Posted on 07/11/2008 11:11:46 AM PDT by Kevmo
If PETA as the organization is behind it, you know
***I don’t necessarily KNOW that.
it cannot be for the eating of meat. If the Discovery Institute is behind it, you know it cannot be about the advancement of methodological science because that is 180 degrees from their goals.
***That is a conclusion, and your ad hominem reasoning proceeded from your own conclusion, creating a vicious circular reasoning pattern. It’s a form of antagonism, which is not allowed on ecumenical threads — as far as I know.
It would be highly irrational to think that PETA suddenly supported eating meat when veganism is part of their core platform. It would be highly irrational to think that the DI suddenly supports methodological science when a theistic form of discovery is part of their core platform.
That is a conclusion, and your ad hominem reasoning proceeded from your own conclusion
It is a conclusion derived from the Discovery Institute's clear statements opposing "materialistic science" a.k.a., the science that is taught in schools. An organization that is opposed to something cannot be honestly trying to make it better, only trying to destroy and replace it. It's all in the Wedge Document.
It’s a form of antagonism
Isn't calling all debate "ad hominem" and accusing me of creating a "vicious circular reasoning pattern" even when accompanied by clear evidence and argument a form of antagonism in itself? Isn't being obtuse in positing that the PETA would support the eating of meat antagonism?
All I have been presenting is logical argument and evidence. I expect such in return on an ecumenical thread instead of off-hand dismissal. So far the only difference I have seen between you and a creationist on a regular crevo thread is that this hasn't devolved into harsh personal attacks yet.
I expected more, which is why I posted here.
It would be highly irrational to think that PETA suddenly supported eating meat when veganism is part of their core platform.
***But since I don’t know what their core platform is, I don’t necessarily KNOW that. You wrote that I knew it. I know, I know, it’s a bit of teasing fun at your expense, but the example is pretty lame to begin with.
It would be highly irrational to think that the DI suddenly supports methodological science when a theistic form of discovery is part of their core platform.
***I don’t know what DI’s core platform is either. So if I were you and I wanted to introduce it as evidence in ecumenical debates, I’d post it to the religion moderator and get it cleared as an established fact. It would probably save all of us a bundle of time.
It is a conclusion
***Then, very simply, you don’t deny that it’s a conclusion.
derived from the Discovery Institute’s clear statements opposing “materialistic science” a.k.a., the science that is taught in schools. An organization that is opposed to something cannot be honestly trying to make it better, only trying to destroy and replace it. It’s all in the Wedge Document.
***Again if I were you, I’d post the wedge document and have the RM look it over to see if it’s considered inflammatory.
Isn’t calling all debate “ad hominem” and accusing me of creating a “vicious circular reasoning pattern” even when accompanied by clear evidence and argument a form of antagonism in itself?
***No, because you admitted that your reasoning was based upon a conclusion that you drew. Your “clear” reasoning pattern is based on invalid assumptions and classic fallacies.
Isn’t being obtuse in positing that the PETA would support the eating of meat antagonism?
***No. In an earlier thread, someone took me to task because I didn’t know that the KKK used the term “grand wizard” or something like that, so you can see I don’t care what terms the KKK uses nor what PETA’s platform is. However, calling my preferred level of awareness “obtuse” is probably antagonistic. I think I’m going to like these ecumenical threads.
All I have been presenting is logical argument and evidence.
***And your logic has been shredded due to your use of some classic fallacies.
I expect such in return on an ecumenical thread instead of off-hand dismissal. So far the only difference I have seen between you and a creationist on a regular crevo thread is that this hasn’t devolved into harsh personal attacks yet.
***And it won’t devolve. The reasoning process is still what counts here.
I expected more, which is why I posted here.
***I’m glad you did post here.
Such games don't belong here. Go to peta.org and check out their position on eating meat, or circuses, or any animal-related topic if you honestly don't know. FTR, they promote veganism.
*I don’t know what DI’s core platform is either. So if I were you and I wanted to introduce it as evidence in ecumenical debates, I’d post it to the religion moderator and get it cleared as an established fact.
Here is where they admit authorship. In this document (which includes the Wedge Document) they try to backpedal and reinterpret the obvious meaning of the document. However, there is ample proof of the agenda in spite of this, the least of which is the general truism that you can trust the honesty of an organization's secret internal communications more than you can trust its public press releases (which will be spun).
In any case, back to the thread, the organization that sponsored the bill was pro-creationist and anti-evolution. The motive is obvious.
Go to peta.org and check out their position on eating meat, or circuses, or any animal-related topic if you honestly don’t know. FTR, they promote veganism.
***I have no desire to do so.
Here is where they admit authorship. In this document (which includes the Wedge Document) they try to backpedal and reinterpret the obvious meaning of the document.
***Religion Moderator, we’re going to need your feedback on the use of this document. Is it inflammatory? Is it accepted by both sides of the debate? Is it allowable in an ecumenical thread? There is a high likelihood that this subject in itself needs its own thread.
However, there is ample proof of the agenda in spite of this, the least of which is the general truism that you can trust the honesty of an organization’s secret internal communications more than you can trust its public press releases (which will be spun).
In any case, back to the thread, the organization that sponsored the bill was pro-creationist and anti-evolution. The motive is obvious.
OOPS, the stuff left over was what I intended to discuss in the next post.
However, there is ample proof of the agenda in spite of this, the least of which is the general truism that you can trust the honesty of an organization’s secret internal communications more than you can trust its public press releases (which will be spun).
***You’ve introduced some big topics that need to be discussed in their own right. The purpose of this particular thread is not to determine the legitimacy of that document nor the proper use of it. I doubt that on ecumenical threads you’re allowed to say such things that it’ll be spun, that you can trust internal sources above external ones (the mormon threads have probably covered that stuff), and the like.
In any case, back to the thread, the organization that sponsored the bill was pro-creationist and anti-evolution. The motive is obvious.
***The organizations that are sponsoring the mortgage bailout bill are the mortgage companies. It doesn’t mean it’s good law nor bad law. One makes a determination based upon what the proposed text says, which you said yourself appears innocuous when it comes to the teaching law. One of the considerations is the organizations sponsoring it, but your original post was based entirely upon this consideration, and that is a classic fallacy. Furthermore, your continued argumentation from that basis has been an ongoing ad hominem argument.
Post #47 was intended to be pinged to you.
I see the religion posters are just as sweet as always.
Beep! fl
Normally I would remove 23,40,44 but I will leave them up for now so that others can see what constitutes antagonism in these types of debates.
Keep the discussion academic, centered on the issues not questioning motivations on either side. Don't pick at scabs, i.e. renew old resentments.
I think there would be objections, because it looks like you’ve coupled eugenics with evolution. You’re basically using a loaded definition.
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.