From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Introduction to Radical Reading Notions....
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:47:23 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper


forgive that this is long, but it appears that Don
will need a little more detail to help him understand
the notion of 'reductio ad absurdum.' I would recommend
to any of our readers the classic tome by the Dear Gentleman
Irving Copi, whom I had the privilege to work with, as a
priliminary starting point.

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
] In article <1992Oct6.203427.8829@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson) writes:
] >In article <BvpsCs.IrE@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
] >>In article <1992Oct6.182636.8965@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
] >>>] In article <1992Oct1.191914.27156@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >>>] 
] >>>] >Given that the Gentleman would KILL a woman for NOT
] >>>] >showing enough/the_right respect for/toward himself,
] >>>] >{and Please, let us not equivocate that he did in
] >>>] >point of fact say that... its been reposted enough }
] >>>] >it is a logical consequence of the argumentative form
] >>>] >to conclude that As He Might Potentially Become a
] >>>] >Murderer of Women as They Might Potentially Show Disrespect,
] >>>] >THEREFORE it is that He is a Murderer of them...
] >>>] 
] >>>] By the logic you are presenting, every person has the potential 
] >>>] to become a murderer, so they are already murderers.
] >>>
] >>>I think that you understand the basic notions
] >>>of the 'argument of potential' quite well....

See Me tell Don that he has the point.

] >>I don't know.  Why don't you ask someone of the "AntiAbortionistMindSet"
] >>or someone who professes an 'argument of potential'?
] >>

see Don Fail to understand that I agree with him.

] >His point eluded you?  Seemed perfectly obvious to me that one can conclude:
 
] >The anti-abortionist "argument of potential" drieux is referring to, I believe
] >argues that since the fetus is a POTENTIAL person, that it should be treated
] >like a person BEFORE it realizes this potential. And that makes about as much
] >sense as a POTENTIAL murderer should be treated as a murderer before s/he
] >realizes this potential.
] 
] This was my impression of what Drieux was saying.

See Don Say that he agrees with my agreeing with him.

] Now, what is the point?  How are "anti-abortionist arguments" 
] relevant to the preceding thread?
] 
] Drieux seems to be defending exactly what you object to:
] the conclusion that a potential murderer (ie. any human being) should
] be treated as a murderer.  His defense is on the grounds that
] a potential person should be treated as a person.
 
See Amusing Confusion on Don's Face, as he fails to understand
that one can argue a propositional structure without having
to take the content of the proposition to heart....

Note that he still does not understand that a reductio ad absurdum
works from the basis of "assume that stoopid proposition P is true,
and thus it follows that Conclusion K is derivable... If you do not
like Conclusion K, perchance you might wish to deal with the
problem of holding proposition P as true. At which point if you
hold that proposition P is FALSE, and can not derive conclusion K
from the available premsises set.... it would seem that P was a
point of contention not worth dealing with."

eg: the car will not start.

Assume that one need not put the key into the ignition is a
valid proposition assertion....

One concludes....

{literary foreshadowing... don may not understand cars...}

] I asked for a clarification of Drieux's purpose in arguing this
] topic (and of its relevance), so that we could avoid smokescreens 
] and straw men.

See Don confuse a reductio ad absurdum with a 'straw man'
as he still does not wish to deal with the fact that he
does not like the conclusion as drawn, and does not wish
to accept the complications of the conclusion as drawn...

But is not at all sure where to go with all of this...

If You can Hold the propositional assertion that
all are murders/rapists/little_green_men_from_mars,
as they have the potential to be such, and therefore
they obviously are such....

Then You too will have no problems with the argument
that an unborn is a born as there is the potential of
being born....

IF on the other hand you have problems with the
argument of potential.... You might wish to
consider that some OTHER option is available.

AND in the specifics of the Case, we return once
again to the fact that the AntiAboritonist have,
and continue to argue the argument of POTENTIAL:

and I have offered the moral quandery:

1. they are speaking as truthfully as they can about the
nature of their reasoning system, and hence we should use
their cultural context to understand their arguments and
behaviors.

2. They are in point of fact NOT speaking truthfully,
and they KNOW THIS, and this lack of moral integrity
needs to be addressed in itself. At which point it is
not clear what sorts of outcomes are even predictable
given that Person A asserts a willingness to Kill
for a lack of respect.


Now are we getting in gear here Don?

ciao
drieux

-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity