Originally posted by Cow Poke
View Post
(also known as: beside the point, misdirection [form of], changing the subject, false emphasis, the Chewbacca defense, irrelevant conclusion, irrelevant thesis, clouding the issue, ignorance of refutation) Description: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.
Your second mistake is not following the proper course of discussion. What I mean by this is that I introduced a topic for healthy discussion. This requires that we both agree that there may be information available to determine the argument's validity. If you are not able to envision any information being presented that may change your mind regarding the information - then NO, it is not a discussion and I am not obligated to further engage in any discussion with you.
If you agree that any information presented, as I am in agreement here myself, that may change one's understanding, then we move to the next criteria. Which is, if one of our arguments is shown to be faulty, we agree to stop using that argument all together. If you are not in agreement with this, then we no longer have a discussion and I am not obligated to engage in any further discussion with you.
If we both are in agreement on this matter, we move to the next criteria where we abide by the following criteria:
- The position that is more reasonable and has more supporting evidence should be accepted as true
- The person asserting a position bears the onus of demonstrating its truth
We have a discussion and I am more than willing to discuss with you this specific topic - whether or not there is evidence that Christ appeared in the America's where it may regard a specific location that is tied to a specific event
This means:
- We do not introduce new arguments while another argument has yet to be resolved
- Do not move on to another argument if it is shown that a fact you have relied upon is inaccurate
- Provide evidence for your position or arguments
- Do not argue that you do not need evidence
If either of us breaches this proper form of discussion, then we have cheated and the discussion is terminated on the basis:
- You are deemed to have conceded all opposing arguments up to this point
- You forfeit any right to complain about the discussion
If neither of us breached this proper flow of a healthy discussion on this topic (or any other topic) then we have engaged in a rational exchange of ideas.
Therefore, present any logical and objective reasoning that may dispute the argument I am presenting without derailing or shifting the focus to some other topic.
Many attempts have been made to try to explain how Joseph Smith came up with it in the first place.
Again, it brings us right back to my argument and evidence.
Naw, I disagree. None of that matters if Joseph Smith was a fraud.
Again, if you are wanting to have a rational and objective discussion on this, or any other topic, I request we both agree to follow the rules of proper flow of discussion. If you are not willing to agree to that, nor are willing to address my argument and evidence I brought forth in a rational manner, then I am not willing to engage you in any form of discussion on here.
Leave a comment: