From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Introduction to Radical Reading Notions....
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 05:19:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.204723.11845@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>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.

Well, Drieux, I'm sorry you are reduced to such lukewarm flaming,
and I am only too sorry that your occasional capability for sharp
perception has degraded into smoke screens and evasive insults.
I'm also sorry that the revered Dr. Copi could not provide you any 
insights into spelling and style (try, for example, Strunk and White,
_The Elements of Style_, and any good dictionary).

Turning to issues of substance, in one sentence:

Drieux has intentionally raised a straw man argument (the position 
that the unborn are "potential persons"), reduced it ad absurdum, 
and claimed victory over this straw man, all along failing to explain 
its relevance to the original topic (whether an expression of anger, 
such as "I'll kill you if you do that," is necessarily a literal 
declaration of intent to kill) and why its premise should be accepted.


   I challenge Drieux again to explain how the "potential personhood"
   argument is relevant and why its premises should be accepted.

To be explicit, +I+ have not proposed any "potential personhood"
argument.  In this thread, it is entirely an artifice of Drieux's 
(and therefore, any absurd aspects of it reflect his reasoning or 
a still-unexplained link to the main topic).

=============================================================================
End of transmission.  Below is a play-by-play summary for
interested parties (population 0?):

Drieux intentionally misinterpreted a statement made by Will Steeves.

I responded that Will Steeves had already explained that the statement
was not literal but intended to evoke and express emotion.

Drieux responded, apparently sarcastically, that it is "okay" to excuse
violence against women, if one is of the mindset that it is "okay" to
legislate rights of unborn over those of women based on "potential" for life.

I refused to defend this straw man, and pointed out that it (the
"potential" argument) was a straw man.

Drieux connected this straw man (representing the "potential" argument)
to Will Steeves, claiming that his potential to become a murderer
logically implies his being treated as one.

I pointed out to Drieux that his use of the "potential" argument -- 
which he alone brought into the discussion -- thus implies that all 
people should be treated as murders.

Drieux seemed to try to justify his use of opinions of what he calls an 
"AntiAbortionistMindSet."

I challenged him to explain his point in raising the "potential" argument.

Kristy Patterson, without seeing the origins of the thread, tried 
to explain the "potential" argument itself -- which is already "well known."

Continued:

In article <1992Oct7.204723.11845@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>] 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....

This can only be ironic, Drieux.  I know you have seen my discussion
of the "propositional structure" of legislating that fetuses are persons 
(not "potential persons"), which only gathered knee-jerk responses that 
I must be taking "the content of the proposition to heart...."

[flames and explanation of the obvious deleted]

>] 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...

Drieux, you are confused.  You put up a straw man (the "potential
personhood" argument), you shot it down via reductio ad absurdum,
and then you claimed I don't like the conclusions.  Frankly, I don't
+care+ about the conclusions at the moment, because you still haven't
said why this argument of straw is relevant.

[flames and explanation of the obvious deleted]

>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.

Who are "they," and what do "they" have to do with our "conversation"
about whether a hypothetical expression of emotion is necessarily
an intent to kill?  What does the "AntiAboritonist [sic]" have to
do with that topic, unless +you+ are an AntiAboritonist?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity