Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Hank Kerchief
I won't even attempt to identify the fallacies you have stated as truths as they are too many. You're trying to make opinion and personal belief pass as fact. It won't work with me. if you want to discuss philosophy (or any other subject, for that matter), it is your responisbility to state in to me in a manner which is clear, concise and precise, not my responsibility to somehow guess what you mean and then hope that I am right and discussing what you mean and not what I erroneously think you mean. In other words, it is the duty of the communicator to state his case in such a manner as to be understood. Mind reading in not a valid tool in a logical discussion. A concept from NLP is sometimes useful: The results you are getting is what you are communicating. This means that when someone questions what one of your assertions means, or totally misunderstands it, that you have failed to state it effectively (I'm not talking about disagreeing with the assertion, just not understanding it; although I would hold that much disagreement is the result of misunderstanding the speaker, not actual opposition to the position the speaker wishes to profess).

Try going back and studying the fallacies link you provided and then identifying the fallacies in your post and you will be able to state whatever position you have in a manner that I can understand it. Otherwise, we might as well be speaking similar but different languages. Languages just similar enough to cause us to believe we are speaking the same language without realizing we are speaking some type of gibberish to each other.

50 posted on 04/06/2003 2:18:16 PM PDT by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]


To: templar
I have taken some time to consider your interesting response, so that I might answer in a way that would be useful. I may be mistaken, but your post seems to indicate some impatience with my earlier post.

In that post, I included the following warning:

(Warning, the above contains both reason and rhetoric, some serious, some for fun. Watch your step.)

However, I do not mean to use that as a defense. I mention it only because I do believe you misconstrued both my intent and my meaning because you failed to heed the warning.

Nevertheless, I plead guilty to all you accused me of, and you accused me of a great deal.

First you accused me of using fallacies: I won't even attempt to identify the fallacies you have stated as truths as they are too many. I admit, I probably used every one there is, and probably invented a few more, just for good measure. It was very clever of you to detect them. I only wish you had mentioned one or two of them, and described how I used them, even in spite of the difficulty the number I used presented you. It would have been a great help to me in the future, so that I might avoid them.

Then you correctly pointed out, You're trying to make opinion and personal belief pass as fact. Until you pointed it out, it never occured to me that somehing would not be true just because it was one's opinion. I confess, what I posted was my opinion. It also never occured to me that I should be posting someone else's opinion. I greatly appreciate your pointing out this error to me. By the way, whose opinion did you post? I know you would not make the mistake I made of posting your own opinion.

Then you said, it is your responisbility to state in to me in a manner which is clear, concise and precise, not my responsibility to somehow guess what you mean and then hope that I am right and discussing what you mean and not what I erroneously think you mean. I confess, your explanations are excellent, but too difficult for me. I am not sure what the word responisbility means (I have a limited dictionary that only includes English words, unfortunately), for example, or what state in to me exactly means either, and if I did, even if I did it in a manner which is clear, concise and precise, you never say what it is that is supposed to be clear, concise and precise.

Then you said, [something not specified is] not my responsibility to somehow guess what you mean and then hope that I am right and discussing what you mean and not what I erroneously think you mean. So, you can imagine how greatful I am that, even though it is not your responsibility to guess what I meant, you went ahead and did it anyway, even though it was, as you described it, "what [you] erroneously think [I] mean.

While there is much more I could thank you for in your interesting post, I do not wish to take up any more or your time. I hope, in spite of the many fallacies I am guilty of, you have at least found my posts amusing.

Oh, yes. The warning still applies: (Warning, the above contains both reason and rhetoric, some serious, some for fun. Watch your step.)

Hank

255 posted on 04/08/2003 10:19:27 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson