1. In the LA Times, on an unspecified date, is written:
"In the wake of the [Vista School Board] vote, American Civil Liberties
Union representatives stated that they are considering a lawsuit and will
sue immediately should any Vista teacher begin teaching biblical
creationism in the classroom."
2. Chuck then asserted: "... the ACLU's stated goal is to *prevent* the teaching
of a
theory with which it disagrees."
I asked Chuck how he could claim point #2 came directly from #1. His response:
"Why not? This is a public statement of the ACLU's intent to prevent the
teaching of creationism - exactly my original point. Your response evokes
the memory of a T-shirt I saw somewhere: 'What part of 'no' do you not
understand?'"
Of course it's possible the rules of logical discourse have changed since I
retired. But somehow, I don't think they have changed that much.
Dear Chuck:
One way statement #2 could be true is if it represents just your opinion. It
would be true, then, that
"It is Chuck's opinion that it is the ACLU's stated goal... ."
If so, the only way I can make it all hold together is to conclude that fact #1
caused you to
hold opinion #2. But I am reluctant to so judge you, or anyone, for obvious
reasons.
Yet, for the life of me, I can't figure any other way to read it. Maybe it is
time for me to revisit Fogelin's UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS again. In the
meanwhile, however, I detect at least three separate errors of logic in above:
1. The "public statement" is not by the ACLU, but by a third party.
2. The statement refers to "Biblical Creationism," not "Creationism."
3. Statement #2 generalizes from a specific to the general.
So, those three "parts of 'no'" I sure do not understand! < G >
Burgy
Burgy