Sharks in the Septic Tank Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Solon who wrote (18515)	7/17/2001 9:54:56 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 82486

I'm willing to dispose with the whole "your begging the question, no you are" argument if you are willing to do so. I am not however willing to accept your ideas in order to avoid you thinking of me as begging the question. I have explicitly said tio you that I am willing to discuss the "shoulds"--RIGHT?? I just don't want to mix what might or ought to be with WHAT IS. Why are you running around the mulberrry bush?? I can't think of where I was mixing them. I have been pretty consistantly been talking about what I see as natural rights of human rights, which in the context of legal rights amount to "might or ought to be" if they are not legally recognized. I thought this would be clear. If we are only talking about law as it is then our discussion would have been far more limited. I would either just says "yes abortion is legal" and then shut up, or I could have tried to analyze and attack the reasoning behind Roe vs. Wade. EVERYTHING is begging the questionh to a stubbborn man. If the only argument a man is able to engage in is to trace all intercourse back to: Yoyu are begging the question that A is not B is correct or that the law of non contradiction is unproven--then fine--argue with idiots. We probably have a certain commonality and a certain area of agreement. I think we can both support the idea of using the basic rules of logic and we probably agree a lot more on specific matters of factual information then we disagree. Most of this agreement isn't even stated because it is just assumed as basic to the conversation. The basic things that are relevant to this whole discussion that we disagree on are 1 - The existance and nature of natural rights 2 - The application of these rights to fetuses. That are lots of small specific disagrements along the way and there are whole side issues that come up like the debate we had about who the legal status of abortion effects the prevailence of abortion but the core disagreement is IMO centered on those two things. To either of us the other person's assumptions on these issues is begging the question if they just assume it and use it to argue for something else. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next