The reader seems to assert that the article puts more value on logic than it does on imagination or intuition. However, the article never even mentions the words "intuition" or "imagination." In fact, the article doesn’t even argue that logical failure is "more" immoral than any other failures. It just says that bad logic may be "perhaps as immoral" as other failures.

Moreover, as the author, I personally don’t even believe that logic is more important than intuition. I put at least equal stock in intuition. So the reader’s characterizations of both the article and of my views are not even accurate.

Meanwhile, the comments about logic are simply false. (1) Mathematical proofs do rely on logic; in fact, I learned logic in math class doing proofs. (2) Not all logical arguments are susceptible to being overcome by "even better reasoning." Here’s one argument:

Premise: All cats are mammals.
Premise: My pet is a cat.
Conclusion: Therefore, my pet is a mammal.

How does one overcome that argument with "better reasoning"?

Handal’s Opinions ‘Inaccurate and Incorrect’
Writen by Rafael Padilla