--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Off, > > I am sorry we had a communications gap. I did not know that you did > not know that "Are You Still Beating Your Wife?" is an common phrase > in America. > > It has nothing to do with wives or beating them. It is an American > idiom. An Idiom being > "an expression, that is a term or phrase whose meaning cannot be > deduced from the literal definitions and the arrangement of its parts, > but refers instead to a figurative meaning that is known only through > common use. Supposedly, in linguistics, idioms are widely assumed to > be figures of speech" > > Read a few of the links on this google search. > http://www.google.com/search? q=Are+you+still+beating+your+wife&ie=utf-8&oe=utf- 8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a > > "Are You Still Beating Your Wife?" is a logical fallacy. More > specifically, it is a "trick question". One cannot answer it without > implicitly admitting to something they did not do. Thats why it has > become a standard retort when someone poses a logical fallacy to them, > often in the form of a question or challenge. The fallacy is the > built-in presumption that the addressee did something that they did > not do. Denial of the accusation only reinforces the false premise in > the original question. > > You challenged a number of us to a debate. And scoffed that we would > not accept the challenge. In this context, either accepting the > challenge or refusing it (could) implies that the underlying premise > of your challenge was true. Since I in no way believe "modern > scientific process is wrong, and that [my] opinion is more important > than science.", its quite a slippery slope for one to answer a > challenge with such false premises. > > A common way to respond to such logical fallacy structures is the > question at hand: "Are You Still Beating Your Wife?". It has nothing > to do with anyones wife, or beatings. My comment certainly had nothing > to do with wife -- I had no idea that you had a wife. And I have had > no idea of who you are. To me, Off is just a name of a poster. > > I am sorry for the misunderstanding. If I was aware that you did not > have any knowledge of this common American idiom, I never would have > used it. There was no intent to insult your wife or your relations > with her. Since that was your understanding of my comment, I am sorry > for making the statement. > > new.morning
new.morning: How dare you bring common sense, rationality, and compassion into this debate! You're ruining all the fun. > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <no_reply@> > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, the challenge is for you anti-science fundies to come > > > on > > > > > YouTube and debate me in a vlog. > > > > > > > > > > Yes folks, I am willing to put my face in a video defending > > > science. > > > > > However, the fundies here will find pathetic excuses to not take > > > me > > > > > up on that. The reason is that they are afraid to be seen going > > > > > around saying that the modern scientific process is wrong, and > > > that > > > > > their opinion is more important than science. > > > > > > > > > > > > Well first, you need to clarify to the world if you are still > > > beating > > > > your wife.>> > > > > > > Why are you saying such disgusting things? > > > Does anyone know this guys real name please. > > > > > > No really, does anyone know his real name? > > > > > > Rick I want this guy banned for a month for saying that lie. I won't > > > accept anything less. I will take this to the courts if this guy is > > > not banned for a month. I'm serious. > > > > > > What is his real name anyone? > > > > > > I am taking this to court Rick if he is not banned for a month for > > > this. > > > > > > Tom Barlow > > > Vermont > > > > > Good one. You are definately honing your satirical skills of > > portraying fanatics. Imagine, suing someone for the most common of all > > replies to someone making silly claims about others. A plurium > > interrogationum. That would be quite funny in court. Perhaps Marek > > would be so kind to defend me. What would be my defense in this case? > > Aside from cream pies, and clown shoes. > > > > "Many questions, also known as complex question, presupposition, > > loaded question, "trick question", or plurium interrogationum (Latin, > > "of many questions"), is an informal fallacy. It is committed when > > someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been > > proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often > > used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those > > that serve the questioner's agenda. An example of this is the question > > "Are you still beating your wife?" > > > > Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a > > wife, and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these > > facts are presupposed by the question, and if it has not been agreed > > upon by the speakers before, the question is improper, and the fallacy > > of many questions has been committed. > > > > The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a > > question presupposes something does not in itself make the question > > fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not > > necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the > > argument containing them become fallacious." > > >
