I wholeheartedly agree.

And yet, Mikey, realize that choosing something to eat based on taste is illogical in accordance to his argument. Ergo, your counter-argument need not be applied.

However, I think a better counter-argument would be to A. attack the idea that this individual's entire argument is a based on the 'IF' syndrome; B. dare this individual to re-evaluate his theory pertaining to emotions, as he already declares that emotions are needed, but many illogical...well, which?; C. adhere to the idea that what could be entirely logical, based on every subjective quality, is in the long run, subjective in itself (i.e., eastern logic vs' western logic...this logician vs' that logician...this culture, that culture).

In the end...this dude is retarded.