| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > This is a "have you stopped beating your dog" question. Shame on you.
>
> Shame on her. Shame on you for not answering the question.
I answered it. Not my fault if you weren't paying attention.
Let's try an example.
Suppose Dave! asks you, Scott Arthur, the following question: "Have you
always been the complete and utterly clueless twit you are today?" and
demands a "Yes" or "No" answer. Whether you answer yes or no, you've agreed
to the premise.
But the correct answer is neither yes nor no. The correct answer is "I
reject the premise of the question", because the question presupposes that
you *are* currently a complete and utterly clueless twit. (For the purposes
of this example it doesn't matter whether you actually are or not)
Now if the media (newsgroup) reports that you answered "No, my twitness is
justified by the way the rest of the newsgroup acts" and ROSCO asks ME if I
agree with your answer, demanding a yes or no answer, I should not answer
yes or no to that question *either*. Instead I should point out the
falsehood of the assumed premise of the original question even if you didn't.
The fact that I did your work for you by pointing out the falsehood of the
premise doesn't mean I didn't answer ROSCO's question about your statement
just as the fact that I did Madeline Albright's work for her doesn't mean
that I didn't answer *your* question about *her* statement.
So your assertion that I didn't answer your question is false.
Hope that helps.
Please note that whether you actually are a complete and utterly clueless
twit or not has no bearing on this example.
However, if it will help you work through the example, I'll ask you the
question if you want. Let me know if it will help.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: War
|
| Larry you pre-suppose the question I asked required yes/no answer. I do not concede it did. I don't like yes/no questions as the respondent does not have to justify their answer. I suspect you like them for that very reason. (...) That is perhaps (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: War
|
| (...) Shame on her. Shame on you for not answering the question. (...) I have never stated that I thought it was true. The fact that your govermnet agrees with though does give it some credance. (...) Really? From: (URL) both Iraq and Haiti, (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
177 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
