Posted on 12/02/2004 3:56:16 PM PST by reportgirl73
GRAND ISLAND, N.Y. (AP) - An elementary school bus driver was fired after sharing a statistic she had read about embryonic stem cell research with students, then encouraging them to tell their parents about it.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Keep us posted.
Sir, even some of rocks must be smart enough to determine the Moses/Mel Brook comment was satirical in nature. Fallacies, including the staw man fallacy, involve actual logical arguments, not satirical mockery.
Andy will thoughtfully step up to the plate and take authority for determining how and when subjects of interest to millions will be introduced by his determination that any objection he doesn't care for is unreasonable.
Now that is an excellent example of a straw man fallacy on your part. I am not demanding to be the sole arbitrator of what is reasonable. However, I need not be, your avoidance of evaluating the reasonability of the comments is already a virtual consetion that you agree.
It "seems to imply", does it? And I am responsible for your fevered imaginings how, exactly?
Lacking ESP, I can not be 100% sure of your exact motivations and emotional state. For myself this does not constitute "fevered imaginings" but "educated guesses".
But I wouldn't want you to be a hypocrite, so in addition to any name calling on your part being the same a surrendering, now anything you are not 100% sure of is just your "fevered imaginings".
[rant, rant, rant]...If you're happy to run around trying to score cheap rhetorical points...[rant, rant, rant] ...In my experience, it's wise to avoid the temptation of imputing emotions or motives to those who disagree with you - it smacks of projection.
and touchdown dances,
You mean like your "waving the white flag" comment you pulled on O.C ?
My beef with you is that you got his goat, and ridiculed him for his emotional reaction. Now you act like there is no emotional component to your debate. Seems obvious that I recognize and kid around about it, and you deny it and it just eats you up. At this point the "gotcha" game is over (even if you denied you are playing). And it may seem patronizing of me, but I just wish you could be a little more light hearted about this whole thing--without needing to dismiss me as some kind of obnoxious clown
Implicit in satirical mockery is a comparison between the facetious example and the argument of one's interlocutor, insofar as the reader is invited to draw a disfavorable conclusion about the argument based on the satirical mockery. However, when the satirical mockery fundamentally misrepresents the argument it is deployed against, one does not get to hide behind "satirical mockery" as an excuse for arguing dishonestly.
Now that is an excellent example of a straw man fallacy on your part. I am not demanding to be the sole arbitrator of what is reasonable.
Why, of course you are - these parents have no grounds to object because their objections are a priori unreasonable. That is exactly what you have claimed here, thereby effectively defining the limits of reasonable and unreasonable objections for everyone. You may not come out and say it in so many words - not surprisingly - but that's what it boils down to.
Lacking ESP, I can not be 100% sure of your exact motivations and emotional state. For myself this does not constitute "fevered imaginings" but "educated guesses".
Or you could, you know, just stay away from the "educated guesses" about motivations altogether, and concentrate instead on the words in front of you, and what they actually say. You may not have ESP, but obviously you have something that causes you to believe that you can glean something as abstract as "motivation" or "emotional state" from black ASCII text on a white background.
My beef with you is that you got his goat, and ridiculed him for his emotional reaction. Now you act like there is no emotional component to your debate.
If I were acting on emotion, I'd probably agree with you in your assessment of the situation. Reason suggests, however, that letting things like this slide cedes any sort of moral high ground to the left, and legitimizes for them a stick they're already far too free with. Being able to separate our emotional desires from a rational assessment of right and wrong is what separates us from the left, and other assorted lower animals. Take that as you will.
And it may seem patronizing of me, but I just wish you could be a little more light hearted about this whole thing--without needing to dismiss me as some kind of obnoxious clown
A person who spends his days in public wearing a red rubber nose and big floppy shoes hardly has grounds to complain when he is perceived as a clown. Do you wish to advance a serious argument, or do you wish to engage in sarcastic mockery, because as it stands right now, you're not getting very far on either substance or style - you might as well concentrate on one or the other, rather than letting me spank you for both.
This was not a premise in my original postings, but a well established conclusion. I am sorry, but I do not find it practical to keep reiterating my arguments. The last time I did it, a poster on your side of the argument actually insisted that the fact I made any original assumptions itself was a fallacy. She concluded: "Assumptions are worthless unless you can prove them".
Please forgive me if I fail to live up to this standard, or if I feel a bit exasperated (unlike some, I have to work hard not to let emotion influence my postings) I do still welcome specific challenges to my original assumptions which suggest alternate starting points, and I welcome critical analysis of my arguments, but I must ask you to go back and dig them up...sorry.
On the other hand, do you have a coherent argument that concludes that the parents were being reasonable in their complaint?
Do you have a coherent argument that concludes they were not being reasonable in their complaint?
How about reading the whole post, thinking before responding. It does tend to make one appear less foolish.
But then again I'm quite fallable. Matter of fact I can't even make an argument without using an unproven assumption.
"No, making assumptions is worthless unless you can prove you are correct."
Wow, that still floors me.
Please find where I've used that term. You must have mistaken me for another poster.
How about reading the whole post, thinking before responding. It does tend to make one appear less foolish.
Yes, I'd say so.
Sorry about that.
However, my criticism still stands, I have already made this argument (oh so long ago it seems). But, I only know how to argue using unproven assumptions...so as I told genral_re, I can't live up to your brand of logic.
Err, no. It was, in fact, an assertion by you, wherein you simply defined that objection to be unreasonable. You'll have to excuse me if I set the bar for "well established" just a bit higher than that.
I am sorry, but I do not find it practical to keep reiterating my arguments.
"Reiterating" implies that you have, in fact, made arguments at least once before - I find nothing in the record to support such a contention.
On the other hand, do you have a coherent argument that concludes that the parents were being reasonable in their complaint?
Sorry, you don't get to shift the burden of proof like that - you claimed that they were unreasonable, so get out there and do your own homework to make your own case.
If you worship any other god, it is idol worship and a sin against God. The god of Islam is not God, but merely a god.
I will stipulate you are correct that the case was not made (I think it was, but I have to confess my description of it being "cohesive" was not accurate--its spread into little pieces all over the thread. It is however fairly cohesive in my head). Thus I will gladly take on the burden of proof with two conditions: 1) That we all make a good faith effort to be accommodating in negotiating what assumptions the proof can start with (not all assumptions will be proved first--bears are just not that smart), and 2) That it wait till after the weekend (Sadly, I have some time constraints necessitated by my life outside of Freeperdom).
Huh? If someone thinks that I am going to eternal damnation if I don't beleive their religion, I expect they have a moral obligation to tell me about it.
Thank you. I hope Amelia can find it in her heart to be so charitable.
Never discuss abortions because there is a lot of money to be made in that industry!
The Baby Parts Industry Ears for $75 a pair; arms and legs, $150; a brain for $999, tax not included.
and this is an absolute lie!
who said anything about a lawsuit?
Work for a living that is exactly what I do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.