As a latecomer to the Rock 'Em Sock 'Em world of small-town politics, I've had to research our history to get up to speed.
Funny you should mention the Cortadito piece, because I stumbled upon it only last week. Kirk Menendez, who Ladra is now hailing as a latter-day Demosthenes, was the subject then of a less-flattering piece. (This was the April 9, 2021 column cited by Coral Gables Magazine.) What caught my eye was the following:
"On the other hand, we have a soccer dad and real estate agent who fought hard for the controversial upzoning of the Crafts Section where he owns not two, but three houses. Well, two and a quarter. Menendez told Ladra he only owns 26% of MBP Malaga Holdings LLC, which is registered at his home address and owns the house next door. Now we find out that Kirk Menendez has two of those homes mortgaged to the max. In fact, he has taken out three mortgages over the last 18 months on both homes totalling $900,000. No wonder he wants to upzone and triple the value of his properties. He owes a lot of money. Read related: Two Coral Gables commission races head to runoffs There are only two homes on his financial disclosure statement filed with the city: His late mother’s home, where he grew up, at 346 Malaga Avenue and a house he owns with a close family friend through an LLC at 323 Malaga. He doesn’t have to disclose his own home at 325 Malaga because it’s homesteaded and he doesn’t derive income from it. But he sure stands to gain from the upzoning since these three properties will skyrocket in value. Not once. Not twice. But three times he’ll cash in."
That was then, this is now. Now (February 24) Menendez is a "peacemaker and leader."
You choose the Tobacco industry as an example of a Big Lie when we have so many fresh ones. How about the 2020 Election was stolen? Or Nancy Pelosi caused the Jan 6 Insurrection? How about Jan 6 was a Peaceful Protest? First time Ive been disappointed in you, whoever you are. Pathetic. Tobacco?
This text presents a detailed account of alleged lies and manipulations by Kirk Menendez, with numerous logical fallacies and rhetorical techniques that aim to discredit him. Here are some of the key logical fallacies and flaws in reasoning within the argument:
Your writing style is captivating, and your arguments are often persuasive. Today I should have stopped at your executive summary, but I read and read and read and read. You are usually a master of spin, but this time you were mind-numbing, so I asked AI for help.
"ChatGPT said:
This text presents a detailed account of alleged lies and manipulations by Kirk Menendez, with numerous logical fallacies and rhetorical techniques that aim to discredit him. Here are some of the key logical fallacies and flaws in reasoning within the argument:
1. Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person):
• The author spends significant time attacking Kirk Menendez's character, calling him a "confidence man," a "sociopath," and a "big lie" perpetuator. These attacks are aimed at discrediting Kirk personally rather than engaging with the merits of his actions or arguments.
• Example: "Kirk's very identity is, itself, a 'big lie,'" which doesn't provide substantive evidence but rather focuses on painting him as deceitful without proving the claim.
2. Straw Man Fallacy:
• The author accuses Kirk of attacking a "straw man" by positioning himself as the victim of the development when, according to the author, Kirk orchestrated and profited from it. The claim about Kirk's emotional response is mocked as an exaggerated distortion. This suggests the argument isn't actually engaging with Kirk's original position but is distorting it for the sake of easier criticism.
• Example: “It’s one thing to attack a straw man, it's quite another for Kirk to position himself as the victim of an outcome he worked so diligently (for once in his life) to bring about.”
3. False Dichotomy (False Dilemma):
• The author often presents the situation in an either/or frame, implying that Kirk either intentionally deceived people for personal gain or is hopelessly deluded about the situation. The possibility of any middle ground or alternative explanations is not explored.
• Example: “The worst-kept secret in all of Coral Gables is that he is desperate to sell that property to a developer as well... Quite the happy coincidence, right Kirk?” Here, the implication is that the only possible explanation is Kirk's personal, selfish gain, leaving no room for other interpretations.
4. Appeal to Ridicule:
• The author frequently uses mockery to undermine Kirk Menendez’s credibility and make his actions seem more absurd or laughable. This distracts from presenting a detailed argument or evidence and instead focuses on making Kirk appear foolish.
• Example: The exaggerated use of emojis ("🤌🤌🤌🧑🍳") and calling Kirk's actions a "massive development project" inflicted on him, when in fact he orchestrated it, mocks Kirk rather than provides evidence in a reasoned manner.
5. Confirmation Bias:
• The text presents only the facts and evidence that support the claim that Kirk is deceitful, without addressing any potential counterarguments or providing a balanced analysis. The author implies that Kirk’s motives are entirely driven by self-interest, without considering alternative interpretations of his actions.
• Example: The extensive use of one-sided evidence to support the claim that Kirk orchestrated the sale and development process, with no consideration of other potential motivations, or acknowledging any potential positive outcomes from his actions.
6. Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question):
• Some of the claims made in the text are based on the assumption that Kirk is guilty of deception or malfeasance, and this assumption is used to justify further claims.
• Example: "It's that he poses as a martyred defender of neighborhood character while secretly offering to upzone his neighbors into oblivion." The idea that Kirk is a "martyred defender" is assumed without any evidence that he genuinely believes or portrays himself as such, instead leaning on accusations of hypocrisy.
7. Appeal to Authority:
• The text refers to various unnamed "city employees" and “former staff testifying under penalty of perjury” to support the author's claims about Kirk. While these accusations may be credible, relying on anonymous testimony without further corroboration can be seen as an appeal to authority without proper evidence.
• Example: "Former city manager Iglesias claims that two city employees came to him to discuss a meeting with Menendez after he was elected..." This relies on second-hand or anonymous testimony rather than providing clear, verifiable evidence.
8. Red Herring:
• The text occasionally introduces tangential issues (like Kirk’s personal social media behavior, or his son’s job) to distract from the main topic of his real estate dealings. These points, while possibly relevant in some contexts, are used here to divert attention from the core accusations.
• Example: "Kirk championed MX2.5 zoning that would have conveniently erased height restrictions on his remaining property." The personal attacks regarding his son and his social media persona distract from the central issue of zoning and property transactions.
These fallacies and rhetorical techniques undermine the logical clarity of the argument and shift the focus from evidence-based reasoning to emotional manipulation and character attacks."
AI fascinates me, which I why I went ahead and input your comment into ChatGPT myself. I asked the AI system (which reminds me of Vulcan technology we use on the Starship Enterprise) to critique your AI-generated critique of Aesop's post. Here is what it had to say, Ms. Smith:
This AI “critique” falls prey to numerous logical fallacies while failing to engage with the substantial evidence presented in the post. Let me address each point:
1. Ad Hominem Confusion:
The critique misclassifies evidence-based character assessment as ad hominem. The post meticulously documents Kirk’s contradictory statements and actions with public records, property transactions, and testimony. Identifying deceptive behavior based on documented evidence is not ad hominem - it’s establishing a pattern of conduct relevant to the central claim.
2. Misunderstanding the Strawman Reference:
The critique misses that the post is pointing out Kirk’s own strawman - his claiming critics accused him of personally upzoning his property (which they didn’t). The post isn’t creating a strawman; it’s identifying Kirk’s rhetorical technique of refuting claims his critics never made.
3. False “False Dichotomy”:
The post acknowledges various dimensions of Kirk’s conduct rather than presenting a simplistic either/or. The detailed chronology of multiple strategies (MX2.5 zoning efforts, pressuring staff, approaching developers) shows nuanced analysis rather than binary thinking.
4. Confusing Rhetorical Style with Logical Fallacies:
The critique conflates rhetorical style with logical fallacies. Using occasional sardonic commentary alongside substantial documentary evidence doesn’t invalidate the evidence itself. The emoji usage represents a negligible fraction of a content-rich analysis grounded in public records.
5. Ignoring Presented Evidence:
The critique claims “confirmation bias” while ignoring the extensive public records referenced. Property transactions, zoning initiatives, testimony under penalty of perjury, and publicly verifiable statements aren’t “one-sided evidence” - they’re primary source material.
6. Misunderstanding the Burden of Proof:
The claim about “circular reasoning” misunderstands how evidence accumulation works. The post establishes Kirk’s public stance against development through his own statements before demonstrating his contradictory private actions. That’s sequential reasoning, not circular.
7. Mischaracterizing Sources:
The criticism about “appeal to authority” misrepresents the sourcing. The post cites public records, names specific individuals (former city manager Iglesias), references public testimony, and quotes from published local journalism. These aren’t anonymous appeals but verifiable sources.
8. Conflating Relevance with “Red Herrings”:
The criticism labels relevant patterns of behavior as “red herrings.” Kirk’s son’s employment relationship with developers whose projects Kirk votes on is directly relevant to potential conflicts of interest - a central theme of the analysis.
Most tellingly, this AI critique offers no substantive challenge to the factual claims in the post. It attempts to undermine methodology without addressing whether Kirk did, in fact, orchestrate property sales to developers, profit significantly from those sales, campaign against development while attempting to sell more property to developers, or fail to recuse himself from votes involving his son’s employer.
The commenter seems to have asked ChatGPT to generate abstract logical fallacies without examining whether the evidence actually supports the conclusions. This approach reveals more about the commenter’s unwillingness to engage with the substance of the analysis than it does about any flaws in the reasoning.
I wonder what ChatGPT would make of Henry's speech before Agincourt or Jesus's Sermon on the Mount. I don't wonder enough to actually put them through the grinder, but it'd be a fun exercise.
That said, the "ad hominem" descriptives are absolutely on-point and useful in judging the actions of a political operative seeking a promotion.
As a latecomer to the Rock 'Em Sock 'Em world of small-town politics, I've had to research our history to get up to speed.
Funny you should mention the Cortadito piece, because I stumbled upon it only last week. Kirk Menendez, who Ladra is now hailing as a latter-day Demosthenes, was the subject then of a less-flattering piece. (This was the April 9, 2021 column cited by Coral Gables Magazine.) What caught my eye was the following:
"On the other hand, we have a soccer dad and real estate agent who fought hard for the controversial upzoning of the Crafts Section where he owns not two, but three houses. Well, two and a quarter. Menendez told Ladra he only owns 26% of MBP Malaga Holdings LLC, which is registered at his home address and owns the house next door. Now we find out that Kirk Menendez has two of those homes mortgaged to the max. In fact, he has taken out three mortgages over the last 18 months on both homes totalling $900,000. No wonder he wants to upzone and triple the value of his properties. He owes a lot of money. Read related: Two Coral Gables commission races head to runoffs There are only two homes on his financial disclosure statement filed with the city: His late mother’s home, where he grew up, at 346 Malaga Avenue and a house he owns with a close family friend through an LLC at 323 Malaga. He doesn’t have to disclose his own home at 325 Malaga because it’s homesteaded and he doesn’t derive income from it. But he sure stands to gain from the upzoning since these three properties will skyrocket in value. Not once. Not twice. But three times he’ll cash in."
That was then, this is now. Now (February 24) Menendez is a "peacemaker and leader."
WOW.
Your last line is giving Kirk way more credit than he could ever deserve.
You choose the Tobacco industry as an example of a Big Lie when we have so many fresh ones. How about the 2020 Election was stolen? Or Nancy Pelosi caused the Jan 6 Insurrection? How about Jan 6 was a Peaceful Protest? First time Ive been disappointed in you, whoever you are. Pathetic. Tobacco?
The list was not a comprehensive one, but at least for me the intended point was made. (I agree with your examples too.)
ChatGPT said:
This text presents a detailed account of alleged lies and manipulations by Kirk Menendez, with numerous logical fallacies and rhetorical techniques that aim to discredit him. Here are some of the key logical fallacies and flaws in reasoning within the argument:
Your writing style is captivating, and your arguments are often persuasive. Today I should have stopped at your executive summary, but I read and read and read and read. You are usually a master of spin, but this time you were mind-numbing, so I asked AI for help.
"ChatGPT said:
This text presents a detailed account of alleged lies and manipulations by Kirk Menendez, with numerous logical fallacies and rhetorical techniques that aim to discredit him. Here are some of the key logical fallacies and flaws in reasoning within the argument:
1. Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person):
• The author spends significant time attacking Kirk Menendez's character, calling him a "confidence man," a "sociopath," and a "big lie" perpetuator. These attacks are aimed at discrediting Kirk personally rather than engaging with the merits of his actions or arguments.
• Example: "Kirk's very identity is, itself, a 'big lie,'" which doesn't provide substantive evidence but rather focuses on painting him as deceitful without proving the claim.
2. Straw Man Fallacy:
• The author accuses Kirk of attacking a "straw man" by positioning himself as the victim of the development when, according to the author, Kirk orchestrated and profited from it. The claim about Kirk's emotional response is mocked as an exaggerated distortion. This suggests the argument isn't actually engaging with Kirk's original position but is distorting it for the sake of easier criticism.
• Example: “It’s one thing to attack a straw man, it's quite another for Kirk to position himself as the victim of an outcome he worked so diligently (for once in his life) to bring about.”
3. False Dichotomy (False Dilemma):
• The author often presents the situation in an either/or frame, implying that Kirk either intentionally deceived people for personal gain or is hopelessly deluded about the situation. The possibility of any middle ground or alternative explanations is not explored.
• Example: “The worst-kept secret in all of Coral Gables is that he is desperate to sell that property to a developer as well... Quite the happy coincidence, right Kirk?” Here, the implication is that the only possible explanation is Kirk's personal, selfish gain, leaving no room for other interpretations.
4. Appeal to Ridicule:
• The author frequently uses mockery to undermine Kirk Menendez’s credibility and make his actions seem more absurd or laughable. This distracts from presenting a detailed argument or evidence and instead focuses on making Kirk appear foolish.
• Example: The exaggerated use of emojis ("🤌🤌🤌🧑🍳") and calling Kirk's actions a "massive development project" inflicted on him, when in fact he orchestrated it, mocks Kirk rather than provides evidence in a reasoned manner.
5. Confirmation Bias:
• The text presents only the facts and evidence that support the claim that Kirk is deceitful, without addressing any potential counterarguments or providing a balanced analysis. The author implies that Kirk’s motives are entirely driven by self-interest, without considering alternative interpretations of his actions.
• Example: The extensive use of one-sided evidence to support the claim that Kirk orchestrated the sale and development process, with no consideration of other potential motivations, or acknowledging any potential positive outcomes from his actions.
6. Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question):
• Some of the claims made in the text are based on the assumption that Kirk is guilty of deception or malfeasance, and this assumption is used to justify further claims.
• Example: "It's that he poses as a martyred defender of neighborhood character while secretly offering to upzone his neighbors into oblivion." The idea that Kirk is a "martyred defender" is assumed without any evidence that he genuinely believes or portrays himself as such, instead leaning on accusations of hypocrisy.
7. Appeal to Authority:
• The text refers to various unnamed "city employees" and “former staff testifying under penalty of perjury” to support the author's claims about Kirk. While these accusations may be credible, relying on anonymous testimony without further corroboration can be seen as an appeal to authority without proper evidence.
• Example: "Former city manager Iglesias claims that two city employees came to him to discuss a meeting with Menendez after he was elected..." This relies on second-hand or anonymous testimony rather than providing clear, verifiable evidence.
8. Red Herring:
• The text occasionally introduces tangential issues (like Kirk’s personal social media behavior, or his son’s job) to distract from the main topic of his real estate dealings. These points, while possibly relevant in some contexts, are used here to divert attention from the core accusations.
• Example: "Kirk championed MX2.5 zoning that would have conveniently erased height restrictions on his remaining property." The personal attacks regarding his son and his social media persona distract from the central issue of zoning and property transactions.
These fallacies and rhetorical techniques undermine the logical clarity of the argument and shift the focus from evidence-based reasoning to emotional manipulation and character attacks."
AI fascinates me, which I why I went ahead and input your comment into ChatGPT myself. I asked the AI system (which reminds me of Vulcan technology we use on the Starship Enterprise) to critique your AI-generated critique of Aesop's post. Here is what it had to say, Ms. Smith:
This AI “critique” falls prey to numerous logical fallacies while failing to engage with the substantial evidence presented in the post. Let me address each point:
1. Ad Hominem Confusion:
The critique misclassifies evidence-based character assessment as ad hominem. The post meticulously documents Kirk’s contradictory statements and actions with public records, property transactions, and testimony. Identifying deceptive behavior based on documented evidence is not ad hominem - it’s establishing a pattern of conduct relevant to the central claim.
2. Misunderstanding the Strawman Reference:
The critique misses that the post is pointing out Kirk’s own strawman - his claiming critics accused him of personally upzoning his property (which they didn’t). The post isn’t creating a strawman; it’s identifying Kirk’s rhetorical technique of refuting claims his critics never made.
3. False “False Dichotomy”:
The post acknowledges various dimensions of Kirk’s conduct rather than presenting a simplistic either/or. The detailed chronology of multiple strategies (MX2.5 zoning efforts, pressuring staff, approaching developers) shows nuanced analysis rather than binary thinking.
4. Confusing Rhetorical Style with Logical Fallacies:
The critique conflates rhetorical style with logical fallacies. Using occasional sardonic commentary alongside substantial documentary evidence doesn’t invalidate the evidence itself. The emoji usage represents a negligible fraction of a content-rich analysis grounded in public records.
5. Ignoring Presented Evidence:
The critique claims “confirmation bias” while ignoring the extensive public records referenced. Property transactions, zoning initiatives, testimony under penalty of perjury, and publicly verifiable statements aren’t “one-sided evidence” - they’re primary source material.
6. Misunderstanding the Burden of Proof:
The claim about “circular reasoning” misunderstands how evidence accumulation works. The post establishes Kirk’s public stance against development through his own statements before demonstrating his contradictory private actions. That’s sequential reasoning, not circular.
7. Mischaracterizing Sources:
The criticism about “appeal to authority” misrepresents the sourcing. The post cites public records, names specific individuals (former city manager Iglesias), references public testimony, and quotes from published local journalism. These aren’t anonymous appeals but verifiable sources.
8. Conflating Relevance with “Red Herrings”:
The criticism labels relevant patterns of behavior as “red herrings.” Kirk’s son’s employment relationship with developers whose projects Kirk votes on is directly relevant to potential conflicts of interest - a central theme of the analysis.
Most tellingly, this AI critique offers no substantive challenge to the factual claims in the post. It attempts to undermine methodology without addressing whether Kirk did, in fact, orchestrate property sales to developers, profit significantly from those sales, campaign against development while attempting to sell more property to developers, or fail to recuse himself from votes involving his son’s employer.
The commenter seems to have asked ChatGPT to generate abstract logical fallacies without examining whether the evidence actually supports the conclusions. This approach reveals more about the commenter’s unwillingness to engage with the substance of the analysis than it does about any flaws in the reasoning.
Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person):
• The author spends significant time attacking Kirk Menendez's character, calling him a "confidence man," a "sociopath," and a "big lie" perpetuator.
______________________________________________________________________
I wonder what ChatGPT would make of Henry's speech before Agincourt or Jesus's Sermon on the Mount. I don't wonder enough to actually put them through the grinder, but it'd be a fun exercise.
That said, the "ad hominem" descriptives are absolutely on-point and useful in judging the actions of a political operative seeking a promotion.
A confusing episode.