At Wed, 10 Feb 1999 16:17:41 -0700, you wrote:
>
>At 04:19 PM 2/10/99 -0500, joe dees wrote:
>
>>Mother Nature and evolution through natural selection have gotten us where
>>we are so far. Is this an argument for or against allowing them to proceed
>>uninfluenced?
>
>Yes, indeed. It's called the Natural Law fallacy.
><http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#natural>
Kewl page, but it doesn't answer my question (not that there IS AN answer...). Reread the above Q&A: Q: Is this an argument for or against... A: Yes, indeed. (Huh?)
A + ~ A? That's a contradiction of one of the Laws Of Thought. I dinna think you read carefully (sorry; the No True Scotsman Fallacy was listed immediately under the Natural Law Fallacy, of which my question was not an example (since,,among other things, it's not an assertion).
>David McFadzean david@lucifer.com
>Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/
>Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/
>
>
>
Joe E. Dees
Poet, Pagan, Philosopher