From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: BullShit
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:47:37 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In <21704@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>	Whoa!  News to me!  So how much of your personal testimony was a lie?
>>If you tell us, since it's obviously none of our business, it will probably be
>>a lie as well...
>
>Again, my PERSONAL beliefs having NOTHING to do with the validity of what
>I argue.

	This doesn't make sense, John, unless you lose arguments with yourself.
If you argue for soemthing you don't believe in, one of two things must happen:

	1) Either your argument is valid, therefor your beliefs are wrong, and
		you change them. (Deductive reasoning)
	2) Your argument is invalid, and your original beliefs are unchanged.
		(Inductive reasoning)

	If your beliefs have nothing to do with the validity of your argument,
then you evidently don't believe even yourself.  So why should we.

>          Either the arguments are valid with the premises and conclusions
>that are written, or they are invalid.  Arguments don't get stronger
>because you believe something.  Even my "personal testimony" has nothing
>to do with the validity of my arguments.  It is a fact that for several
>months I worked as a welder at Avondale and Halter Marine shipyards.  This
>doesn't make my statements about the Internal Brotherhood of Steelworkers
>any more or less true.  Either they are, or they aren't.

	But you are claiming that your arguments are true because of your
experience, on the belief of your personal testimony.  The "facts" you claim to
have witnessed are based on the lie that you were there in the first place, so
the conclusions cannot be judged as "true" (false premise).  It is correct
that the statements are about the IBS may be true or false.  You admit to lying
about things you claimed as personal "facts", so you probably didn't work at
any shipyard.  Any information you claim true based on those experiences is
immediately discredited.  Your information thus becomes totally irrelevant to
the discussion, since none of it is to be believed.  You should be ignored in
order to prevent clouding the issue.  You reduce the signal-to-noise ratio.

>Again, if my arguments against abortion are "valid", it certainly isn't
>because I believe abortion is right or wrong.  And as for not producing
>sources, I've yet to see you produce a single one.  On the other hand,
>I produced a total of five texts in addition to two from John Iacoletti.
>All seven support the point I was arguing with Fred over.

	My source is myself, since I was expressing my opinions and beliefs
based on my previous experience and information.  I am not trying to change
anyones opinion on whether abortion is right or wrong.  I do argue with the
Federal Government dictating morality.  Solve the problem of unwanted
pregnancy (before it occurs), and abortion becomes a non-issue.  Both sides
win...  You are too concerned with having the other side lose, rather than
identifing a common goal and working toward that.

	If your argument against abortion is "valid" (I'm glad you quoted
that, since it indicates you question your own conclusion), then you should
believe against abortion.  Since you indicate you may not, you then must have
reason to question your argument, and so should I.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
David L. Cathey		                |INET: davidc@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts              |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260772, Plano TX  75026-0772  |Fone: (214)-618-2117
Newsgroups: tx.politics,austin.politics,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs