On May 13, 8:41 am, Carl <sai...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Red herring (diverting the issue). Rather than proving the point, this
> fallacy simply evades the question by changing the subject, then
> proceeding as if the point had been made. Often the other topic bears
> a superficial resemblance to the one being discussed. Don=92t let that
> fool you! If no proof is given, there is no reason to accept the
> argument. [Norman Geisler & Ronald Brooks: Come, Let Us Reason : An
> Introduction to Logical Thinking. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Book
> House, 1990]
>
> Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing
> irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand.
> For example, "The opposition claims that welfare dependency leads to
> higher crime rates -- but how are poor people supposed to keep a roof
> over their heads without our help?" It is perfectly valid to ask this
> question as part of the broader debate, but to pose it as a response
> to the argument about welfare leading to crime is fallacious. (There
> is also an element of ad misericordiam in this example.) [Glen
> Whitman, Associate Professor; California State University, Northridge]
>
> Red herring. The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a
> logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when
> a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by
> introducing another topic. This can be one of the most frustrating,
> and effective, fallacies to observe. [Tim
Holt;http://www.logicalfallacies=
..info/]
>
> Red herring. A red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the
> subject or divert the argument from the real question at issue to some
> side-point; for instance, =93Senator Jones should not be held
> accountable for cheating on his income tax. After all, there are other
> senators who have done far worse things.=94 [Dr. L. Kip Wheeler; Carson-
> Newman College]
>
> Red herring. A "red herring" argument is one which distracts the
> audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some
> irrelevancy. This frequently occurs during debates when there is an at
> least implicit topic, yet it is easy to lose track of it. By
> extension, it applies to any argument in which the premisses are
> logically irrelevant to the conclusion. [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/]
>
> Red herring. A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic
> is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The
> basic idea is to =93win=94 an argument by leading attention away from
the
> argument and to another topic. [Dr. Michael C. LaBossiere; Florida A&M
> University]
>
> Red herring. A red herring is a smelly fish that would distract even a
> bloodhound. It is also a digression that leads the reasoner off the
> track of considering only relevant information. Example: Will the new
> tax in Senate Bill 47 unfairly hurt business? One of the provisions of
> the bill is that the tax is higher for large employers (fifty or more
> employees) as opposed to small employers (six to forty-nine
> employees). To decide on the fairness of the bill, we must first
> determine whether employees who work for large employers have better
> working conditions than employees who work for small employers.
> Bringing up the issue of working conditions is the red herring.
> [Bradley Dowden; California State University, Sacramento]
>
> Red herring . Ignoring criticism of an argument by changing attention
> to another subject. Examples: "You believe in abortion, yet you don't
> believe in the right-to-die-with-dignity bill before the
> legislature." [Dr. J. P. Craig; University Of Iowa]
JERRY
Carl, I can do this all day and I'm nine hours ahead of you. Sooner
or later you will want to go sleep. ;-)
JERRY
You obviously don't understand what a red herring is, do you, Carl?
That's ok, I do. And I also understand you using the phrase to
deflect from your failure to sup****t any kind of point. Like the one
below:
On Apr 1, 5:07 pm, Carl <sai...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 1, 12:58 am, rogue <rogue...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > JERRY
> > Carl, I read the whole thing and didn't see anywhere that you have to
> > believe in the Trinity to be saved. Is there another reason not
> > posted in here that makes you think someone who doesn't believe in the
> > Trinity is teaching "heresies" and will go to hell?
>
> And as usual, we see "rogue" clinging to a false accusation. "rogue"
> claimed to have "personally witnessed" that I made such a statement
> when the fact remains I never wrote anything but don't confuse
> "rogue" with the facts when he has a good lie. "rogue"'s dishonesty,
> arrogance and hatred of Christians has been duly noted. "rogue" is not
> interested in truth but rather more interested in dealing in
> provocation, fabrication and obfuscation. God warned us of those like
> "rogue" and we, as Christians, should pray for them but not be lured
> into the Godless chatter they desire so much.
>
JERRY
Actually, you have, then refused to respond when I posted the quote
and dodge JC when he continually confronted you with it.
C'mon, Carl, we aren't children and we can find the quote and post it
again if you like. Heck, I can put it in a word doc on my desktop and
post it as a response to every new thread you start if you like.
I hate liars, Carl, and you have rationalized and dodged responding to
the quote you made multiple times.
> > >> > CARL
> > >> > If you had bothered to read the articles, they contain the sola
> > >> > scriptura
> > >> > evidence from the Bible which teaches the Trinity. But you run
away=
> > >> > from it
> > >> > in cowardice. Typical. I pity you, my friend. YOU WILL SUFFER THE
> > >> > CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR HERESIES IF YOU DO NOT REPENT (emphasis
mine).=
I
> > >> > will be praying for
> > >> > you.
> JC
> I would like to know what this is about.
> > >> > JERRY
> > >> > So, my assumption from that statement is that someone who rejects
t=
he
> > >> > Trinity is not saved and will be damned. Would that be a correct
> > >> > assumption from this statement?
> JC
> Here is a perfectly good chance to clarify. And here is the original:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.bible/msg/577f8e4d999d8af2?dmode=3Ds...
Carl - Tue, 7 Aug 2007 22:08:41 -0400
JERRY
So, Carl, you can answer now, or we can force your own words down your
throat from now on.
I'm game. ;-)
|
