I'm under no obligation to parrot your debating technique, and despite your objections, my technique accurately and concisely comunicated my point in a logically valid way.
Parrot
my technique? All I did was suggest that when looking at a position don't view it using analogies which contain contrary positions of your own. That shortcircuits the possibility that you will find their position might be amenable to your own. I didn't invent that, and it doesn't have to effect your writing style.
This sounds to me like those who keep claiming that logic and evidence are being used in some specialized way by evos and can be validly used in a different way.
An enormous ad hominem. Is there any reason I should respond to this? Suffice to say that I have collegiate-level training in formal symbolic logic, pragmatic linguistics, and rhetoric. No pretension necessary.
The first sentence is an ad hominem, perhaps a non sequitor. The second is not exactly an ad hominem, but is insulting (which is not the same thing). The rest is not.
Whether pretension is necessary or not, it appears to be going on. Instead of simply discussing issues you throw out terms as if that is supposed to have an impact on the argument. Indeed we are now a couple steps removed from arguments I have made which I can only assume was the point of your diversions.
You are certainly good at rhetoric and linguistics. But that does not get you anywhere in analyzing positions from a logic. Symbolic logic might be nice, but I am not seeing any indication that you are using it here. If you please, break down your argument regarding Pat Robertson and what you can say about Xians.
Sometimes people with a little education in something think they have enough. The etymology of the term sophomore is a very apt nod to this.
But the analogy is false for the reasons that I've given. Citizenship is a legal condition that is not changed on a whim, but as part of a bureaucratic process with the agreement of one or several governments. Citizenship remains the same until it is changed because its a recorded legal status.
I notice you did not go on to deal with my argument regarding why I said it was not relevant. I have admitted there is a difference (bureacratic assignment vs popular assignment), and if you want to hang your hat on that difference, I will allow it for argument's sake since I already stated the more important point was on self-identification. But one last time on the facts...
Citizenship is voluntary. You can renounce it if you wish at any time. Read up on it. Some nations are harder than others to leave, but US law makes it pretty easy. Gaining another citizenship can be hard, but renunciation is possible if you want.
knowledge of one's religious status requires active reporting on the part of that person.
That is not true. You will be labelled by your parents and that will be your default religion unless you change it. And again we are dealing with Xianity which has many different denominations.
If your logic is correct then it is the obligation of muslims to hold mass protests every time AQ releases a tape on the web, just so everyone knows that all Islam is not an extermist organization.
People that are not ignorant will have done research on the topic to avert stereotyping.
Oh, so I'm a liar, now? I didn't answer your little loaded questions the "right" way, so I must be lying? Dispicable.
I didn't say you were a liar. In fact I am accusing you of quite the opposite. I think you genuinely believe everything you say, but simply do not analyze your position to find out you are being inconsistent. Ad hoc and post hoc reasoning does that.
No, it doesn't make you pro-Bush to be pro-American. But here's the thing. Just as it's unreasonable for Jazzn to make an a priori expectation that outsiders to his religion have detailed knowledge about every little doctrinal split between himself and Robertson,
It is unreasonable for someone to expect others to not make generalizations and in fact research a topic before making statements? Why is that unreasonable?
It seems more the definition of unreasonable, to make statements which are generalizations based on admittedly a lack of knowledge regarding a topic.
Where am I going wrong?
since I do not want to associate myself with the policies of Bush, I would not identify as an American.
By de facto then you are admitting that Bush is right. Unless you are saying that as soon as he is out of power and someone you like is in then you become american again? What then is your definition of an American?
I might also add that Robertson is be definition only the leader of a ministry that is a denomination (subset) of Xianity. Thus no one should have to tell you that there are other denominations, or that those other denominations might oppose him.
Its sort of like having the governor of Florida say something and you have to protest to distinguish yourself from him, even though you live in Missouri. A foreigner ought to be cognizant that states are separate within the US, otherwise they just come off looking ignorant.
you would have seen that I had repeatedly noted these things already.
But you did not use them consistent with your point to Jazzns. I repeated that here.
If Jazzns is, as he says, only using the accurate label to describe his religious committment to follow the teachings of Christ, there's a dozen words to describe that. He's rejected all of them while giving no reason. I can only conclude that he refuses to adopt an alternate, equivalent moniker to "Christian" because he's too stubborn or proud; or else he does want to be associated with the movement that encompasses Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, and the Pope.
You do realize that Xians existed long before televangelists, right? The term is used to cover an array of different and sometimes contradictory positions. That is why there are denominational titles. You conclusion is bizarre and self-serving.
For a person who claimed very little knowledge of Xianity as an excuse to make your initial errant stereotype, you are now playing the arbiter of correct terminology for Xians. Pick a position and stick with it.
Stubbornly associate yourself in the minds of others with philosophies or actions you oppose, or take steps to distance yourself by changing your arbitrary group affiliations. I've offered Jazzns a way to do it that doesn't require anything on his part but simply a change in the way he answers a question ("what religion are you?"). That he stubbornly refuses to accept is one more instance of him perversely choosing to associate with Robertson.
This is repulsive. It has already been explained to you that Xainity can encompass many different beliefs and so Jazzns may be a Xian and Robertson may be a Xian yet they both hold different views and so Robertson cannot be said to speak for all Xians.
Its like you insist a rooster not be called a chicken since that is what you were told a hen was. Since you are not an insider you cannot claim what others should do about labelling themselves. You should be listenint to what they say and work with it.
Yes it would be confusing to have someone claim to be a Nazi who did not like Hitler, since Hitler essentially created the Nazis and brought them to power with no other group called Nazis to oppose him. Robertson did not invent Xianity and he did not bring them to power. Xians existed before him and outside him and opposed him.
You are trying to champion ignorance over reason and it is not going to fly.
What else am I supposed to draw from that except a conclusion that Jazzns offers his tacit support of Robertson?
Oh wait, now I see your point. All Islamic people must renounce their faith, or at least the name of their faith and adopt some terminology we will create for them which does not hold connotations we dislike (even if errant), or they de facto prove that they are on the side of the terrorists. Yes, quite convincing.
For that matter, a mixed metaphor that bad should be against the law.
Heheheh, I knew it was a mixed metaphor. I have been accused and found guilty of a bad sense of humor in the past. Nothing new. Of course that has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with rhetoric and perhaps linguistics. I would sooner mix all my metaphors than abandon reason.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2