Difference between revisions of "Detailed response to CES Letter, Other"

(: mod)
(: mod)
Line 65: Line 65:
 
*Read the author's statement carefully: The author commits the logical fallacy of "Appeal to Ridicule," which, according to Wikipedia,  
 
*Read the author's statement carefully: The author commits the logical fallacy of "Appeal to Ridicule," which, according to Wikipedia,  
 
<blockquote>
 
<blockquote>
is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or in any way humorous, to the specific end of a foregone conclusion that the argument lacks any substance which would merit consideration." ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule Wikipedia entry]''
+
Appeal to ridicule....is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or in any way humorous, to the specific end of a foregone conclusion that the argument lacks any substance which would merit consideration. <br><br>
 +
''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule Wikipedia entry]''
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
 
*FAIR does not "magnify, exaggerate" or "invent shortcomings of early Church leaders."  
 
*FAIR does not "magnify, exaggerate" or "invent shortcomings of early Church leaders."  

Revision as of 11:55, 5 July 2013

  1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3


A FAIR Analysis of:
[[../|Letter to a CES Director]]


A FAIR Analysis of the online document Letter to a CES Director section "Other Concerns & Questions"

This page is still under construction. We welcome any suggestions for improving the content of this FAIR Answers Wiki page.

Names of the Church

Template:CESLetterItem

Template:CESLetterItem

Template:CESLetterItem