Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (10815)	12/9/2010 9:10:20 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

>I looked again and I didn't see where she said that the argument from viability was "evil", < You won't. That was my take on what she wrote. >I agree with her. You might not like it, but I don't see it as illogical.< "I agree with her." I would be surprised if you did not. "You might not like it" I don't. I think her reasoning chain is weak. "I don't see it as illogical." It is a basic human tendency to support reasoning, including flawed reasoning, that lines up with and champions one's beliefs. This is especially true for beliefs that receive lively debate and controversy in a current forum. The point of my post was to show that, in my opinion and analysis, she used faulty logic to inextricably associate the viability question, which is tough to defeat on its own, with the partial personhood shenanigan, which is not. The only purpose I see in using such shaky logic is to count coup in a debate. It does not advance serious andor sincere inquiry into the real issue[s]. I view intellectual obstructionism with definite distaste.