> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Erik Reuter
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 8:07 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Demanding change (was RE: Mmm, mesquite smoky goodness (was
> Re: (~) Please.))
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 06:33:16AM -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
>
> > Erik, you've made a substantial error in logic there. The premise was
> > rude behavior. It isn't logical to disagree with the premise.
>
> Nick, you have it completely backwards. The ONLY logical option is to
> disagree with a premise, you can NOT disagree with logic. If A implies
> B, and B implies C, then you can disagree with the assumption A, but
> not with the logic that A implies C (you might say that the logic has a
> mistake, but then it isn't really logic but rather illogic).
"Rude behavior is not an expression of an idea," was the statement.
Arguing against the premise is arguing that there is no such thing as rude
behavior.
Arguing against the statement would be arguing that rude behavior may be an
expression of an idea.
If you don't accept the premise, you cannot logically argue against the
original statement.
> > There's that straw man again. Who among us has said that one cannot
> > post something that upsets the majority?
>
> There's that faulty memory again. Just look back to the thread where a
> number of people advocated banning Mark; before that, there was talk
> about kicking off JDG; before that, Alberto.
Nobody ever suggested removing people from the list for "upsetting" anyone.
Nor would they. I think you could come up with better words to describe
situations in which the possibility of removal was raised. And I think it
would be best to distinguish between the times that the issue was raised in
anger and times it was seriously considered.
Nick
