[lit-ideas] Re: The Rise & Fall of Somalia's Islamic Courts: An Online History (The Fourth Rail)
- From: Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:09:00 -0400
Lawrence Helm wrote:
"I don't understand the significance of your saying 'this is not even close
to what I wrote'. I was interested in 'application' not 'duplication'.
What I wrote was my understanding of what you wrote applied to the matter of
'Moral Equivalence'."
You were discussing my so-called theory. I pointed out that your discussion
of what I was saying did not remotely resemble what I said. You may be
interested in 'application', but I am interested in accurate attribution. I
don't mind being wrong, but I do mind when claims that I would never make
are attributed to me.
Lawrence continues:
"In regard to my present confusion, you say you don't know what a 'logical
assumption' is. I'll take that at face value although I find it surprising.
It is necessary to have at least two assumptions in any argument - two
assumptions and a conclusion, we could also describe this as a major and
minor premise and a conclusion. The assumptions or premises don't
necessarily have to be stated they can be realized by the reader if the
writer is clear enough."
So, you have described the structure of a syllogism, which contains two
premises (not assumptions!) and a conclusion. I am still waiting for a
description of a 'logical assumption'.
Lawrence continues:
"Since no believers in 'Moral Equivalence' have thus far produced a logical
argument I produced one for them."
Here is one that has been given on this list, but not in this form, by a
variety of people on various occasions.
Major Premise: All judgments regarding what is right and wrong proceed from
one's social and cultural context.
Minor Premise: The application of the label 'terrorist' is a judgment.
Conclusion: The application of the label 'terrorist' proceeds from one's
social and cultural context.
Lawrence again:
"An argument is either logical or illogical. There is no third choice."
Apparently there is something called a 'logical assumption'.
Lawrence concludes:
"Are your statements aimed at those who use the Moral Equivalence argument?
Are you telling them that Eric isn't morally wrong because Eric was raised
to believe it morally right to defend oneself and one's nation?"
My comments were aimed at you for suggesting that the inability to
distinguish between terrorist and someone fighting terrorism was the
consequence of a faulty education in logic.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Glen Haven, NS
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
