From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 22:27:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <BtyFFK.512@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> In article <1992Sep01.231720.34638@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
> >In  <Btx4G6.E2y@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> >> In article <1992Sep01.191402.16457@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com wri
> >>
> >> >And it's not enforcing beliefs, any more than the killing of cattle
> >> >being legal enforcing beliefs on those believe cattle to be holy.
> >> >They are still free to believe any way they like; what they are not free
> >> >to do is act on those beliefs in such a way as to violate the rights
> >> >of other people.
> >>
> >> Interesting.  So human fetuses are roughly equivalent to cattle.
> >
> >Perhaps you should have someone explain the concept of an analogy to you.
>
> Let's see, I guess old Noah Webster died a few years back, but
> maybe his successors could explain the concept of "analogy" to
> this poor person lacking a proper education:
>
>  1: inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some
>  respects they will prob. agree in others

analogy (n)
DEFINITIONS:
1   inference that if two or more things
    agree with one another in some respects
    they will prob. agree in others
2   resemblance in some particulars between
    things otherwise unlike : SIMILARITY
3   correspondence between the members of
    pairs or sets of linguistic forms that
    serves as a basis for the creation of
    another form
4   correspondence in function between
    anatomical parts of different structure
    and origin
(c) G. & C. Merriam

Note "otherwise unlike" in definition 2; you probably saw this in your
dictionary as well.

> Your position seems to be:
>
>    legal(kill(cattle))  does_not_imply  enforce(belief(unsanctity(cattle)))
>    legal(kill(fetus))   does_not_imply  enforce(belief(unsanctity(fetus)))

Not exactly; since I don't think that anti-abortionists believe the fetus
is holy (although some act that way), "unsanctity" isn't quite right.

> Well, these agree in "legal," "kill," "does_not_imply," "enforce,"
> "belief," "unsanctity," and they seem only to differ in "cattle" vs. "fetus."
> And my guess is that, being an observant person, you claim (implicitly?):
>
>    legal(kill(cattle))
>    legal(kill(fetus))
>
>
> Thus, you seem to claim that both "cattle" and "fetus" lie within the domain
> for X in the following statements:
>
> 1.   legal(kill(X))       does_not_imply  enforce(belief(unsanctity(X)))
> 2.   legal(kill(X))
> 3.   not(enforce(belief(unsanctity(X))))
>
> in which case it is not unreasonable to infer that "cattle" and "fetus"
> probably agree in other respects.

You were doing pretty well up until the last sentence.  How about
preceding the numbered statements with "For all X, ".

> This is not to say that they +necessarily+ agree, nor that you
> +implied+ they agree.  But to +infer+ that they probably agree
> is precisely one of the primary effects (and purposes) of analogy.

Given your numbered statements, whoever I was addressing asserted
that legal(...) *did* imply enforce(...).  I was using the same
relationships but with a different X that did not carry the same
emotional involvement to them, but which does for others.

I think a simpler formula might be:
   legal(X)    does_not_imply   enforce(belief(f(X)))

with the various substitutions for X and f being:
   kill fetus, moral
   kill cattle, sanctity
   transfer blood, moral

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion