Socrates Is Not a Cat: A Citizen's Guide to Logical Fallacies

"All cats die. Socrates is dead. Therefore Socrates is a cat."Eugène Ionesco, Rhinoceros

LANSING, Mich. — When officials want to sell a project, they use arguments that sound logical but fall apart under scrutiny. These aren't accidents. They are rhetorical techniques with names, and once you learn to recognize them, you will hear them everywhere: at council meetings, in press releases, in the mayor's budget presentations, and in the letters that developers send to your representatives the night before a vote.

Every example below is real. Every one comes from the public record of the Deep Green data center debate in Lansing. The names, dates, and sources are included so you can verify them yourself.

The False Dilemma

Giving you two choices when more exist.

At the March 23 council meeting, Mayor Andy Schor proposed a supplemental budget directing $400,000 to the fire department from Deep Green revenue. The message: approve the data center, or the fire department doesn't get the funding it needs.

The fire department's staffing crisis is real. WKAR reported in April 2025 that daily staffing dropped from 52 to 41 firefighters since 2011 while call volume increased 60%. But the city has a $166 million general fund budget. HAZMAT capability is a public safety need that exists whether or not a data center is built. Tying it to one project's revenue is a choice, not a necessity. The false dilemma makes you forget that the city can fund the fire department without selling public land to a foreign developer.

The Borrowed Credibility

Using a real title to sell something unrelated to that title.

Steve Purchase introduced himself at the March 23 meeting as a member of the Board of Fire Commissioners speaking "in my personal capacity as a 20-year resident." He connected the fire department's budget needs to the data center vote. He did not mention that his day job is Communications Director for the Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters, a building trades union whose members benefit from construction projects.

His fire commission credentials are real. His concern for firefighters may be genuine. But when a union communications professional uses a government appointment to advocate for a union-beneficial project while presenting himself as a concerned citizen, the audience is making a decision based on incomplete information. The credibility of the title is being borrowed to sell something the title has nothing to do with.

The Red Herring

Answering a question nobody asked.

Deep Green CTO Matt Craggs told the council the data center is "50 times smaller" than a hyperscale facility and compared its water usage to "10 residential homes or a small restaurant." The presentation slide originally said "500 times smaller" before Craggs corrected it as a typo.

Nobody asked whether the data center was as large as a Google campus. The question from residents was whether a natural gas power plant belongs on a 2.7-acre downtown lot next to homes, a river, and a Wendy's. Comparing yourself to something enormous makes you look small, which makes the audience forget to ask whether you should be there at all.

The Cherry-Picked Baseline

Choosing your comparison to guarantee a favorable number.

Craggs said fuel cells "reduce carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 50%." He explained this was "calculated based on the EPA's eGrid database comparing fuel, solid oxide fuel cells to the MISO non-baseload marginal generation unit." That is the dirtiest power source on the regional grid.

After degradation, Bloom fuel cells emit over 825 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour. A combined-cycle natural gas plant emits 896. The actual difference is less than 8%. The "50% reduction" is real only if you compare to the worst possible alternative. Compared to the grid average, compared to renewables, or compared to not building a gas-fired power plant at all, the number changes dramatically. The baseline determines the conclusion, and the presenter chose the baseline.

The Composition Fallacy

What is true of the whole is not true of every part.

Craggs told the council the project would generate "nearly $900,000 a year in annual local property tax revenue, which supports local public services like roads, public safety, schools, libraries and more."

Property tax in general supports those services. This specific $900,000 does not reach them as described. The property sits in the Downtown TIFA district. A millage-rate calculation shows approximately $453,000, nearly half, is captured by the TIFA for Lansing Center debt, Jackson Field debt, LEDC operations, and a fund balance that already holds $21.9 million. When Council Member Ryan Kost asked Mayor Schor how much reaches the general fund, Schor said "about $200,000." The actual city capture is closer to $274,000, and none of it goes to "roads, public safety, schools, libraries" as stated. The statement is true about property tax as a category and false about this property tax in particular.

The Motte and Bailey

Defending a weak claim by retreating to a strong one.

Bloom Energy VP Marisa Blackshire wrote to the City Council on March 22: "To be clear, fuel cells do not contain, require the storage of, or generate any toxic chemicals." The strong claim (the motte): solid oxide fuel cells generate electricity through an electrochemical reaction, not combustion. This is true. The weak claim (the bailey): therefore, Bloom's operations produce no toxic waste.

The EPA has designated Bloom as a Large Quantity Generator of hazardous waste including benzene, chromium, and lead, and fined the company $1.16 million for mishandling it. In 2013, Bloom told a waste contractor that canister contents were "nonhazardous." The contractor tested them and found benzene. When challenged on toxic waste, Bloom retreats to the motte: "fuel cells don't combust." When unchallenged, Bloom advances to the bailey: "no toxic chemicals." Blackshire's letter to the council was the bailey.

The Appeal to Inevitability

"This is happening whether you like it or not, so you might as well benefit."

When Council Member Kost asked Craggs what the incentive was for the project, given that 60-70 people had spoken against it at two hearings, Craggs compared the data center industry to the tobacco industry: companies that "don't have a public licence to operate anymore" because they ignored communities. The implication was that data centers are coming regardless, and Deep Green is offering a better version.

This framing removes your agency. It tells you the only question is how, not whether. Forty-three residents spoke against the project at the March 23 meeting. Six spoke in favor, five of whom have direct financial ties to the building trades. The residents are not asking for a better data center. They are asking whether they get a say in what happens to public land in their downtown. The appeal to inevitability tells them the answer is no, but politely.

Begging the Question

Assuming the thing you're supposed to be proving.

Multiple Deep Green presentations described aesthetic commitments (windows, intentional landscaping, murals, a public park, walkability) as protected by the buy-sell agreement. Council Member Adam Hussain asked directly whether these features are required in the agreement. CTO Craggs could not confirm they were. Legal counsel Elizabeth Rogers pivoted to site plan review as the enforcement mechanism.

Hussain responded: "If it's not a requirement in the buy-sell, if some legally binding contract between us and the company, then that's not something that we can actually promise the public will happen at that location." The presentations assumed the commitments were enforceable. They were not. The buy-sell agreement requires DT-3 zoning compliance, which covers setbacks and materials but not windows, murals, parks, or walkability.

Affirming the Consequent

"Good things have X. This has X. Therefore this is good."

Good development projects create jobs. Deep Green would create jobs. Therefore Deep Green is a good development project. This was the structure of nearly every pro-testimony at the March 23 hearing, including from Local 333 Business Manager Dustin Howard ($161,452 total compensation per the LM-2) and Inside Guard Derek Wright, who testified: "I support the deep green primarily for jobs for my local brothers and sisters and myself."

Jobs are not the question. A Burger King creates jobs. The question is whether selling public downtown riverfront land for a natural gas power plant operated by a company with a $1.16 million EPA fine is the best use of that land, for those jobs, at that price. As resident William Walker put it at the same meeting: "Burger King can do better" than 15 permanent jobs.

Tu Quoque

"You do it too, so your criticism is invalid."

"You oppose data centers, yet you're posting on Facebook." You will hear this one on social media and at public comment. It sounds clever and it gets laughs, but it has no logical content. Opposing a specific natural gas power plant on public downtown land is not the same as opposing technology. Nobody at the March 23 meeting said they were against electricity. The trick works by collapsing a specific objection into a general hypocrisy, so that the specific objection never has to be answered.

The Strawman

Misrepresenting someone's position so it's easier to attack.

"They just don't want any development." You will hear this from officials, developers, and chambers of commerce whenever a project faces opposition. It reframes 43 residents with specific concerns about tax capture, environmental impact, hazardous waste, conflicts of interest, and the use of public land into a caricature: people who are against progress. Nobody at the March 23 meeting said Lansing should stop developing. They said this project, on this land, with this company, under these terms, is not the right deal. The strawman lets officials respond to the caricature instead of the actual objections.

Ad Hominem

Attacking the person instead of addressing the argument.

"You're not an engineer, so your concerns about emissions don't matter." Or: "You don't live in the ward, so you don't get a say." The argument's validity has nothing to do with who is making it. A resident who reads the EPA's eGrid database and compares Bloom's claimed emissions to actual output is making a factual claim that can be checked. Whether that resident has a degree in engineering is irrelevant. When an official responds to a factual claim by questioning the speaker's credentials, they are telling you they cannot respond to the facts.

Appeal to Complexity

"This is very technical. Trust the experts."

Energy contracts, TIFA tax capture, solid oxide fuel cell chemistry, supermajority thresholds under the City Charter. These are real complexities that take time to understand. But "it's complicated" is also used to shut down questions that have straightforward answers. When Council Member Kost asked how much of the $900,000 in property tax reaches the general fund, the answer was simple: most of it doesn't. When Council Member Hussain asked whether the aesthetic commitments are in the buy-sell agreement, the answer was simple: they're not. Complexity is real. Using it as a shield to avoid answering direct questions is a choice.

The Slippery Slope

"If we say no to this, no one will ever invest here again."

This is the developer's nuclear option. Turn down one project and you will be blacklisted by every company in the industry. The assumption is that capital is so scarce and so easily frightened that a single city council vote will permanently damage Lansing's reputation. Lansing has the Ovation Center, Tower on Grand, a new Public Safety Complex, and a new City Hall all under construction or approved. The city is not struggling to attract investment. It is being asked to accept a specific deal on specific terms, and "no" to this deal is not "no" to all deals. Every developer who has ever been told no has said this. Cities that call the bluff tend to get better deals next time.

The Sunk Cost

"We've come too far to turn back now."

The council has held multiple hearings, the planning commission reversed its decision, the administration has invested staff time, and the buy-sell agreement has been negotiated. Walking away from all that work feels like waste. But the time already spent is gone regardless of what happens next. The only question is whether the deal is good on its current terms. If it isn't, the fact that it took six months to get here doesn't make it better. Sunk cost reasoning is how bad projects survive: each stage of investment becomes a reason to approve the next one, until no one can remember why they started.

The Bandwagon

"Everyone supports this."

The Lansing Regional Chamber published four press releases supporting Deep Green without disclosing that seven of the twelve support letters submitted to the council were from Chamber members, award recipients, or policy committee participants. The letters were routed through The Soft Edge, a paid digital advocacy platform. The appearance of broad support was manufactured by a small number of connected organizations. When someone tells you "the business community supports this," ask how many individual businesses were consulted, whether those businesses have financial ties to the project, and whether the support was solicited through a paid platform.

Moving the Goalposts

When the original justification fails, a new one appears.

First, Deep Green was about clean energy and innovation. When residents pointed out the fuel cells run on natural gas, it became about jobs. When residents noted 15 to 25 permanent jobs don't justify selling downtown riverfront land, it became about tax revenue. When the tax revenue turned out to be mostly captured by the TIFA, it became about BWL return on equity. When residents questioned the BWL contract terms, they were told the contracts are under NDA. Each time one justification is challenged, a different benefit is emphasized. The core question remains unanswered: is this the best use of this public land?

Poisoning the Well

Discrediting the opposition before they speak.

"The opposition is organized by outside agitators." Or: "These are the same people who oppose everything." If you can convince the audience that the critics are unreasonable before they open their mouths, nothing they say will land. This is why it matters that 43 residents spoke at the March 23 meeting with specific, sourced, verifiable objections about tax capture, environmental impact, fuel cell lifespan, contract terms, and conflicts of interest. They were not a mob. They were not confused. Dismissing them as a bloc is easier than responding to their arguments individually, which is why officials do it.

The Gish Gallop

Overwhelming with so many claims that nobody can fact-check them all in real time.

Deep Green's March 23 presentation covered emissions reductions, water usage, job projections, tax revenue, aesthetic commitments, fire safety, noise levels, construction timelines, BWL agreements, and community benefits in a single session. Each claim requires its own verification against a different public record. In a three-minute public comment window, a resident can challenge maybe one or two. The rest go unchecked and enter the record as undisputed. This is not a conspiracy. It is how presentations work when the presenter controls the format, the slide deck, and the clock. The defense is written public comment, FOIA requests, and the kind of claim-by-claim analysis that takes days, not minutes.

When You Share What You Know

The fallacies above happen at council meetings and in press releases. The ones below happen when you share sourced, documented findings with the public and someone doesn't want you to. These are not logical fallacies in the classical sense. They are rhetorical tactics designed to exhaust you, discredit you, or reframe your evidence as opinion. Knowing their names makes them easier to handle.

Sealioning

Politely demanding evidence that's already been provided.

You publish a post titled "The Garza Conflict, Spelled Out" that cites three City Charter provisions, $24,500 in PAC contributions, a 20-year maintenance contract, and 52 council meetings with zero recusals. Someone replies: "What do you see as the conflict?" The question sounds reasonable in isolation. It is not. The answer is the entire post. The goal is to make you re-argue your case in a comment thread where you have less control over formatting, sourcing, and context. If you engage, you are now debating instead of reporting. The correct response is "It's in the post" or no response at all.

Just Asking Questions

Using questions as a rhetorical weapon disguised as curiosity.

"But doesn't the Charter also say council members should exercise their best judgment?" "Isn't it possible that Garza genuinely believes this is good for Lansing?" "Are you saying union members shouldn't be allowed to serve on council?" None of these questions are seeking information. Each one reframes your documented findings as merely your opinion, invites you to defend a position you never took, or implies a conclusion you never stated. The defense is to answer the question that was actually at issue, not the question that was asked. The question at issue is whether the Charter's conflict provisions apply to Garza. Everything else is misdirection.

Whataboutism

"What about [unrelated thing]?"

"What about the empty storefronts downtown?" "What about the housing crisis?" "What about the fact that Lansing needs jobs?" Each of these is a real concern that has nothing to do with whether a union VP should vote on a project that benefits his union. Whataboutism works by making you feel obligated to solve every problem before you're allowed to point out one. The city can address empty storefronts, the housing crisis, and job creation without selling public land to a company whose fuel cell supplier has a $1.16 million EPA fine.

Tone Policing

"You'd be more persuasive if you said it differently."

"This would land better if you weren't so confrontational." "You catch more flies with honey." "Why are you so angry about this?" The argument's validity does not change based on the tone of the person making it. Tone policing shifts the conversation from what was said to how it was said, which means the substance never gets addressed. If someone tells you the tax revenue projections are misleading and your response is about their tone, you have confirmed you cannot dispute the substance.

Concern Trolling

Pretending to share your values while arguing against your actions.

"I support government transparency, but don't you think publishing this could hurt Lansing's reputation?" "I'm all for accountability, but is this really the right time to bring this up?" The concern troll presents themselves as an ally with reservations. The reservations always amount to: stop doing what you're doing. The tell is that the concern is never accompanied by an alternative. They don't say "publish it after the vote" or "send it to the ethics board instead." They just want you to stop.

DARVO

Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.

"You're the one creating division in this community by publishing this." The person or institution whose conduct you documented becomes the victim, and you become the aggressor. The $24,500 PAC contribution is not divisive. The 52 meetings with zero recusals are not divisive. Publishing those facts is not an attack. DARVO works because most people instinctively want to avoid being seen as the cause of conflict, and it costs the accused nothing to reframe documentation as aggression.

The False Middle

"The truth is probably somewhere in between."

Sometimes both sides have valid points. Sometimes one side has EPA enforcement records, federal court filings, SEC restatements, and three states that reversed their subsidies, and the other side has a two-page letter from the company's VP. The false middle assumes that every dispute has a reasonable compromise position. When one side presents verifiable facts and the other presents claims that have been documented as false, the middle ground is not "probably somewhere in between." It is wherever the evidence is.

Weaponized Civility

"This isn't productive."

"Can we keep this civil?" "This kind of language doesn't help anyone." "Let's focus on solutions, not problems." Civility is real and valuable. Weaponized civility uses the language of civility to shut down factual criticism. If a resident reads Charter Section 5-505.3 into the record and asks why Council Member Garza has never filed a conflict affidavit, that is civic participation, not incivility. Calling it unproductive is a way of saying the question should not have been asked without having to explain why.

The Credential Gatekeep

"Are you qualified to say that?"

"Are you a lawyer? Then you can't interpret the Charter." "Are you an engineer? Then you can't question the emissions data." "Do you have a degree in urban planning?" You do not need a law degree to read "no elective officer may participate in, vote upon or act upon any matter if a conflict exists." You do not need an engineering degree to compare 825 pounds of CO2 to 896 and calculate that the difference is less than 8%. The credential gatekeep exists to prevent people without professional titles from participating in decisions that affect their lives. Every document cited in this post is a public record that any resident can read, verify, and draw conclusions from.

The Firehose of Falsehoods

Overwhelming with volume so corrections can't keep up.

A developer's presentation makes 30 claims in 45 minutes. A supporter posts 12 counter-arguments in a single comment thread. A PR firm sends four press releases in eight weeks, each with new talking points. The strategy is volume: if you can generate claims faster than anyone can fact-check them, the unchecked claims become the narrative. The defense is not to chase every claim. Pick the one that matters most, verify it thoroughly, and publish. One documented falsehood is worth more than 30 unverified rebuttals.

Moving the Goalposts (Online Version)

Every time you meet the standard, the standard changes.

"Show me the conflict." You show the Charter language, the PAC contribution, and the union officer title. "That's not really a conflict under the Charter." You cite the specific sections. "The Charter doesn't apply the way you think it does." You cite the Carter precedent where the Board of Ethics overruled the City Attorney on the same provisions. "Well, that was a different situation." At no point does the person engage with the evidence. Each response simply moves the threshold for what would count as persuasive. The tell is that they never state in advance what evidence would change their mind.

How to Listen

None of these techniques work if you know what to listen for. At a council meeting: when an official presents two options, ask what the third one is. When someone cites a credential, ask what they do for a living. When a number sounds impressive, ask what it's being compared to and why. When a benefit is described as guaranteed, ask where it's written down. When someone tells you something is inevitable, ask who benefits from you believing that.

Online: when someone asks a question the post already answers, don't re-argue in a comment thread. When someone attacks your tone instead of your facts, the facts stand. When someone says the truth is in the middle, ask them to show their evidence. When someone says you're not qualified, remind them that public records are public for a reason.

Sources

March 23, 2026 City Council meeting transcript and presentation, CivicClerk Event 7881. Bloom Energy letter to Council, March 22, 2026 (civic_item_29568). Hindenburg Research, "Bloom Energy: A Broken Bloom", September 2019. Delaware Business Now, EPA fine. Unicat v. Bloom Energy, S.D. Tex. UA Local 333 LM-2 FY2025, DOL File 541-123, OLMS. Steve Purchase: LinkedIn. WKAR, fire staffing, April 2025. TIFA capture calculated from Ingham County millage rates per MCL 125.4301. Ionesco, Eugène. Rhinoceros. 1959.