In article <0zyxj.82260$vt2.22767@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
><docdwarf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> William M. Klein <wmklein@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>"terminology" is always a clue to emotional intent.
>>>
>>> Pro-Life vs Anti-Abortion
>>> Pro-Choice vs Pro-Abortion
>>
>> Hmmmmmm... I wonder what kind of intent might be garnered from a
proposing
>> of terms like 'pre-natal', 'para-natal' and 'post-natal'?
>>
>> Some utterly fiendish agenda, assuredly... not even worth responding
to,
>> some might say... or not-say.
>
>Or one might chose to look beyond the surface and see that the issue
>is to what purpose the is taxonomy applied.
Mr McClendon, you asked a question about logic. Given that terms should
be defined before manipulating them logically a division into categories
(taxonomy) was proposed as a basis for dealing with logic.
You were asked, thrice, how that proposal failed.
You refused, thrice, to demonstrate how the taxonomy was flawed and seem
to base your responses on an a priori rejection, not a logical one.
Thrice asked, thrice refused, no more needs be said.
DD
|
