On May 12, 8:52 am, "Chuck Stamford" <shell__stamf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "rogue" <rogue...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:20c46564-9789-444c-8e0f-816fc87fbfa9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> > On May 11, 9:35 pm, "Chuck Stamford" <shell__stamf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> "rogue" <rogue...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
>>news:1dd1efa9-6cf7-4cab-848f-244d3247792b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> > On May 11, 10:32 am, "Chuck Stamford" <shell__stamf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> >> >> "Carl" <sai...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> >>
>>news:8bfd8f12-712e-4dd6-9b83-b3382ec57bed@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> On May 11, 1:28 am, "Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>
> >> >> > Carl wrote:
> >> >> > > Straw man.
>
> >> >> > Publi****ng definitions without actually answering any of the
> >> >> > arguments
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > meaningless.
>
> >> >> Making straw man arguments is meaningless and deserves no
response.
>
> >> >> Chuck:
>
> >> >> Man's got a point, Mike.
>
> >> >> Chuck Stamford
>
> >> > JERRY
> >> > Uh, no he doesn't. As I responded to Carl, anyone can yell
"STRAWMAN"
>
> >> You should know, Jerry, as you've certainly done your share and half
of
> >> someone else's.
>
> >> > but if you aren't prepared to show why my statement is the strawman
> >> > logical fallacy, the best I can figure is that Carl doesn't
understand
> >> > the fallacy and is simply pulling it out of his fourth point of
> >> > contact.
>
> >> He gave you and everyone else multiple definitions and examples, so
you
> >> saying "the best I can figure is that Carl doesn't understand the
> >> fallacy"
> >> is, what shall we say on this beautiful Mother's Day
> >> morn..."implausible"?
>
> > JERRY
> > You haven't figured out yet that copying and pasting from web pages
> > doesn't denote comprehension?
>
> You make a connection not in evidence. Carl has in the past certainly
> demonstrated more than enough intellect to be able to comprehend
something
> as simple and straightforward as the informal strawman fallacy.
JERRY
Then he should have no problem showing how my point constitutes the
strawman logical fallacy, should he? And, as neither Mike Painter,
Grinder or myself can see how my points are strawmen, perhaps it would
be good for him to explain himself. ;-)
> CHUCK
> With that
> background information at hand and readily available, it makes no
difference
> what copying and pasting from webpages either does or doesn't inherently
> denote.
>
> > Yet, since he can't show me...
>
> Won't doesn't equate to "can't". Even you should know that much.
JERRY
Carl has already admitted to Kelly that my posts cause him more than a
little frustration. If Carl could best me in some way in a debate,
don't think for a second that he wouldn't jump at the chance. (Just as
you would) Given that he can't, he has opted to avoid me, refuse to
respond to me (until lately) and now his responses are simply
accusations of logical fallacies that he's unable or unwilling to
sup****t. Given that he continually posts sermons containing logical
fallacies such as the strawman, the argument from authority and
others, it's much more likely that Carl doesn't understand the logical
fallacies he quotes definitions for than he is unwilling to .
>
> > When I show a logical fallacy in a debate...
>
> Oh please! This completely unwarranted self-flattery posing as fact is
> unseemly.
JERRY
Not self-flattery, but justification. I've offered you the
explanation of why some of your points were logical fallacies,
including the strawman logical fallacy. When you created completely
invalid and inept logical syllogisms, I showed you why they were
invalid. My explanations to you have caused you to complain about the
length of my posts. If I weren't having to instruct you as we go
along, my posts would be half as long.
> CHUCK
> I admit I don't read you much anymore, having plumbed the depths
> of that particular dry hole, so perhaps the fact I've yet to find you
> successfully identifying, much less properly explaining any logical
fallacy
> doesn't carry as much weight as it could.
JERRY
And then we can go back to your lack of reading comprehension, the
depths of which we have plumbed numerous times on the same verse of
text, which you still were unable to understand didn't say what you
were trying to claim it said. I speak here specifically of John 8:24,
where I not only dissected the entire chapter for you, but also showed
why your interpretation of the verse wasn't valid.
>
> Would you care to copy and paste an example of you making such a
successful
> analysis of one of those logical fallacies you've had to combat in your
> illustrious philosophical career here on the newsgroups?
JERRY
You mean like this?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.bible/tree/browse_frm/thread/55cf9bf256e790df/68b59bd08cd44b30?rnum=191&q=CHUCK+JERRY+syllogisms+premise+Jesus&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.bible%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F55cf9bf256e790df%2F79da61059f27ae37%3Flnk%3Dgst%26q%3DCHUCK%2BJERRY%2Bsyllogisms%2Bpremise%2BJesus%26#doc_1835baa91fce397c
> In this discussion/debate/whatever, I have put forward the following
three
> premises as true, and along with them at least some argumentation in
each
> case meant to demonstrate them as true:
> 1.) 1 John 4:8, 16 means two very different things depending upon
whether
> the biblical God consists in three eternal, immutable persons or one.
JERRY
Here's strike one. You are arguing that the verse's validity is as
valid depending on who reads it. This is an admission that your case
is simple interpretation of the text and this doesn't help you at
all. It's not even a real premise, since #2 is not a continuation of
it. You want #1 to be a provable statement, #2 must follow and be a
subset or a continuation of the point.
> 2.) John 8:24 has Jesus saying it is critical to one's salvation that
one
> know who he is.
> 3.) Knowing who a being is includes knowing what sort of being they
are. I
> can't, obviously enough, say I "know" you, Jerry, if I can't tell
whether
> you're fish, fowl, or human being.
JERRY
This last one kills you. It fails for two reasons: First, it's your
conclusion, and it MUST follow on the two statements presented by you
previously.
1.A person born in the United States is officially a US citizen.
2.John was born in the United States
3.John is a US citizen.
However, you have to be careful that your statements in 1 and 2 are
both correct and inclusive.
1.Jewish males are required to be circumcized.
2.Paul is circumcized.
3.Therefore, Paul is Jewish.
This one fails because #1 isn't inclusive. Jewish males aren't the
only males who are circumcized, therefore Paul being cut doesn't make
him Jewish.
Now let's look at your premises and conclusion.
You start with a statement that the verse can be interpreted multiple
ways. You don't say that only one way is valid or if all ways are
valid. The statement really doesn't say anything helpful. In other
words, this is not a valid premise from which to begin. It's
provable, since we will both agree that differing people will read a
verse and come up with different interpretations, but that doesn't
help your case below. Its worthless.
Your next statement is the verse itself, that Jesus says you have to
know who he is to be saved. The definition of how someone is to
"know" Jesus isn't defined. Does he mean he wants to have *** with
the Pharisee's? To "know" him in the cough biblical*cough* sense? Or
is he saying that it's enough to know where he comes from and who he
speaks for? Or is more required?
Third, you offer a statement of unsup****ted opinion that to "know"
Jesus is to "Know his true nature." To Know in the biblical sense
means to have *** with, so there is already a problem with your
assumption/definition. It's not inclusive enough that your second
statement can be a subset and lead to the conclusion. This should
have been your first premise, not your conclusion. Of course, you
can't prove it, which is why it still fails. Second, you entirely
missed out on my Fuller Brush analogy about "knowing" that I posted to
you once already and should have served as a cautionary note to you.
I've put it again below.
You were not even really doing ok up to this point, but you are
creating an artificial requirement to define "knowing," and I'm
betting there is not a verse in the bible you can quote me that shows
that JESUS means knowing his true nature when he says "know who I
am." This is your unsup****ted opinion.
Here's a quick analogy to show the hole in your logic: if Red Skelton
shows up at your door with a Fuller Brush briefcase and introduces
himself as being from the Fuller Brush company and shows you ID saying
he's from the Fuller Brush company, you don't need to know he's Jewish
to buy Fuller Brushes.
Your big problem here is that #1 sis worthless and #3 is an opinion.
The verse in context shows Jesus telling the Pharisee's that he knows
who he is and where he comes from. He further tells them that they
don't know who he is because they don't know where he comes from. He
continually speaks of his Father as a separate entity, not as himself
and then he tells them that if they don't know who he is, they die in
their sins. He does not say anywhere in this chapter that he and God
are the same being. In fact, in verses 29 and 30 (which you
conveniently snipped to avoid dealing with them, he tells them WHO he
is. He's the Son of Man, not God.
Back to the Fuller Brush analogy: Jesus IS the Fuller Brush man.
He's at your door in John 8 (if you are a Pharisee, that is) and he's
telling you who he is, and where he comes from and you don't need to
know if he's circumcized in order to know if you want to buy what he's
selling. You can still buy from Jesus as long as you know he's from
the Fuller Brush company.
Here endeth the lesson.
and this one which I had to use to further explain to you what you
couldn't understand on the SAME half-assed syllogism:
from news:1192643092.696259.310870@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> CHUCK
> Now below is where I give you the premises I have previously argued, at
> least superficially, as true.
JERRY
And which I've shown aren't set up properly to prove what you want to
prove.
Didn't you get ANYTHING from the two example syllogisms I provided
you?
> >> In this discussion/debate/whatever, I have put forward the following
> >> three premises as true, and along with them at least some
argumentation in each
> >> case meant to demonstrate them as true:
> >> 1.) 1 John 4:8, 16 means two very different things depending upon
> >> whether the biblical God consists in three eternal, immutable persons
or one.
> > JERRY
> > Here's strike one. You are arguing that the verse's validity is as
> > valid depending on who reads it.
> CHUCK
> I'm cutting this off right here, because that's not what my premise says
at
> all. How can I put is so you'll be able to see what it says? How
about
> this:
> "John 8:24 will say one thing to the person who identifies Jesus with
God,
> and a very different thing to the person who denies this
identification."
> Now, is that plain enough for you, considering that in this debate so
far
> you've done virtually all you could to be my example of it's truth?
JERRY
Let's cut to the quick: John 8:24 will mean a trinitarian viewpoint
to someone who already assumes one. That's what you are saying, and
it is circular reasoning. It's not even a denial for a non-
Trinitarians, since your use of the word "denies" here is based upon
an assumption you make that the trinitarian viewpoint is the correct
one. Someone who reads the verse at face value, such as myself who is
not even a Christian, can't get a Trinitarian interpretation of it,
since I insist on reading it in context, which shows you are wrong.
> >> 2.) John 8:24 has Jesus saying it is critical to one's salvation
that
> >> one know who he is.
> >> 3.) Knowing who a being is includes knowing what sort of being they
are.
> >> I can't, obviously enough, say I "know" you, Jerry, if I can't tell
whether
> >> you're fish, fowl, or human being.
> > JERRY
> > This last one kills you. It fails for two reasons: First, it's your
> > conclusion, and it MUST follow on the two statements presented by you
> > previously.
> CHUCK
> This is where your confusion becomes explicit. You're calling #3 a
> "conclusion", when I've offered it as no such thing, AND SAID SO ABOVE
when
> I told you I had offered "three premises" in this debate. There wasn't
a
> WORD in my intro to the premises about a "conclusion" being one of them,
and
> in any case, anyone who knows anything about formal premises and
arguments
> knows that premises can't be conclusions.
JERRY
So, you are agreeing then that you have entered THREE premises that
don't sup****t your conclusion, and then you don't provide your
conclusion? Is that what you are doing? ;-)
LOL. How am I doing?
>
>
>
> >> CHUCK
> >> The fallacy is, perhaps, one of the easiest to understand of the
several
> >> informal logical fallacies. It's therefore difficult to accept you
can't
> >> find it in your rhetoric when it fairly leaps off the page for Carl.
>
> > JERRY
> > And, given my response to what was posted, I don't see why and how
> > it's a straw man argument. Therefore, I want Carl to explain it to
> > me.
>
> > Or, since you seem to be all over it, YOU explain to me why my
> > response was a strawman argument. I'm happy to have anyone explain to
> > me why that particular response merits that claim.
> CHUCK
> The point was it was so obvious it needs no explanation.
JERRY
Which obviously isn't true since Grinder and Mike don't see a strawman
fallacy in my post, therefore it's not obvious.
> CHUCK
> That point was
> made by someone I believe is intelligent enough to make the assessment
> correctly, to someone I believe is intelligent enough to see that it
> is...you. I therefore, according to those twin beliefs, judge your
request
> to be dishonest in that you are making it for reasons other than those
> you've stated.
JERRY
And Carl's continued use of the same identical post in multiple
threads, not highlighting a single point but simply claiming that my
entire post is a strawman doesn't strike YOU as disingenuous? Seems
to me that you are simply sup****ting one who agrees with your own
interpretation of the bible, Chuck, which makes YOU disingenuous,
doesn't it?
> CHUCK
Because I believe you are being disingenuous in asking, I
> would have to be a fool to cater to the request.
JERRY
Sorry if I don't see how asking for clarification on an accusation
makes me disingenuous, Chuck.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> CHUCK
> >> It's his argument, Jerry. He, not you, has the right to say what it
is,
> >> and
> >> whether or not you've grasped it adequately enough to be able to
> >> correctly
> >> characterize it.
>
> > JERRY
> > So, what you are saying is that if I am debating you and you say
> > something, I am within my rights to claim "Strawman" on your point and
> > if you claim that your statement doesn't constitute a strawman
> > argument, you just have to live with it, that I am not obliged in any
> > manner to show WHY your statement fits that logical fallacy and give
> > you a chance to respond?
>
> > Remember this post, then, Chuck. ;-)
>
> Now I suppose you want to pretend you don't understand the concept of
"being
> obtuse", as well?
JERRY
Hey, what goes around.... ;-)
>
> > JERRY
> > LOL! Carl almost never responds to me at all...
>
> Which simply shows his wisdom. I think I'll go back to emulating it.
>
JERRY
You mean "running and hiding," correct? ;-p
|
