Answers for Judge Jones

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 19, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In my previous post I posed two questions for Judge Jones. The answers to the second question are A, B and C. That is, (A) Evolutionary theory incorporates religious premises, (B) Proponents of evolutionary theory are religious people and (C) Evolutionary theory mandates certain types of solutions.

Continue reading here.

Comments

Learned Hand, to be fair to lamarck, he said he'd post a contrary authority tomorrow, not today.David Kellogg_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT}

---Echidna-Levy ---1. “the analysis of the principles of methods, rules, and postulates employed by a discipline”; ---2. “the systematic study of methods that are, can be, or have been applied within a discipline”; or ---3. “a particular procedure or set of procedures.” ---Does ID have any of that? Of course. Are you aware of the methodology by which the ID scientist draws a design inference?StephenB_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT}

----Echidna-Levy “And when asked “who” you give a single name. Ha. Better use the singluar next time.” Dave Scot is not the only agnostic that accepts ID. There are plenty of others. Dr. Robert Jastrow, author of God and the Astronomers, wrote, “The scientist has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak. As he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” Dr. Steve Fuller, who often posts on this site, supports ID, and I understand he is an agnostic. Dr. David Berlinski, another agnostic, who, if not a strong advocate, is sypathetic to ID, and lectures against Darwinism There are even a few atheists who support ID. You have yet to familiarize yourself with the subject. ----“The oldest of four brothers, Judge Jones, who is 50, attended a private school, Mercersburg Academy, and later Dickinson College and the Dickinson School of Law. Asked if he was religious, he said he attended a Lutheran church favored by his wife, but not every Sunday” Wow. He goes to church when if feels like it to please his wife. Now there is a real devout believer. More Panda’s Thumb pablum. -----Sounds like Judge Jones should have some sort of ethics complaint brought against him. I wonder why that has not happened?” You did not think that question through, did you? You can’t bring a complaint against a judge for being a Darwinist lap dog. -----“Perhaps because it was a perfectly valid course of action?” Perhaps you should confront the argument that has been presented. Micheal Behe’s words were twisted. ID was declared a faith based methodology, when it is clearly an empirically based methodology. ----“Just like in science, sometimes things are overturned. When that does not happen you can conclude something from that. You have to come to some sort of conclusion to progress. And the judgement has been made. You lost.” Unfortunately, you seem to be in the same boat with LH. You think that anything that comes out of a court is justice. ----“You can complain about it from now till the sun explodes but it won’t change anything.” I can always tell everyone that Judge Jones is a mendacious judge. ----“Prove that copying any amount of one sides argument into your conclusion is not a very common thing and perhaps I’ll bother to put some effort into my answer next time.” I don’t try to prove anything to Darwists. If they were open to reasoned arguments, they wouldn't be Darwinists. I write for those who are interested in the evidence.StephenB_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT}

I wonder what happened to lamarck? He sounded so sure of himself. Perhaps his source didn't pan out. David Kellogg's citation is powerful authority. Posner is one of the most respected living judges, and probably on the top ten list of non-Supreme Court Justices from the 20th century. Not a huge fan of his work myself, but there are few greater authorities on the work judges do. Judge Jones was not bound by Judge Posner, though. Jones was bound by the third circuit, which held in Bright v. Westmoreland County that excerpting proposed findings of fact is permissible: "We have held that the adoption of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law supplied by prevailing parties after a bench trial, although disapproved of, is not in and of itself reason for reversal." (Appellate courts set the rules for lower judges by deciding, inter alia, what is error that warrants reversal.) Appellate courts don't like such excerpting, as discussed above, but the court atop Jones explicitly permits it. There is a line where such copying becomes unethical and reversible error, and the Third Circuit explores it in Bright. There, they reversed a district court judge for copying because (a) he copied more than just proposed findings of fact, (b) he gave no indication of independent reasoning, and ( c) it gave the losing party no chance to object to the proposed order. None of those factors apply to Judge Jones. He excerpted the plaintiffs' proposed findings of fact, as courts do every day. His selective rejection of individual facts is exactly the sort of evidence reviewing courts look to in order to ensure that the court was applying an original analysis. And of course, defendants at Dover had every opportunity to object to plaintiffs' proposed findings of fact; they submitted their own proposed findings. So, we have the binding precedent (if there is any later precedent on this issue, I am not aware of it) establishing that the use of the proposed findings of fact was permissible. And we have a discussion, from the controlling court, of what factors would make such use unacceptable, none of which apply to Kitzmiller. This will not be persuasive to any person who is upset about the ruling. The actual rule, as with Rules of Evidence 610 and 611, is tangential to the core, unalterable fact that the judge made a ruling that some people don't like. Nothing will ever excuse him for that. For as long as there is an ID movement, its supporters will castigate Jones. Because there is no objective evidence of bias or impropriety, however, he will continue to enjoy the absence of any criticism from the rest of the world.Learned Hand_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT}

Seems like KF escaped to the BARB thread.sparc_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT}

David, What line in my post 609 justify's your statement "Here he embraces the science of the statement he just said was not science.” Vividvividbleau_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

lamarck, I'm intrigued. I make no claims to legal expertise, though I have some expertise in issues of academic plagiarism.David Kellogg_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

David, it would SEEM to an onlooker that you have in fact corrected me utterly. It would SEEM that you're attack goes to the exact heart of the matter, and shrivels it to nothing. However my next post will show that this is not the case at all, and that YOU are the one who is entirely in the wrong here. You ask how could that possibly be? I refuted him precisely? I will show you, but it'll take a few minutes and I'll want to be around to respond. I have to go right now I'll be back tomorrow night. If this thread is closed I'll post it in the newest thread. I do have more than an idea, a reference will be attached.lamarck_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

Correction in 640: "greater or lesser extent"David Kellogg_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

lamarck, the above is my answer to your 639. Do you have any evidence on your side?David Kellogg_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

Richard Posner, The Little Book of Plagiarism (Pantheon, 2007):
Most nonlawyers probably think judges write their own opinions. Only a small minority of us do nowadays; the others edit their law clerks' opinion drafts to a greater a lesser extent -- sometimes so extensively that the judge deserves to be considered a coauthor or even the principal coauthor of the opinion, though not the sole author. Judges or their clerks sometimes insert into their opinions, without attribution, verbatim passages from lawyers' briefs; and many orders, findings of fact, and other documents signed by judges are actually prepared entirely by the parties' lawyers, again without attribution. Yet judges sign thier opinions and orders as if they were the sole authors, and they refer to one another's opinions as if written by the judge named as the author.
Posner is a judge on the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.David Kellogg_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

Echidna, You are incorrect and Stephen is correct. Over 90% cut and paste is NOT "perfectly acceptable, normal, everyday, acceptable, fine, dandy, great, OK to “cut and paste” in such decisions.” But why should evidence be provided for you? Why don't YOU provide evidence that this is a usual practice. You have such certainty. You must think evidence doesn't exist one way or the other, call my bluff?lamarck_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

Not only did the Darwinists stretch the words, they stretched the context. In fact, plausibilty has nothing at all to do with validity. The sentence in question is about plausibility. It uses the word “validity” not, as you seem to believe, in the sense of objective validity, but in the sense of subjective validity. It is discussing Behe’s admission that ID proponents’ religious beliefs are connected to their belief in the validity of ID—the belief in the validity of something being synonymous with “plausibility.” The sentence cannot be fairly read any other way. That section of the opinion is the court’s Lynch analysis, which asks whether the policy is a government endorsement of religion. The subsection discusses whether observers would perceive ID as a religious theory. The sub-subsection is about whether ID proponents perceive it as a religious theory. The paragraph is about specific statements from Johnson, Dembski, Behe and the DI, demonstrating their perception of ID as a religious theory. The sentence is from the part of the paragraph concerning Behe’s perspective. From the section to the sentence, the entire analysis is about the perception of ID. No part of it is about ID’s objective validity, which is not addressed anywhere in the opinion. (At least, in the sense of whether ID is true. Whether ID is science is discussed after the section in question.) You’ve told us that you don’t want to read things related to the standards the court applied. But you must read the Kitzmiller opinion itself if you want to understand it. Cover to cover, the whole 100+ pages. The little snippets, excerpts and quotes upon which you’ve been relying just aren’t enough—without understanding the context and flow of the logic, you wind up making mistakes like this. I know it’s long, and I know it’s boring, but it’s necessary. A good exercise would be to see if you can run through the sections in your head—not verbatim, but one at a time, to see if you can follow the 1-2-3 of the court’s process. If you can’t, you don’t have any business parsing individual words from acontextual excerpts. This isn’t just pedantry; your error shows why it’s so important to insist on reading the opinion.Learned Hand_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

StephenB
Behe described the ID scientific methodology
Methodology can be defined as: 1. "the analysis of the principles of methods, rules, and postulates employed by a discipline"; 2. "the systematic study of methods that are, can be, or have been applied within a discipline"; or 3. "a particular procedure or set of procedures." Does ID have any of that? No, plenty of books aimed at seperating people from their money, but " a systematic study of methods that can be applied within a discipline"? I don't think so. Perhaps you can provide it? Or are you talking about Kariosfocus and FSCI?Echidna-Levy_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

StephenB
Why should I go to the trouble of verifying for you something you should already know?
You said
Atheists and agnostics also believe in ID
And when asked "who" you give a single name. Ha. Better use the singluar next time.
Further, what evidence do you have that Judge Jones has “religious” beliefs.
His own words.
The oldest of four brothers, Judge Jones, who is 50, attended a private school, Mercersburg Academy, and later Dickinson College and the Dickinson School of Law. Asked if he was religious, he said he attended a Lutheran church favored by his wife, but not every Sunday
Lots more here http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/judge-jones-a-d-1.html Do you research what you write?
tell you Darwinist colleagues to stop their motive mongering and start talking about methodology.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&scoring=r&q=evolution&as_ylo=2007&btnG=Search
If you think that copying 90.9% of the ACLU’s partisan pablum constitutes sound jurisprudential wisdom, I am happy to leave you in your fantasy world.
Provide evidence that this is not standard pratice in law or admit you are wrong.
Obviously, you have no sense of proportionality. Copying part of a brief for administrative purposes is one thing, but copying someone’s thinking almost exclusively is a totally different thing.
Sounds like Judge Jones should have some sort of ethics complaint brought against him. I wonder why that has not happened? Perhaps because it was a perfectly valid course of action?
So what it if was an unjust decision, you say, it can always be appealed. Let the judges violate all standards of justice anytime they like because there is always a higher court.
Just like in science, sometimes things are overturned. When that does not happen you can conclude something from that. You have to come to some sort of conclusion to progress. And the judgement has been made. You lost. You can complain about it from now till the sun explodes but it won't change anything.
It the decision wasn’t wrong, you would have a better response than this
Prove that copying any amount of one sides argument into your conclusion is not a very common thing and perhaps I'll bother to put some effort into my answer next time.Echidna-Levy_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

It is clear that Judge Jones twisted Behe’s words and misrepresented his intent. ---David: "Not even remotely." Let the reader decide. My explanations concerning Behe's own remarks and Judge Jones' scandalous misrepresentaion of them are at 534, 540, 608, and 631. Your attempt to refute and lay the blame at Behe's feet is at 535 and 605.StephenB_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

-----Echidna-Levy ------Name 20 [agnostics that believe in ID] and I’ll give $50 to the charity of your choice. Why should I go to the trouble of verifying for you something you should already know? Dave Scot, agnostic and former chief ID administrator, made the case for ID as well as anyone. ----“Judge Jones is a good old boy, appointed by George Bush and I believe holds religious beliefs. What does that have to do with anything? Ken Miller, anti-ID activist, claims to have religious beliefs. George Will, who is a Republican, hates ID. Further, what evidence do you have that Judge Jones has “religious” beliefs. Do you even read what you write. ----“Creationism is plausible to uneducated people. As soon as they reach a particular level of education they stop beliving in such rot. Hey, plausibility is your gig, not mine. If you don’t think plausibility is a good measure for assessing the validity of ID, tell you Darwinist colleagues to stop their motive mongering and start talking about methodology. ----“It’s perfectly acceptable, normal, everyday, acceptable, fine, dandy, great, OK to “cut and paste” in such decisions.” If you think that copying 90.9% of the ACLU’s partisan pablum constitutes sound jurisprudential wisdom, I am happy to leave you in your fantasy world. Obviously, you have no sense of proportionality. Copying part of a brief for administrative purposes is one thing, but copying someone’s thinking almost exclusively is a totally different thing. ----“And the decision is not binding in the whole of the USA you know! Another similar case may refer to it but it’s not bound by it.” So what it if was an unjust decision, you say, it can always be appealed. Let the judges violate all standards of justice anytime they like because there is always a higher court. -----“If the decision was wrong for all the reasons you’ve given in this thread then you’ll win next time round.” It the decision wasn’t wrong, you would have a better response than this.StephenB_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

It is clear that Judge Jones twisted Behe’s words and misrepresented his intent.
Not even remotely.David Kellogg_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

StephenB
Behe described the ID scientific methodology and dramatized the difference between creationism and intellignet design.
they can't be that different if you can turn a creationist textbook into a ID textbook by searching for "creationist" and replacing it with "intelligent design".
Atheists and agnostics also believe in ID?
Name 20 and I'll give $50 to the charity of your choice. <blockquoteJudge Jones was equally aware that this addition was necessary to sustain the unjust initiative, so he included in his final decision But why? AFAIK Judge Jones is a good old boy, appointed by George Bush and I believe holds religious beliefs. What's his motive for what you accuse him of?
Creation science is plausible to a lot of people, and so is Darwinism.
Creationism is plausible to uneducated people. As soon as they reach a particular level of education they stop beliving in such rot. Mostly.
which is also expressed in Judge “copycat” Jones’ cut and paste decision,
You see StephenB, this is where you lose what credability you have. It's perfectly acceptable, normal, everyday, acceptable, fine, dandy, great, OK to "cut and paste" in such decisions. You have agreed with one side in a case. You have accepted their arguments. Your decision supports their arguments. YOU USE THEIR ARGUMENTS IN YOUR WRITTEN DECISION. It happens every day, in dozens of cases. The fact that you claim this is some sort of unusual behaviour that proves some sort of malicious intent or something done wrongly just speaks to how desperate you are to find anything at all to clutch onto to say why the decision was wrong. Pathetic. And the decision is not binding in the whole of the USA you know! Another similar case may refer to it but it's not bound by it. And yet no other district/group have made a similar case. If the decision was wrong for all the reasons you've given in this thread then you'll win next time round. You'll be a long time waiting however, I suspect.Echidna-Levy_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

I will make one final [I hope] summary on the matter of Michael Behe. It is clear that Judge Jones twisted Behe's words and misrepresented his intent. We have presented numerous examples in which Behe described the ID scientific methodology and dramatized the difference between creationism and intellignet design. Our adversaries don't dare even mention those quotes because they are so obvious that there is nothing in the phrases that can be twisted. On the other hand, Behe also responded to the question about whether ID is a “God friendly” theory. Critics say that his answer indicates that, somehow, hidden in his words, lies an implicit admission that ID is a faith based methodology. When we examine Behe’s actual written and oral statements, however, and ask his accusers to justify their claim, they can provide no rational reason for holding that view. On the contrary, their best shot was to suggest that Behe seemed nervous and equivocal during his testimony and, therefore, must surely have be hiding something. This is analysis? How does anyone detect nervousness from a written transcript? What could be more bizarre? Darwinists, who emphatically deny that ID can draw inferences about design in nature, claim that they can draw inferences about Behe’s mental state from a written transcript. The most problematic quote the Darwinists could muster up from Behe’s writing was this one: “As a matter of my own experience the answer is clearly yes, the argument is less plausible to those for whom God’s existence is in question, and is much less plausible for those who deny God’s existence.” But that statement is not problematic in the least. If you believe in God, ID will be more plausible, just as if you disbelieve in God, Darwinism will be more plausible. It’s really very simple. Further, the more you believe in God, the more plausible it will become. Obviously, that is true. Does that mean, as Judge Jones and the ACLU claim that Behe meant that ID’s plausibility DEPENDS UPON the extent to which one believes in God? Of course not. Atheists and agnostics also believe in ID? Does it mean that Darwinism’s plausibility depends on the extent to which one is an atheist? Of course not. Many who believe in God also accept Darwinism. Since Behe’s words cannot be stretched to fit the Darwinist agenda, a point the ACLU was apparently aware of, they knew that producing them in their pure form would not serve their agenda. Surpassing the analysis of our present critics, they understood that something would have to be added to Behe’s words to make the stretch they wanted to make. That is why, in responding to Behe’s statements in which he used the word “plausibility,” they included the needed phrases to change the meaning. Judge Jones was equally aware that this addition was necessary to sustain the unjust initiative, so he included in his final decision. Since we would not allow Darwinists to rewrite Behe’s passages on this site, their arguments quickly fell apart. Further, as Scott Andrews pointed out, it is really a double stretch. Not only did the Darwinists stretch the words, they stretched the context. In fact, plausibilty has nothing at all to do with validity. A theory could be plausible all day long and have no validity at all and vice versa. Creation science is plausible to a lot of people, and so is Darwinism. So, by avoiding he point of validity and obsessing over the subject of plausibility ACLU Darwinists gained a great deal of rhetorical mileage. This strategy was calculated to shift the discussion from methods to motives. Indeed, the entire ACLU argument against ID, which is also expressed in Judge “copycat” Jones’ cut and paste decision, can be summarized in two words--- motive mongering.StephenB_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

Clive, I want to respond to you re: kairosfocus.
Next time, kindly inform onlookers a little more accurately on just what I compared to just what [i.e. techniques]; and how you then portrayed that as though it were what it is not — a comparison of persons, not techniques — then tried to turn that into occasion to try to have me put on moderation.
Ah: techniques, not persons. He didn't say that I am like Hitler. He just said I'm acting like Hitler. Shall that be the standard of acceptability?David Kellogg_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus: SHAME ON YOU! a Christian should know and act better! You are a disgrace to the religion. Go look up the word Hypocrite then think long and hard about the teachings of Jesus.Excession_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

KF, Observe, Mr Kellog et al have yet to adderess the matters at stake on the merits, but resort to yet another polarising distractor. You complain constantly about how you are misrepresented. Are those jeremiads also "polarising distractors," or is that just when someone objects to your Nazi smears?Learned Hand_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

Finally, Mr Kellogg: Next time, kindly inform onlookers a little more accurately on just what I compared to just what [i.e. techniques]; and how you then portrayed that as though it were what it is not -- a comparison of persons, not techniques -- then tried to turn that into occasion to try to have me put on moderation. All that in a context where you were only yesterday complaining against my demonstrably accurate excerpt of What Mer Lewontin had to say in NYRB in 1997! GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: All I can say is that to date, Mr Kellogg -- having made serious charges indeed against a great many people -- has failed to seriously address matters on the merits, has routinely used red herring distractors, led out to strawmannish distortions soaked in ad hominems, and ignited to cloud and polarise the atmosphere. He has yet to cogently respond to substantial corrections, and has now resorted to a turnabout accusation that used quote mining to twist my words -- yet again -- out of their context. (Ironically, the words quote mined were words correcting an earlier exercise in quote mining.) I can only conclude that he has resorted to such tactics because he has no substantive case to make on the merits. in particular, it should be evident to all who will but look therein that TMLO is precisely not a simplistic anti-evolution creationist tract, as Mr Kellogg et al would falsely label and dismiss it. (At length he has conceded that it is indeed a "monograph," but then tried to continue to tag it with a simplistically misleading label. Compare the excerpted conclusions in Ch 9, above to his remarks; to see just how strawmannish his representation of the monograph is.) I think as well that it is highly significant that once I had dug up and brought out the want of merits int he equivocvation accusation against Mr Johnson, we have seen precisely no substantial response form Mr Kellogg. Similarly, it is very clear that Mr Behe was distorted by ACLU/Jones. And much more along that line. In short, the darwinist advocates are waging an utterly unprincipled propagandistic culture war, using the very worst kind of rhetorical play-book to do so. So bad is it that to simply point out the amply documented facts is to find them playing the victim; instead of trying to do better. That is truly sad. for the sake of our civlisation, I hope that some at least of the Darwinist advocates will wake up, come tot heir senses, realise the kind of game they have been playing and the horrible place where it -- per several of the saddest chapters of recent history -- all too predictably leads. For, if we refuse to learn form history, we are doomed to repeat it. At a price far too dear to even think about. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

Clive, I'm not speaking to kairosfocus any more, but to you I will say that, with regard to his demand for me to apologize for his comparison, I will not play the role of Harry Whittington.David Kellogg_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

UD Moderators: I believe it is fair comment to say that Mr Kellogg, as I have just discussed, is playing the "innocent victim" card, based on distorting my words and their patent context -- yet again. I have compared rhetorical techniques, not persons. And the Darwinist advocate rhetorical techniques in question -- distraction, distortion, demonisation, dismissal, turnabout accusation -- unfortunately, are well documented; including several times above in this thread. I have called for correction of techniques and claims that are likely to confuse rather than clarify the matters at stake, only to be now falsely accused of comparing Mr Kellogg to Hitler. I find this further behaviour by Mr Kellogg frankly outrageous. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: Observe, Mr Kellog et al have yet to adderess the matters at stake on the merits, but resort to yet another polarising distractor. I beg to draw the following from Aristotle's the Rhetoric to our attention, in light of that unfortunate routine resort of Darwinist commenters:
Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker [ethos]; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind [pathos]; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself [logos]. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker's personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible . . . Secondly, persuasion may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile . . . Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question . . . .
So, I now need to make a few direct remarks, pardon, moderators: _____________ Mr Kellogg: Not so fast! Au contraire, above I and others have repeatedly DEMONSTRATED (with abundant evidence) that you and your ilk have routinely resorted to a propaganda tactic of willful -- it is now past mere ignorance or negligence -- counterfactual distortion that leads to unnecessary demonisation and polarisation. I have, in that context, made reference to a well-known major historical user of that tactic (who as the linked Wikipedia discussion will show, did so by projecting onto others what he himself did routinely. That is, his technique was to not only use distortions of truth but to compound his own manipulations by turnabout accusation designed to cast his victims as the real culprits; though the rhetoric of immoral equivalency.) That comparison of amply demonstrated rhetorical TECHNIQUE -- contrary to your playing the innocent victim card just now -- does not compare you as a person to Hitler [it is REALLY hard to get into the class of that demoniacal madman and false political messiah . . . ], but INSTEAD identifies and gives a relevant major exponent of a notorious but highly effective rhetorical tactic that is now DEMONSTRABLY unfortunately a routine resort of Darwinist advocates. (NB: Why do you think the French circa 1939 - 40 were so half-hearted in standing up to him until it was too late? Turnabout propaganda works, only too well. That is why it is vital to expose it; as I have done. [And no, no personal comparison to Hitler was intended. But, please stop using rhetorical techniques he and his henchmen pioneered.]) And, that turnabout and distortion of truth are routine resorts of Darwinists is shown not only all over the Internet, but several times above in this thread; with all due respect. Furthermore, I have drawn out from your much repeated ACTION of dismissing the monograph TMLO without addressing its arguments on the merits even ONCE; by instead choosing to focus on what is now plainly a smear word label, "creationists." Perhaps you have forgotten: ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. I repeat: YOU, sir, owe an apology to Mr Johnson. You owe apologies to Messrs Kenyon, Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen. And you owe apologies to several commenters in this and other threads; for the frequent, indeed habitual, use of the rhetorical tactic of distractions, distortions, demonisation and dismissals. So, please do not pretend to be an innocent victim unjustly set upon without cause or warrant. Indeed, even this latest tactic of accusing me of appeal ad Hitleram, is an unjustifierd rhetorical resort resting on quote-mining and twisting what I have said. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

Clive, is there a moderation rule about comparing other people on this board to Hitler? Just curious.David Kellogg_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

Well, I'll add one more point (nothing Hitler-like about that, eh KF?). kairosfocus ends last comment with this:
So, onlookers, you judge: technical monograph or “mere” religious tract?
I never called it a tract, and I never used the word "mere." Both of those are kairosfocus's contribution, quote marks to the contrary. kairosfocus, along with not comparing me to Hitler, please don't ascribe to me positions I have not taken. In fact, kairosfocus offers a false choice: TMLO is a technical monograph supporting what the authors themselves call "special creation."David Kellogg_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 26 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply