Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The abortion issue: pro-choice vs. anti-abortion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (200)	5/19/2009 2:32:17 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 286

More fallout from Church's stance on birth control: <<Carla Bruni has issued a scathing attack on Pope Benedict XVI >> telegraph.co.uk DAK

To: LLCF who wrote (200)	5/19/2009 2:51:39 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 286

I haven't backpedaled out of anything. Disagreeing with the straw man ideas you presented as mine in order to attack, isn't changing my actual opinion. Excuse me? Let's try and think about what we write. Are you saying that 'quotes', since they are one stepped removed, are NOT evidentiary? There is more than one step, there are rather multiple steps, some of which are more leaps then mere steps. 1 - The idea that there was a snarl then a step to 2 - X saying that he saw a snarl. (Which is evidence that there was one, but wasn't definitive even if we assume X is being 100% honest) another step to 3 - Y reports that X says it (hearsay, so it would not normally be admissible evidence if this was a court, but we aren't in a court still evidence of the snarl.) then a jump to 4 - The snarling person is full of hatred and a totally unsupported leap to 5 - Hate groups where heavily involved in the situation then another step to 6 - "The church is throwing in with hate groups" and another step to 7 - "Those hate groups are right wing" or in other words "The church is/was throwing in with right wing hate groups". Requiring the "steps" is enough to weaken the argument, but assuming that each idea preceding the step does, without any doubt, properly lead to the next step, still leaves you with the very large problem of the unsupported jumps. Ignoring any possible doubt that someone was actually snarling, still leaves you with one person that may or may not be full of hate. Not "hate groups", let alone the church throwing in with such groups. Taking all the steps and jumps leaves your argument as tenuous and silly as some "right wing extremist" claiming that since Obama met with Chavez and King Abdullah, that he's a monarchist, socialist Muslim. "Snarl" simply doesn't imply "is consorting with right wing hate groups". Its not just a faulty argument is a completely ridiculous argument.