From: m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Kind, loving, merciful and forgiving GOD!
Nntp-Posting-Host: mwunix.mitre.org
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Lines: 41

In article <8968@blue.cis.pitt.edu> joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
}m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
}>joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
}>}m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
}>}>}(a) out of context;
}>}>Must have missed when you said this about these other "promises of god" that we keep
}>}>getting subjected to.  Could you please explain why I am wrong and they are OK?
}>}>Or an acknowledgement of public hypocrisy. Both or neither.
}>}
}>}So, according to you, Jim, the only way to criticize one person for
}>}taking a quote out of context, without being a hypocrite, is to post a
}>}response to *every* person on t.r.m who takes a quote out of context?
}>
}>Did I either ask or assert that?  Or is this your misaimed telepathy at work again?
}
}(1)  Stephen said you took a quote out of context
}(2)  You noted that Stephen had not replied to some other t.r.m article
}     (call it A) that took a quote out of context
}(3)  But the lack of evidence for X does not constitute evidence for the
}     lack of X  (a common creationist error)
}(4)  So the fact that Stephen did not reply to A does not justify the
}     conclusion that Stephen condoned taking quotes out of context in A

Excellent.  Now under what conditions could such a conclusion be made, other
than a direct assertion by his part.  For instance, am I to assume that
you have no position on eating shit merely because you have not said
your position, or might a conclusion be made by observing that you do not.

}(7)  I assumed you were being logical, and that the sentence that begins
}     "Could you please explain ..." was not a nonsequitur, but was intended
}     to follow from the sentence that preceded it.

}Is that better Jim?   It's called an argument.  If you disagree with it,
}explain why the argument is not sound.  (I admit that my assumption in (7)
}may have been a bit hasty.)  If you agree with it, just say "yup."

Have you, by chance, ever even heard of inductive logic?  You are not
demonstrating any familiarly with it (i.e. you are being insufficiently
logical).


