From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Documenting claims for Mark Cochran (Was: Proposed...FAQ)
Date: 25 Jan 93 00:06:39 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1993Jan21.080314.12430@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>
>>       Proposition A: According to Keegan's stated opinion, anyone who asks
>>                      whether Elizabeth is pro-choice is a fool
>
>        Proposition B: You asked if Ms. Bartley is pro-choice
>
>        Conclusion 1: You are, as much as can be discerned of Keegan's opinion
>                      of you, from the above declarations, a fool

Correct. But Keegan's opinions of me are just worthless vendetta-speak. 
Besides, I never disputed Conclusion 1. My assertion pertained to Mark
Cochran's alleged "foolishness".

Continuing...

>        Proposition D: Mark answered that question

Specifically, he answered in the affirmative.

>        Proposition E: You claimed that his answering the question proved him
>                       to be what Keegan's quote said the *asker* was.

This is a valid _conclusion_. See below.

>        Conclusion 2: You blew it - you intended to trap Susan, but you made
>                      yourself out to be the fool.

From "Keegan thinks Darcy is a fool", it does not necessarily follow that 
"Kevin made himself out to be the fool". Nor does the assertion about 
"intend[ing] to trap Susan" follow from any of the foregoing propositions.

Conclusion 2 is refuted.

Now, let's stop to examine the propositions you conveniently deleted, shall we?

Proposition E1: He who rushes in with an incorrect answer to a question 
		is at least as foolish as he who asks it, all other 
		things being equal

Proposition E2: According to Keegan's stated opinion, an affirmative answer to 
	 	the question "is Elizabeth pro-choice?" is incorrect

Proposition A + Proposition D + Proposition E1 + Proposition E2 =>

Conclusion 2a: Mark is, as much as can be discerned of Keegan's opinion
	       of him, from the above declarations, a fool

>        Proposition F: You are attempting to save face by questioning the
>                       validity of the quote you originally tried to use to
>                       prove your point.

I dispute Proposition F. Where have I ever questioned the validity of any of
the relevant quotes?

>        Conclusion 3: It's not working, 

Faulty deduction. Whether "it's working" or not appears in none of the
foregoing propositions.

>			... as I have no interest in whether
>                      the quote is valid or not.  I jumped in to point out
>                      that you were apparently confused by the quote, 


More faulty deduction. The "I jumped in ..." stuff is strictly declaratory, 
and appears in none of the foregoing propositions.
 
>			since your conclusion didn't follow.

See above. Conclusion 2a does in fact follow. The statement "your conclusion
didn't follow" has a negative truth value.

Conclusion 3 is refuted.

>        Conclusion 4: Your continued attempts at evasion only remind people
>                      of how foolish you were in the first place.

Yet more faulty deduction. From "Keegan thinks Darcy is foolish", it does
not necessarily follow that "people (unquantified) think Darcy is foolish".
Nor do the assertions about "evasion" and "reminding" follow from any of
the foregoing propositions. 

Conclusion 4 is refuted.

---

Conclusion 1 stands, but is irrelevant. Conclusions 2, 3 & 4 have been
refuted. Conclusion 2a stands, namely:

	Mark is, as much as can be discerned of Keegan's opinion of him, 
	from the above declarations, a fool

Q.E.D.

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57981 talk.politics.misc:69806 talk.religion.misc:27569 misc.legal:23303