Good, we've now established that you won't discuss the facts, the theory, or the logic.
yrs, andreas www.andreas.com----- Original Message ----- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 3:40 PM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The de-islamization of Europe
I was embarrassed for you, Andreas. What you provided was in the form of a Syllogism but it wasn't one. It wasn't an argument. It is like saying that Saddam had brown hair and a mustache; therefore he was a brown-haired mustachioed individual. The term "therefore" implies a conclusion drawn from premises. But no conclusion is called for because brown-haired mustachioed doesn't go beyond brown-haired and having a mustache. You could say "in other words" for what you have in the form of a conclusion is synonymous with what you have in the form of premises. The same is true of what you wrote. Two of Saddam's attributes were Islamic and Militant. In other words, he was an Islamic Militant or a MilitantIslamic.Sighhhhhhh Lawrence -----Original Message----- From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andreas Ramos Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 3:17 PM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The de-islamization of Europe From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>And it is absurd to criticism Logic. That accomplishes nothing.Lawrence, I dissected one of your "logical" arguments. Maybe you oversaw it.Here it isagain: You argue: Saddam was Islamic. Saddam was militant. Therefore Saddam was Islamic militant. Where is the error? You're not checking if the definitions apply. 1) Saddam was not Islamic. He was secular. Look up the theory and history of the Baathist Party. 2) You use the word "militant" in two senses: using a military against his neighbors and using a military against the West. He fits the first sense, so you use that in the second sense. An attack on Kuwait becomes an attack on Florida. Thus, the proper argument is: A) Saddam was secular. B) Saddam was a military threat only to his neighbors = Therefore Saddam was a secular military threat to his neighbors. But you twist this into: C) Saddam was secular. D) Saddam was a military threat only to his neighbors. = Therefore Saddam was an Islamic military threat to the West. By mixing up definitions, you produce a conclusion that is not supported by the argument. yrs, andreas www.andreas.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 1/20/2007 ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html