In my post of 10/27/04 12:15 I reference â??error in reasoningâ? as a fallacy in the traditional definition of debaters; as follows:

â??A fallacy is a kind of error in reasoning. Fallacies should not be persuasive, but they often are. Fallacies may be created unintentionally, or they may be created intentionally in order to deceive other people. The vast majority of the commonly identified fallacies involve arguments, although some involve explanations, or definitions, or other products of reasoning."

Sometimes the term "fallacy" is used even more broadly to indicate any false belief or cause of a false belief.â? The example you cite is indeed a fallacy often called â??Affirming the consequentâ? or â??circular reasoning.â?

â??Loaded languageâ? is also a fallacy sometimes called â??prejudicial languageâ? which refers to emotive terminology that expresses value judgments. When used in what appears to be an objective description, the terminology unfortunately can cause the reader to adopt those values when in fact no good reason has been given for doing so.

Letâ??s look at some other examples:
Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
I don't live in Canada, so I don't know how you define an "error in reasoning" there.


Your assertion in this post is that I am â??not welcome to highjack the thread that Rex startedâ? and that I â??have now steered us into a different topic:â? Either the above statement is irrelevant to your assertion or it is a veiled attempt to commit the fallacy of â??guilty by association.â? Or perhaps you are attempting the classic â??genetic fallacyâ? which is an attempt to discredit an argument by virtue of its origin.

And by the way â?¦ that choice that I just gave you is a fallacy called â??bifurcationâ? or â??false dilemma.â? Forcing a decision between only two choices where in fact many more may exist.

Additionally, you commit the fallacy of â??jumping to a conclusionâ? about where I live, (which I infer from your statement about where you donâ??t live) as well as the â??red herringâ? fallacy which is the introduction of an irrelevant issue intended to obscure the point.

There are dozens of examples of all of these fallacies, and many more, throughout this thread â??? posted by Kerry supporters as well as Bush supporters. Please do not â??jump to the conclusionâ? that this implies I believe all assertions to be false, or even that I believe those supported by fallacies are untrue.

The rest of your post contains similar examples, but in deference to the length of this one, Iâ??ll save them for later. Now to your assertions.

Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
"Error in reasoning" does not mean using "loaded language,"


In fact, it does â??? please see above.

Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
But here in the U.S., it means "illogical reasoning."


Okay, but this would appear to be irrelevant â??? your definition here is not substantially different from the one Iâ??m using.

Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
After reading your last post, I see you did not provide any examples of illogical reasoning from my posts.


This in no way refutes my assertion â??? the absence of evidence is no evidence of absence. (A good line for Bush supporters in reference to WMD, donâ??t you think? ;-) )

Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
Every statement I have made follows logically from the premises I have stated.


You stating so, doesn't make it so. There are many who disagree with you here. But perhaps their evidence features the same fallacies.

Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
Want to try again to find an illogical statement in my posts?


No thank you, because the subject I refer to is "error in reasoning" as a "fallacy" and not what you think is logical - not even close to the same thing. Instead, Iâ??d rather you would restate all your assertions, this time quoting your non-partisan sources, and making sure you engage in no fallacy. Obviously time constraints preclude either one of us from doing so.

Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
It looks like you took a Rhetoric Theory class, but you didn't quiet understand the material.


In addition to â??red herringâ? and â?¦ never mind. This has no relevance to whether or not my points are correct, whether or not I am hijacking this thread, and whether or not I have steered us into a different direction; which I suppose is exactly the same thing.

Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
Here on CEG you are welcome to opine on the election and the American electoral process.


Thank you â??? I read the rules and try to abide by them.

Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
You are not welcome to highjack the thread that Rex started.


Understood â??? I am happy to abide by Mr. Barneâ??s wishes and/or the direction of a moderator. Unless you are a moderator, however, I do not accept your authority to make the decision.

Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
We covered a number of meaningful points, and there are many left to cover.


If you mean unsubstantiated, full of rhetoric, full of fallacy points, I guess you might be on to something.

Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
You have now steered us into a different topic: the quality of discourse in the American electoral process.


It is true I have made comment about the electoral process in this thread. In every instance, however, I have tried to make a direct connection to the intent of this thread, which as you will recall started with Mr. Barnes list. I sense from your tone that you believe I directed my original comments about unsubstantiated claims at you; I assure you, I did not.

However, after patiently waiting for an intelligent dialogue to begin on what I think is a subject of paramount importance (thank you Mr. Barnes), what I spent my time reading was tantamount to name calling and â??Heâ??s an idiot, you support him, therefore youâ??re an idot.â?

And although I happen to believe much of what was in Mr. Barneâ??s list, I am also not so na?¯ve to think that what I know as absolute, unadulterated fact, outweighs what I donâ??t know. Can you say differently? I am not a fanatic ... and so by virtue of definition, I leave my mind open to the possibility that I am wrong.

Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
Please start a different thread if you want to discuss that topic.


Only if you promise not to post ;-)

Seriously - Mr. Barnes if you feel my input is unwelcome, I will respect your wishes and go to "read only" mode.

Cheers.