|
|
 | | From: | Dave Bird | | Subject: | Re: Scientology is a SIN ! ! ! ! ! ! | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:33:00 +0000 |
|
|
 | In article, Hans-Marc
Olsen writes:
>Being a member makes you a sinner !
>
>Come back to Christianity or burn in hell !
I am sorry, but the annual lunatic quota on this newsgroup
has already been exceeded: we cannot admit lunatics from other
religions. Scientology lunatics only, please.
-- . . : : ,; . : ' ___.
uno, dos, tres, |FUEGO| .:. .:. .:': :' .:':' :. . : (") #oH|
' ' :' : :' : .::. H_ ~~~|
< > __ ,;;,. \\::// R_) |
'-|"""(") {__}::===== ....'''' ' ' ' ___..\||/....L\. ...|
____||--|_'--/__\___ '' .--''':::::::::::::::::::::
\ / /////////////S.Coronado/////
;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^
LRonHubbard is shelled byGoats inHell.READ http://www.ronthewarhero.org
|
|
| | From: | Susan S | | Subject: | Dave Bird is having a melt down | | Date: | 23 Jan 2005 06:36:43 -0800 |
|
|
| In article , Dave Bird says...
>
>In article, Hans-Marc
>Olsen writes:
>>Being a member makes you a sinner !
>>
>>Come back to Christianity or burn in hell !
>
> I am sorry, but the annual lunatic quota on this newsgroup
> has already been exceeded: we cannot admit lunatics from other
> religions. Scientology lunatics only, please.
>
>
>-- . . : : ,; . : ' ___.
> uno, dos, tres, |FUEGO| .:. .:. .:': :' .:':' :. . : (") #oH|
> ' ' :' : :' : .::. H_ ~~~|
> < > __ ,;;,. \\::// R_) |
> '-|"""(") {__}::===== ....'''' ' ' ' ___..\||/....L\. ...|
> ____||--|_'--/__\___ '' .--''':::::::::::::::::::::
> \ / /////////////S.Coronado/////
>;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^
>LRonHubbard is shelled byGoats inHell.READ http://www.ronthewarhero.org
>
Dude, you need a vacation. Chill out a bit, then maybe you can make some sense.
Susan S
|
|
| | From: | arnie lerma | | Subject: | Re: Dave Bird is having a melt down | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:55:35 GMT |
|
|
| On 23 Jan 2005 06:36:43 -0800, Susan S
wrote:
>In article , Dave Bird says...
>>
>>In article, Hans-Marc
>>Olsen writes:
>>>Being a member makes you a sinner !
>>>
>>>Come back to Christianity or burn in hell !
>>
>> I am sorry, but the annual lunatic quota on this newsgroup
>> has already been exceeded: we cannot admit lunatics from other
>> religions. Scientology lunatics only, please.
>>
>>
>>-- . . : : ,; . : ' ___.
>> uno, dos, tres, |FUEGO| .:. .:. .:': :' .:':' :. . : (") #oH|
>> ' ' :' : :' : .::. H_ ~~~|
>> < > __ ,;;,. \\::// R_) |
>> '-|"""(") {__}::===== ....'''' ' ' ' ___..\||/....L\. ...|
>> ____||--|_'--/__\___ '' .--''':::::::::::::::::::::
>> \ / /////////////S.Coronado/////
>>;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^
>>LRonHubbard is shelled byGoats inHell.READ http://www.ronthewarhero.org
>>
>
>Dude, you need a vacation. Chill out a bit, then maybe you can make some sense.
>Susan S
thank you Scientologist for another fine example of fallacious
argument
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html
the title of this thread is ONE:
Loaded Words
Alias:
* Loaded Language
* Question-Begging Epithets
Type: Begging the Question
Example:
"Probably the greatest American speech of our century was Gen.
Douglas MacArthur's address to Congress on his return from Korea.
Search all others, read this masterpiece, and you will recall what I
mean. Many men are full of good language…. But a truly great speech
requires not only superb language but great wisdom and great truth at
a great moment from the heart of a great man….
"Gen. MacArthur wrote this speech flying in the 'Bataan' from San
Francisco to Washington…and in longhand…. He could compose it because
he understood it. He spoke the truth because he knew it…. This
speaker's great calling was liberty. Events full of terror and sorrow
were at hand. Here was the needed reminder to his countrymen that the
people who were in this war all the way were our men who ennoble the
high, sharp Korean walls and live on Heartbreak Ridge every day. And
die.
"Here was prophecy as revealing as a beacon light…. Here was hope:
the dedication that we will live in a world where those of us who are
Americans can be proud…. Here was history tolling like an old and
important bell: the mighty warning that mighty America, once having
entered this major war, must not let it end in impasse….
"It was all spoken in less than 30 minutes and in 3074 words."
Source: Henry J. Taylor, San Francisco News
Analysis
Exposition:
A word or phrase is "loaded" when it has a secondary, evaluative
meaning in addition to its primary, descriptive meaning. When language
is "loaded", it is loaded with its evaluative meaning. A loaded word
is like a loaded gun, and its evaluative meaning is the bullet.
Examples Unloaded Loaded
Plant Weed
Animal Beast
While few words have no evaluative overtones, "plant" is a primarily
descriptive term. "Weed", in contrast, has essentially the same
descriptive meaning as "plant", but a negative evaluative meaning, as
well. A weed is a plant of which we disapprove.
Loaded language is not inherently fallacious, otherwise most poetry
would commit this fallacy. However, it is often a logical boobytrap,
which may cause one to leap to an unwarranted evaluative conclusion.
The fallacy is committed either when an arguer attempts to use loaded
words in place of an argument, or when an arguee makes an evaluation
based on the colorful language in which an argument is clothed, rather
than on the merits of the argument itself.
Loaded language is a subfallacy of Begging the Question, because to
use loaded language fallaciously is to assume an evaluation that has
not been proved, thereby failing to fulfill the burden of proof. For
this reason, Jeremy Bentham dubbed this fallacy "Question-Begging
Epithets".
Analysis of the Example:
This is an example of how a passage can consist of loaded language and
little else. In reading this, we learn a lot of trivia about
MacArthur's speech: that it was written in longhand on the plane
"Bataan" flying from San Francisco to New York, that it was 3074 words
long, and that it took less than 30 minutes to deliver. However, none
of these facts has any bearing on whether that speech is
"[p]robably the greatest American speech of our [20th] century".
Instead, we get a lot of evaluative and loaded language, but nothing
to back up the evaluation. Among the loaded words used in describing
the speech are:
* "prophecy": The literal meaning of "prophecy" is "prediction",
but the word is associated with religion and thus suggests a religious
significance to the speech, as if MacArthur were a Biblical prophet.
* "history": MacArthur's speech is certainly of historical
significance, but that does not mean that the speech itself is a great
one.
* "mighty": The literal meaning is simply "powerful" or
"forceful", but "mighty" is used rhetorically to suggest good or
benevolent power.
Sources:
* Jeremy Bentham, Bentham's Handbook of Political Fallacies,
revised, edited & with a preface by Harold A. Larrabee (Apollo, 1971),
pp. 139-144.
* S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal
Fallacies (Fifth Edition) (St. Martin's, 1994), pp. 149-152.
* S. I. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action (Second Edition)
(Harcourt, Brace & World, 1964), p. 292.
Argumentum ad Hominem
Translation: "Argument against the man" (Latin) Leonardo da Vinci -
Study of Human Proportions
The ONE line of its content is another:
Alias: The Fallacy of Personal Attack
Type: Genetic Fallacy
Exposition:
A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant
personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may
successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of
the debate.
Exposure:
Ad Hominem is the most familiar of informal fallacies, and—with the
possible exception of Undistributed Middle—the most familiar logical
fallacy of them all. It is also one of the most used and abused of
fallacies, and both justified and unjustified accusations of Ad
Hominem abound in any debate.
The phrase "ad hominem argument" is sometimes used to refer to a very
different type of argument, namely, one that uses premisses accepted
by the opposition to argue for a position. In other words, if you are
trying to convince someone of something, using premisses that the
person accepts—whether or not you believe them yourself. This is not
necessarily a fallacious argument, and is often rhetorically
effective.
Subfallacies:
* Abusive: An Abusive Ad Hominem occurs when an attack on the
character or other irrelevant personal qualities of the
opposition—such as appearance—is offered as evidence against her
position. Such attacks are often effective distractions ("red
herrings"), because the opponent feels it necessary to defend herself,
thus being distracted from the topic of the debate.
* Circumstantial: A Circumstantial Ad Hominem is one in which some
irrelevant personal circumstance surrounding the opponent is offered
as evidence against the opponent's position. This fallacy is often
introduced by phrases such as: "Of course, that's what you'd expect
him to say." The fallacy claims that the only reason why he argues as
he does is because of personal circumstances, such as standing to gain
from the argument's acceptance.
This form of the fallacy needs to be distinguished from
criticisms directed at testimony, which are not fallacious, since
pointing out that someone stands to gain from testifying a certain way
would tend to cast doubt upon that testimony. For instance, when a
celebrity endorses a product, it is usually in return for money, which
lowers the evidentiary value of such an endorsement—often to nothing!
In contrast, the fact that an arguer may gain in some way from an
argument's acceptance does not affect the evidentiary value of the
argument, for arguments can and do stand or fall on their own merits.
* Poisoning the Well
* Tu Quoque
Source:
S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal
Fallacies (Fifth Edition) (St. Martin's, 1994), pp. 198-206.
Resources:
* Alan Brinton, "The Ad Hominem" in Fallacies: Classical and
Contemporary Readings, edited by Hans V. Hanson and Robert C. Pinto
(Penn State Press, 1995), pp. 213-222.
* Frans H. Van Eemeren & Rob Grootendoorst, "Argumentum Ad
Hominem: A Pragma-Dialectical Case in Point" in Fallacies: Classical
and Contemporary Readings, edited by Hans V. Hanson & Robert C. Pinto
(Penn State Press, 1995), pp. 223-228.
* Douglas N. Walton, Arguer's Position: A Pragmatic Study of Ad
Hominem Attack, Criticism, Refutation, and Fallacy (Greenwood, 1985).
Acknowledgement:
The Da Vinci sketch comes from the art print collection at
AllPosters.com.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html
For the truth about the Scientology SCAM
read this:Pulitizer Prize Winning Newspaper series:
http://www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/sptimes/spt-series-index.htm
If the Ferengi were to breed with the Borg you'd get Scientology
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/comedy.html
The internet is the Liberty Tree of the 90's
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/libertyl.html
Ex-Scientologist staff member
apoligizes to John Travolta, Mayor Gabe Cazares
and the Citizens of Clearwater
http://www.lermanet.com/garyweber/
Help getting someone OUT of Scientology
http://www.lermanet.com/scientologyhelp/main.html
|
|
|
