I was unable to read your post on logical fallacies since AOL's newsreader
won't accept a post over about 5000 words. But I did find it in a Google search
of the thread. I figured something was missing. You said if I failed to respond
it would be evidence that I had conceded your point(s), or something to that
effect. I just have a few questions for you: 1) Were mine the only posts that
contained any logical fallacies? 2) In the interest of intellectual honesty,
were you pointing out my logical fallacies as an impartial observer, or did you
come to the table with an agenda? 3) If you came to the table without an
agenda, would you care to address the basic question I had posed?


People sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to
do violence on their behalf......George Orwell.

"Mark Pilcher" wrote in message
...
I was unable to read your post on logical fallacies since AOL's newsreader
won't accept a post over about 5000 words. But I did find it in a Google
search
of the thread. I figured something was missing. You said if I failed to
respond
it would be evidence that I had conceded your point(s), or something to
that
effect. I just have a few questions for you:
1) Were mine the only posts that
contained any logical fallacies?

As stated in the post, several newsgroup membes use logical fallacies. Your
post earn special recognition for the number and degree of fallacies
employed.

2) In the interest of intellectual honesty, were you pointing out my
logical fallacies as an impartial observer, or did you come to the table
with an agenda?

By itself, an adenda is not an evil thing. Everyone has an agenda, including
you. Imagine what sort of person would not have an agenda; trapising through
life without goals or judgment. I see this person as the sort that you might
see riding on the smaller bus. Of late, some conservitive comentators have
loaded the word to imply that if someone has an agenda, it must be evil -
another silly debating trick.

If you have spent anytime here you would know that I seldom start an OT
thread. I usually only join when I see something that seems particularly
deserving of comment. Successful canadates usually involve particularly
fuzzy or boneheaded thinking.

One the other hand, if whimsey strikes me, I will bite on anything!

As I have stated from time to time, I am a one of the dreaded liberals, so
my interpertation of fuzy or boneheaded thinking has a definite bias. That
said, I am progun, pro hunting, pro personal responsibility, prochoice, and
pro responsible fiscal policy. I do belive that responsible capitolism and
the free market system are part of the solution, and not part of the
problem. As with any tool, there a questions about how you use these tools.

3) If you came to the table without an agenda, would you care to address
the basic question I had posed?

I did. I framed the context of your question, parsed it, and addressed each
part.

Context:

"Your "argument" - Lets see, you are trying to restrict the argument to the
internal reasons an ordinary soldier might accept being "asked" to do
something morally bankrupt by a superior officer to a single choice: to
avoid being labeled as "attitude problem"; then further reduce the validity
of the point by somehow relating this to the plight of a prisoner under
torture. It seems to be your assertion that these actions are somehow
equivalent, and it implied that this is related to the thread. If they were
not - you would be offering a "Non Sequitur", or changing the topic to one
you think you can control. By seizing on the weakest of reason for the
solder to take this immoral action, you are attempting to argue the weakest
point of the opponent, and ignoring the apparently difficult problem posed
by the central point of the thread. We all know you would not be trying to
do that! Somehow, you are trying to use this proposed situation to explain
that it is acceptable for some spin-miester to plant letters to the editors
without the knowledge or explicit consent of the supposed writers. The fact
that at least one of them states that he did not write the letter shows that
this campaign is originating from a source other than the supposed letter
writers.

I fail to see the direct connection with your "question." Perhaps you were
trying to respond to a subtopic in the thread. The thread drifted through
the point that some of the soldiers said they agreed with the contents of
the letters after the fact. This does not change the fact that somebody is
putting words in their mouths. Then the thread drifted through whether a
solder trained to resist torture would resist the "suggestion" of a superior
officer with the same effort that would be used to resist enemy
interrogation. This supposes that the letters were submitted to the soldiers
for signature - a situation that does not seem to fit the original
assertion. In any case, you proposed situation does not directly address
either of these sub-threads. Help me out here - what *is* the connection you
were trying to make?

I say you are offering a strawman - a simple distortion of the original
situation so the answer is stacked in your favor. This is a logical fallacy,
and not worthy of the effort to reply. Ask a silly question ..."

Direct answer:

"1) Last part first; several soldiers trained to resist torture have signed
political letters of while in captivity. This can be verified on the web.
None have written afterwards that the did this to avoid being labeled as "an
attitude problem." I am not sure why you brought it up unless you were
working the old "Non Sequitur" fallacy. But you would not be doing that,
would you? I will leave it to you to explain how this fits with your main
"attitude problem" point.
2) Soldiers have done all manner of things that they personally thought were
wrong under orders. History is littered with many examples of soldiers
performing actions that they thought were morally reprehensible because they
were ordered to do it. There are some classical psychological studies on
this exact behavior - Milgram's 'shock' experiment comes to mind. The
soldiers internal reasons for complying with these orders are not known, but
it is just as likely that the were doing these things to avoid being labeled
as "an attitude problem" as any other reason. Since you are supporting the
"point" I will leave it to you to provide counter examples. (I love the old
"prove a negative" fallacy!)
3) It follows that solders must sometimes sign things that they totally
disagree with, some even for as little reason as avoiding being labeled as
"an attitude problem."
4) With this conclusion in hand, how does this fit with the main thread:
what exactly *is* your point?

The ball is in your court."

Mark Browne

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:40:52 GMT, "Mark Browne"
wrote:

[SNIP]

I say you are offering a strawman - a simple distortion of the original
situation so the answer is stacked in your favor. This is a logical fallacy,
and not worthy of the effort to reply. Ask a silly question ..."

Direct answer:

"1) Last part first; several soldiers trained to resist torture have signed
political letters of while in captivity.

Sen. John McCain, an authentic war hero, is one of those.

Joe Parsons