 | | Re: Elian Gonzales
|
| (...) Thanks! The circular part is that either the reader has to agree with your view, or else that reader's view doesn't count. In addition, it's also a "false dilemma," (if I recall my terminology correctly) in that it presumes to force a choice (...) (25 years ago, 27-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Elian Gonzales
|
| (...) to (...) While true, that's not circular. For example, if you believe in strict creationism, your view on particular steps of the evolutionary process being true or not has no bearing, inasmuch as you've not accepted a fundamental premise (...) (25 years ago, 27-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Elian Gonzales
|
| (...) Well, that's a colorful, if tangential, example, and I expect it might seed debates of its own. (...) I do not assert that communist states do not routinely deny civil rights, nor do I accept the basis of such an either/or determination. As (...) (25 years ago, 27-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Elian Gonzales
|
| (...) *Now* you say that but originally you said "Undoubtedly! But that's still an assumption based on preconceptions" and that is what is leading me to believe that you weren't accepting that in fact most people under communist regimes live in (...) (25 years ago, 27-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Elian Gonzales
|
| (...) D'oh! Well, shoot. Good call. That was an unintentional inconsistency, and I think I stumbled between Elian's issue and the world-at-large. My error. (...) I wouldn't have characterized delusion in that way, but I see your point. "Delusion" to (...) (25 years ago, 27-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Elian Gonzales
|
| (...) What if I take the stance that to a certain degree people must want to free themselves enough to make it happen, or trying to provide them with freedom will do no good? How does that fit into this binary classification? (...) You might perhaps (...) (25 years ago, 28-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
