[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[at-l] doubble barreled logic and rhetoric?

> Oh, c'mon David. Here I am, ready to give you both rhetorical
> barrels in a dazzling display of logic, 

Yo Bucky, I can deal with logic, though its rarely dazzling (its too
predictable) and always impersonal (no ad hominums, please).

> Now we'll never know whether you believe government
> should be a means for individuals to launder their ethics.

My, your, and anyone else's beliefs on these subjects have nothing, nada,
to do with the AT or with logic or with eminent domain, for that matter.
Logic may inform belief and assist knowledge, but logic obtains independent
of anyone's belief and knowledge. Rhetoric, of course, doesn't deal in
logic; it deals instead with persuasion, wherein logic provides an
occassional, often misused, tool. Since most persons hold logically
inconsistent opinions and beliefs, pointing to the  inconsistency doesn't
usually advance one's case logically or rhetorically.

Ethics deals in the values and priorities affecting personal, concrete
action. Justice deals in the values and priorities affecting social
allocation of power. Government provides the means whereby societies
allocate social power.

Mixing  these categories, among the other categories contained in the above
statement, aids confusion, not logic.

> (sigh) I am depressed.

OrangeBug, the medicine man, has a bag of tricks you may want to consider.

> It would've been *glorious.*

To where or what, exactly, can "it" point or refer? I can grant you here a
*glorious* ambiguity: depression? you? being? we? me? knowledge? opinion?
logic? rhetoric? AT-L? ethics? government? justice? eminent domain? the
email (not) sent? the exchange of emails (not) sent? ....

* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List |  http://www.backcountry.net  *