"hidden premises?"
So you and Quix are on an 'evil, sneaky, Catholics' kick? What's up with that?
Just because a conclusion is valid from a set of premises doesn’t necessarily imply Truth ...
Well here's the big difference: For us, if the premises in the explicit argument are true, if the conclusion is validly drawn, then that's it, no matter the psychological or crafty and insidious motivations of the people making the argument.
If that's not true, then what the heck are we doing here and what it the purpose of criticizing one another's premises and arguments? We might just as well get our weapons and shoot it out.
A valid conclusion can be used with false propositions to draw false new conclusions. A valid conclusion can be misrepresented to ill effect. I've mentioned my observation of a mother telling her 4 year old that Jesus was made sad by the child's misbehavior. If that's true, to say that to use guilt to motivate a child is, IMHO, vicious. What a 4 year old needs to hear is that Jesus loves him. When that's digested, then we can go on to what our misdeeds mean to Him.
But if the premises are true, the logic valid, then the conclusion is true. Otherwise there's no point in this.
Premise 1: Jesus is God
Premise 2: Mary gave birth to Jesus
Mad Dawg’s unstated premise: Mary was immaculate
Since your unstated premise is false the conclusion becomes invalid. Metmom, knowing you held to the unstated premise, was correct in determining the conclusion to be false.
I find it disingenuous to try to trap someone into a logical conclusion without disclosing all the premises that lead to the conclusion.