Prev: why atoms vibrate?
Next:  Yesteryear's “Tea Party” smugglers became today's border guards.
From: Benj on 2 Apr 2010 01:41
On Apr 1, 11:49 pm, <d...(a)shawcross.ca> wrote:

> Oh dear, I apparently pissed in your porridge!  I just noted that your
> response was not logical and sensible-that doesn't mean that the person you
> were responding to was any more so.

I agree that the person I was responding to was not logical. I do not
agree that my response was equally non-logical.

> Your answer to me  pre-assumes an erroneous concept of my position and then
> attacks that position as an attempted put down.

My answer presumes nothing. You assert my position (that trusting a
demonstrated liar to tell you the truth is illogical and dangerously
naive) is "illogical". That is your STATED position. Thus, it
logically follows that your position is that one should trust a known
prevaricator because, well, who knows? Because our president said you
should? You tell us.

> Sillygisms in place of syllogisms shows logical thinking?

What is silly, about: Persons who have spent a lifetime fooling the
public are known liars. This person purports to be an truthful source
of information on various topics. Therefore, for the public to trust
such a person to provide "expert" advice on some topic is to run the
risk of being fooled by lies.

How is it that you are having a problem with that logic? As I
understand your sillygism which has to be different from mine, yours
is: A person spends a lifetime lying. That person purports to be a
truthful expert on some subject. The public should therefore blindly
accept all that person says as true because...well.. because Don Kelly
says they should.

Have I got your position nailed yet?

>  I thought that you could do better. I guess that I was wrong.

You are wrong alright!

I was wrong once too! I thought I made a mistake!



 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: why atoms vibrate?
Next:  Yesteryear's “Tea Party” smugglers became today's border guards.