[lit-ideas] Re: The de-islamization of Europe
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:40:05 -0800
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 Militant
Islamic.
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 is
again:
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
Other related posts:
