Re: logic makes a comeback

Russell Stewart (diamond@rt66.com)
Thu, 12 Jun 1997 13:59:07 -0600

At 01:13 PM 6/12/97 EDT, you wrote:
>Pim: So these excesses are ok since you believe that later behavior made up
>for it ?
>
>When did I assert they were "ok"? This is what is called a red herring.
>
>Russell made up a "fact" (really, an unsupported opinion).

Definition: an argument supported by facts that Jim wants to ignore.

>I posted a
>reputable historian that puts the lie to it.

No, you posted a reputable historian presenting his opinion and
you pretended it was fact. That is what is known as "argument from
authority" -- something else you carry around in your little bag of
tricks, I guess.

>Russell responds with incidents,
>all corrected by the very system he condemns, thus proving my point all the
>more.

Except that you have failed to prove how your system "corrected"
these incidents.

BTW, I can't help but notice that (not unsurprisingly) you have
completely misunderstood my intentions. I have taken great efforts
to avoid "condemning" your system. I have certainly criticized your
claim of moral superiority, but that is not the same as condemning
Christianity.

But then, I guess in your eyes, anybody who disagrees with you is
"condemning" Christianity.

_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|

2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.