commercial enterprise, then chances are Mr. Polar Bear can swing a good club.

Always Coca-Cola. 

But now that we got that out of our system I wish to take us back to the very first proof of Mr. Lopez’s argument for his “Not Bear-ness”. As before, it can be simply broken down in this way:

I am not a Bear. I am not genetically related to Bears because I am a Human Being. Bears and Humans have different Order distinctions in their respective nomenclatures. Therefore I am not a Bear.

Broken down further to a more simpler form it goes like this.

I am not a Bear because I am a Human. Humans are not Bears. Therefore I am not a Bear.

See the problem yet? Well let’s just break it down even further to it's simplest form, shall we?

I am not a bear because I am not a bear.

If you are not catching the fundamental issue of this argument, Mr. Lopez is asserting the conclusion in his premises for said conclusion. In other words Mr. Lopez asserts that he is not a Bear as basis for the proof that he is “not a Bear”. Unfortunately, this means that the logic of this argument is circular and therefore invalid. Yes, invalid.

Give him a suit and he could run for President.

 Further, Mr. Lopez provides no empirical evidence that allows us any certitude that he is in fact a Human Being. This leaves a tremendous gap in the very first premise of his entire work. Thus the entirety of the argument, though hilariously entertaining, is illogical and unsound.

It is through the testing and refining of ideas that we come to truth. Mr. Lopez, on behalf of the community, I am challenging your argument because I am just as befuddled by these bear claims as you are. I, too, would like some certainty as to what you are, whether it be Bear, Baby Oxen, a bunch of Squirrels in an Adam suit, or a Figment of my Imagination.

A bear, or not a bear: That is a question.

And so Mr. Lopez, I humbly beseech you on behalf of all of us, grant us absolute certainty that you are in fact a Human Being, or at the very least that your Adam-ness is far removed from Bear-ness, and then we can truly begin to uncover the mysterious nature of what you are.

No worries, Mr. Lopez. We all know you don’t have to be human to run for President,

just American.