Post Reply
Page 6 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6
Switch to Forum Live View Church of England future bleak?
3 years ago  ::  Mar 12, 2012 - 10:03AM #51
Kimball
Posts: 984

Mar 12, 2012 -- 9:06AM, Dutch777 wrote:


Hello again, Dutch:


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. 


Kimball





Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 12, 2012 - 10:42AM #52
Dutch777
Posts: 9,136

Mar 12, 2012 -- 10:03AM, Kimball wrote:


Mar 12, 2012 -- 9:06AM, Dutch777 wrote:


 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









The Path
To Moon Lake
Doesn't Go
There.

So Walk
Your own Dharma*Path
And Be
Mindful

Dutch
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 12, 2012 - 12:30PM #53
Kimball
Posts: 984

  Dutch,


     I will reply in green.


 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. 


Kimball


Kimball


[/quote]



[/quote]



[/quote]


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 12, 2012 - 7:47PM #54
Nino0814
Posts: 1,772

Mar 12, 2012 -- 9:57AM, Kimball wrote:

Do you believe that people can change their sexual orientation?  


In some cases yes and in some cases no.


Kimball



Then we have nothing further to discuss since we do not share the same standards for evaluating this subject.


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 12, 2012 - 8:37PM #55
Kimball
Posts: 984

Mar 12, 2012 -- 7:47PM, Nino0814 wrote:


Mar 12, 2012 -- 9:57AM, Kimball wrote:

Do you believe that people can change their sexual orientation?  


In some cases yes and in some cases no.


Kimball



Then we have nothing further to discuss since we do not share the same standards for evaluating this subject.


 


 YOu have yet to fully state your "standards" be they psychological or moral, Nino.  


  Kimball






Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 6 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook