Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sfmag.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!mhuxm!sftig!sftri!sfmag!samet
From: samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: inappropriate debating tactics
Message-ID: <588@sfmag.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 30-May-85 23:26:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: sfmag.588
Posted: Thu May 30 23:26:14 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 31-May-85 23:48:10 EDT
References: <682@mtx5d.UUCP> <5306@fortune.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Summit, NJ
Lines: 26

> In this case though, I would argue that the author was attempting
> to show that racism and sexism (particularly orientationism) are
> very similar.  Anti-semitic tirades are ugly and should be opposed
> by all reasonable people.  Anti-homosexual tirades are just as ugly,
> and should be opposed by the same reasonable people. 

The "reasoning" in the straw-man approach was:

	Antisemitism is bad. (ASSUMPTION)
	Anti-homosexuality is bad. (ASSUMPTION)
	Anti-homosexuality is like antisemitism. (ASSUMPTION)
	If you are anti-homosexual you are like an antisemite. (CONCLUSION)
	Since antisemitism is bad anti-homosexuality is bad. (CIRCULAR CONCLUSION)

Note that the final conclusion is the same as the initial assumption. 

> It is sometimes
> usefull to show people how the same sort of "logic" that they use
> to condem others can be applied to themselves also.

I did not use any sort of false logic to "prove" that homosexuality is bad. 
I simply stated the fact that the Torah considers this to be  abominable.
R. Rosen was  therefore not mirroring any of my logic. He was simply camoflaging
his arbitrary assumption via the guise of a logical argument.

				Yitzchok Samet