The formula "are you saying that ---?" is commonly used in bushwack journalism. The stronger form of this is "so, you are saying that ---". It is part of the armamentarium of bushwack journalism whereby the person is led into dangerous, self-incriminating territory. It's also called "rat-trapping". I don't know how fair it is to characterize something as "rat-trapping" if it only draws out the logical and inevitable implications of another person's postion.
My response is "I am saying exactly what I have just stated explicitly; not more, less or otherwise." Even explict statments have broader implications.
I don't know how fair it is to characterize something as "rat-trapping" if it only draws out the logical and inevitable implications of another person's postion.
No it doesn't. It attempts to shove the person into a corner where that person has no intention of going, but where the questioner whats to trap him. That's why it's properly called "rat-trapping".
My response is "I am saying exactly what I have just stated explicitly; not more, less or otherwise." Even explict statments have broader implications.
Let the person being interviewed detail the broader implication as he intends, not as the questioners intends.
Kimball
Walk Your Own DharmaPath; be awake.
The Socratic Standard: Follow the evidence;____ if it doesn't make sense, it's bull$#!+.
I don't know how fair it is to characterize something as "rat-trapping" if it only draws out the logical and inevitable implications of another person's postion.
No it doesn't. It attempts to shove the person into a corner where that person has no intention of going, but where the questioner whats to trap him. That's why it's properly called "rat-trapping".
Well, Since most of us do not like rats, then perhaps "rat-trapping" may not be a bad thing.
My response is "I am saying exactly what I have just stated explicitly; not more, less or otherwise." Even explict statments have broader implications.
Let the person being interviewed detail the broader implication as he intends, not as the questioners intends.
It has been my experience in this forum that many people are totally unaware of the broader implications of their statements. You are an exception, Dutch.