No shuffing on my part--Faith is simply wrong.
One can read RAZD's post through a filter of his known beliefs and then conclude he is implying a fallacious argument. But the only strong reason to do this is to wish it so.
But when evaluating a proposition, one is well advised to construe its strongest form, just as a chess player anticipates that an opponent is contemplating the strongest move available, not the error one hopes he will make.
In the normal course of a discussion, we might say, "It sounds to me that you are begging the question--did you really mean (x)?" The back-and-forth of clarification refines both understandings and advances the discussion. We see this exchange often here.
I am a fan of Rogerian rhetoric and logic, a system that tries to make the exercise of reason less of an "arena" sport and more of a mutual search for understanding and common ground (where it exists): one hallmark is the stage at which each participant must paraphrase the other's position to that proposer's satisfaction.
That Rogerian clarity is the polar opposite of what happened here. Rather than seek any clarification whatsoever, Faith moved immediately to make her opinion a jeering, ridiculing challenge to evolutionists. Her motivation was clear: she wished to typify evolutionists' conduct generally in terms of begging the question fallacies.
She now declares her interpretation of RAZD's text to be indisputable fact, and the failure of many to agree evidence of fallacious evolutionist arguments and a bad faith refusal to acknowledge the same. This is where she wanted to be.
Faith writes:
Now do you happen to have an explanation why it took that entire thread for one and a half persons (robinrohan and Modulous, who wouldn't commit completely) to recognize this, and now you on a new thread?
Yes, Faith, I do. You chose your interpretation carefully to serve your rhetorical ends. Rather than engage in the normal clarifying give-and-take of a discussion, you sought rhetorical/tactical advantages in a larger dispute. You gimmicked the discussion to score points. Your interpretation was wrong, and your tactics were counterproductive.
This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 10-07-2005 09:33 AM
IMHO
™ Version 4.2