From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:55:33 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Please explain why you think it'd be idiotic for hunters to kill
rl> hunters, but not idiotic for god-worshippers to kill witches.

Mary Otto writes:
mo> Russell tactic 102:  Divert the opposition into a debate on religion.

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Not exactly.  I'm interested in exploring the apparent logical
rl> inconsistency displayed by Mike's name-calling, not his religious 
rl> values per se.  

mo> Russell tactic 103:  Divert discussion into semantics rather than 
mo> content.

Please explain the nature of the "content" displayed by the 
statement, "What an idiot." 

Russell tactic 105:  Divert discussion to explanation of the obvious.

Russell tactic 106:  Creative myopia -- removal from context.
                     (in this case, focusing on Mike's comment,
                     rather than the issue of hunting hunters)

rl> Were you under the impression that I was so intimidated by Mike's 
rl> powerful argument ("What an idiot") that I was hoping to distract 
rl> his attention away from his line of reasoning?  

mo> Russell tactic 104:  Bait with sarcasm to lead discussion off the 
mo> issue.

What sort of "issues" were addressed by the statement, "What an 
idiot"?  

Russell tactic 103:  Divert discussion into semantics rather than content.

Tactical Note:  To the date of this post, Russell has not given any opinion
on the issue of "hunting hunters".  He has only diverted the discussion
to other areas.  For all we know, Russell might actually agree that 
hunting hunters is "idiotic".

There's nothing speculative about Mike's belief that his 
god owns both you and I.  What I don't understand is why Mike 
would consider it idiotic for hunters to kill hunters, but 
perfectly reasonable for one class of religious zealots to kill 
other human beings who don't share their religious beliefs.

Russell tactic 107:  Discredit opponent's opinion on non-religion area
                     because of opponent's religious beliefs.

Russell tactic 108:  Divert discussion onto meaningless analogies

Perhaps it's not supposed to make sense; perhaps we're supposed
to simply believe what Mike chooses to believe lest we be labeled
as "idiots".

Russell tactic 109:  Falsely generalize opponents position
                     to the point of absurdity.

The vast majority of the hunters I know wouldn't engage in the sport
if the game could shoot back. 

Russell tactic 110:  Divert to discussion of impossible scenario.

Yet, they still view the sport as
a "manly" endeavor for some reason.

Russell tactic 111:  Divert discussion onto other controversy (gender bias).


There was nothing silly about my request for information.  

Russell tactic 112:  Feigned ignorance.

I don't 
understand how a man who earnestly believes that witch-killing is 
ok, simply because one of his books says so, was able to determine that 
a poster who doesn't share his beliefs is an "idiot".   

Russell tactic 113:  Reduction of religious beliefs to mere information
                     rather than deeply held convictions and philosophies.

Russell tactic 107:  Discredit opponent's opinion on non-religion area
                     because of opponent's religious beliefs.

Russell tactic 114:  Confusing the issue (here he would have you believe
                     that Mike's calling someone an idiot was based on
                     Mike's religious bias rather than Mike's opinion,
                     stated without religious justification, that the
                     person asking why hunters don't hunt hunters was
                     an idiot).

Tactical Note:  This posting responds to three postings to this thread
by Russell.  The creation of a large number of postings is also a tactic
used by Russell against his opponents, again without any content added.

Russell tactic 101:  Be a bully; shout down the opposition.