Not that I really want to enter or revive the discussion on this expression, but here it is in an article I came upon in Masterfile:


 ARE COMPUTERS AND THE INTERNET MAKING
                       US LAZY WRITERS?

  There's no substitute for effective writing, but technology can make us better communicators.
It's true. There still are many communicators pounding out copy on typewriters. Even
 manual typewriters. I personally know of two solo PR practitioners, both with decent
 big-city accounts, who still prepare press releases manually. And it seems that it was
 not much more than a couple of years ago that a major suburban magazine was still
 being produced by typewriter and typesetter.

 This begs the question, not necessarily rhetorical: Can the computer or the Internet
 make its user a good writer?



      Source: Editor's Workshop, Oct96 Issue N, p12, 1p.

      Item Number: 9610120301




<<< Reinhold Schlieper <[log in to unmask]> 10/19  3:30p >>>
No need to apologize; it's OK to disagree.  And yet, "human" also varies between
"featherless biped" and "rational animal," the latter being under assault
continually with insights into dolphins and chimps, no?   There may even be a
context in which Socrates may be considered "immortal" or nothing at all--if he
were to be a mere rhetorical device of Plato's, no?

Ahhh, the relativity of it all, ne c'est pas?

==Cheers, Reinhold

"Paul E. Doniger" wrote:

> Okay, one last comment, and I'll keep me mouth shut!
>
> Regarding R.S.'s last reposte:
>
> >I suppose we could pursue the matter, couldn't we?  If value judgments are
> >called for, I would certainly insist that capital punishment is murder
> indeed
> >and that no equivocation has taken place at all here.
>
> Well the key idea here are your words, "I would certainly insist, "
> sugesting that the matter is one of opinion and not fact. If the definition
> of the term is one that has multiple interpretations - or can be argued -
> then the possibility exists that there will be an opportunity for abuse.
>
> What matters is not who is "right" (people will disagree forever), but who
> is being honest and true in his/her argument. Begging the question, like all
> falacious arguments, is a form of dishonesty - because it disguises (evades)
> the definition of its terms (what is 'murder'?).
>
> Consequently, your analogous syllogism:
>
> >That's the same as the All
> >humans are mortals; Socrates is a human; thus, Socrates is a mortal.
>
> Alas, it is NOT the same. The analogy breaks down quickly: The terms "human"
> and "mortal" are not open to interpretation as is the term "murder." There
> is never any need for begging this question because there isn't any question
> at all. The capital punishment = murder argument is open to disagreement;
> the Socrates = human = mortal "argument" is not!
>
> I have to agree with Bill:
>
> >> I see it as an example of begging the question because it avoids the
> issue
> >> of defining murder.
>
> Sorry,
>
> Paul D.