ExRx.net

I just stated the exact opposite of that in my last message (and have stated/implied it before as well). The rest of your message seems to hinge on ignoring that, so no need to comment there.

I like that movie, very funny.

It doesn't actually take all that long. I type fast and it doesn't require that much thought. I have also already refused to argue when he repeats himself and uses to many logical fallacies. I am only answering his questions at this point.

It is very hard to answer a question when you load it with a logical fallacy. It's kind of like "When did you stop beating your wife?" Do you see the problem with that.

I do not agree. If you are for criminalizing abortion you are not a libertarian by definition. Once you go to that point you are not really a libertarian. You may have some overlap with libertarianism, but you are not one. It moves you to the middle. It's not reasonable or unreasonable per say. It just doesn't fit the definition of the label.


Is it unreasonable to for your red car to be painted yellow? Is it unreasonable for your bacon to be thin strips of pot roast? Is it unreasonable for your crew cut to be shoulder length? Is it unreasonable for your horse to have big utters full of milk and say "moo"? Is it unreasonable for your pet monkey to lay eggs, be cold blooded and have scales?

Let me rephrase that. Is there a logical inconsistency in someone defined by being against criminalization, criminalizing things? I'll give you a hint. The answer yes.

Frogbyte--

No you didn't say the opposite of what I claimed in your last message. Nor as far as I can tell did you imply it in any previous post. What you said in your last message was:



This opening statement only tells us that you agree it may be reasonable for libertarians wish to criminalize abortion or not. So far, what you wrote tells us nothing about the possibility of a logical inconsistency with the "if" part of your question. That is: so far, what you say does not have anything to do with the logical inconsistency I said I think you are trying to demonstrate.

You follow the part I quoted with,



That is: you complain that ironman dodged part of your question. This strongly suggests that you are very intent on getting ironman to give a full answer to the full (not partial) question.

And, it's very clear that the whole point of your full question connecting the "if" clause to the "crimininalization" cause is motivated by your desire to show what you think getting ironman to answer the full question will show a logical inconsistency.

Why do I think this? Not because I ignore your words but because I read, attend and note you told us showing logical inconsistency was the motive of your question. Specifically, on (Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 4:54 pm), you wrote:



The fact is, you have actually stated-- flat out-- that you think the full question you posted, repeated, and keep pestering ironman to answer in its entirety will show the 'disconnect' in the thinking of some hypothetical libertarian. Moreover, it's very clear that your pressing ironman not to dodge the "if" part of the question is to get him to see what you think is a disconnect.

So, it is far from true that your messages state or imply that you are not trying to show a logical disconnect-- you told us you are trying to show this disconnect and what you are doing is consistent with your explicit statements.

callipygian50, "disconnect" doesn't imply he is wrong. It was a reference back to my discussion of a communication gap.

Back to the real discussion, Ironman has answered the original question. He thinks that even if a libertarian believes abortion is a form of murder, a libertarian would not criminalize it. However, the question now remains as to why. Specifically, what is it about that particular form of murder, that in libertarian X's opinion, would cause it to still be legal?

(And no, this is not a trick question attempting to lead to some logical fallacy trap, so let's halt that boring sidetrack.)

[url]Out of curiosity, where do you think he said this? I see that he thinks a libertarian would not criticize it. But I don't see the word "murder" in his comment.[/url]
I read what he wrote, but did he actually mean what you think?

The definition of murder is usually "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. " If the killing is lawful, it's not murder.

Some libertarians might think certain types of killings that are currently unlawful (and therefore currently murder) should be made legal. Once legal, they are no longer murder. The example I can think of is assisted suicides.

Some people might think other sorts of killings that are currently lawful should be outlawed. In which case, those would become murder. The examples I can think of is killing in self-defense or in war.

Or are you using a different definition of murder?

Oh see how it is. You can't get me to fall for your loaded question fallacy, so you just claim I said it. It figures. Facts don't matter to you unless they support you preconceived beliefs. It just looks like a cheap desperate trick. Utterly ridiculous.

I knew Iron man didn't say he believed this , I did not read what he wrote to suggest he meant this, and it's now quite he doesn't believe this. Glad to see that because now we don't have to move on to this:



But if we did move on, the answer would be: "You have asked an oxymoronic question. If something 'is still legal', applying the dictionary definition, it's not "a particular form of murder."

Both of you seem to have a bad habit of assuming nefarious intent in discussions - it has an unfortunate impact. Anyway, I'm back to not knowing Ironman's answer to that...

When I asked:I thoughtmeant that, yes, even if a child is considered a legal person prior to birth, the libertarian X should still allow them to be killed.

If that's not what he meant, it warrants clarification.

Interestingly I saw a re-run of the Freedom Watch where Ron Paul was asked this question. It was so refreshing to see his answer that libertarians can disagree amongst themselves on the issue, but the most important thing to keep in mind was that laws of violence were the Constitutional responsibility of the States.

Except that Ron Paul isn't a real libertarian.

Like I said you asked a question containing a logical fallacy. It can't be answered exactly as asked.

Let me give you examples that might even seep into your tiny little mind.

When do you stop molesting kids?

Did you finally quit torturing kittens?

Since babies are just a lump of cells until a couple months into the pregnancy, shouldn't abortion always be ok in the first 2 months?

Since there are no gods, is praying talking to yourself?

When Darth Vader launches the invasion of earth should we fight back?



You also never answered my other questions about what is reasonable. How about give those a shot?

So, analogizing your examples, you think "Given that libertarian X believes a child becomes a legal person is prior to birth" is a logical fallacy? Ie, it's impossible for a libertarian to believe that an unborn child is a legal person?

I didn't say or think your intent was nefarious. I think you have confused yourself and are creating nonsense questions. Some contain oxmorons. Some are circular. But I don't think you realize how ill-devised your questions are.



That you would think this series of things only shows how much you have confused yourself and the extent to which you simply can't notice that your questions don't make any sense. Here are the persistent problems:

1) You have not defined what a legal person is.
2) Those of us reading your questions don't even know whether your definition of "legal person" would mean "someone who one cannot legally kill". This ends up with at least two branches of possible things for the person trying two answer your question to ponder.
a) Under your definition, is a convicted murder subject to the death penalty a "legal person"? An armed combatant? A home intruder who threatens me with a knife? I'd suggest all of these people are "legal persons". But it's legal to kill them in some circumstances. So, there are plenty of circumstances where one might be allowed to kill a person whose personhood seems to be "legal".
b) If your definition of a "legal person" "someone who one cannot legally kill", then your question is both circular and odd. Under this definition, your question amounts to asking, you are asking, "If libertarianX believes it's illegal to kill a person "A", but they also believe it's illegal to kill person "B", should the libertarianX still think it's legal to kill person "A"?

Well, presumably, libertarian X's understanding of the law should either be that it's legal to kill personA or it's illegal to kill personA. The legality of killing personB has nothing to do with it.


3) Whatever a "legal person" is, the word "legal" would seem to imply status as "legal person" is a matter of law. If it is a matter of law, then "who is a legal person" would not be an opinion. So, why in the world would you imagine that ironman's question is based on believing what the law defines as a "legal person" is a matter of opinion?


Until you define what you mean by "a legal person" no one else can possible know what hypothetical you are tring to ask nor could they possibly explain. Moreover, until you are willing to sit down and define what it is, you are going to continue to ask questions that hide logical fallacies. (The hiding seems to be mostly from yourself. The logical fallacies seem pretty obvious to others).

A "legal person" is a person as recognized by society's legal system. Yes, you can kill people in certain situations and have it not be "murder". Who -should- be a legal person is a matter of opinion. Who -is- a legal person is a matter of law. For instance, I suspect there are some members of PETA who would tell you a cow should be recognized as a legal person, but most of society disagrees, so it's not.

I'm not using any of those terms in an unusual fashion, but if that wasn't clear, it's good you asked for clarification.

Thanks for the definition. Now it's easier to identify the precise way in which you have confused yourself. If your really mean this definition, then:

a) an unborn child is obviously not a legal person because it's not recognized to be a person by our societies legal system. So any libertarian (or even person with another political philosophy) who thinks they are a "legal person" is simply mistake. This, by itself makes your repeated question about the hypothetical libertarian who thinks an unborn is a legal person bizarre. (Note: You repeated questions don't say the libertarian thinks they "should be", you specifically chose "is" and becomes.)


b) If this is the definition, your question would probably be circular. That is-- assuming that legal persons have a right to not be killed (which may not be the case.) But if they have a legal right to not be killed, then your question seems to be: "If personX believes the unborn is legally protected from having its life ended, why do they it does not have a legal right to not have its life ended." Obviously, you would be better off just asking the straightforward question: Does person X believe the unborn has a legal right not to be killed?

With respect to libertarians, their point of view generally: The unborn do not have a legal to not have its life ended at the request of its mother. If they think otherwise, they are probably not libertarians.

To explain further, we would discuss the situations in which libertarians prohibiting acts by law. But there is no point in trying to concoct a question where you decree someone who wants to regulate morality by legal means a libertarian. Those people aren't libertarians. (I think Ironman has been trying to explain this to you.)



Yep.


Yep. Yep. But at least now you are finally writing your statements more clearly using "should" and "is" where they belong.

Scroll back and read your own posts. Note you used "is" and "becomes" where, evidently, you meant "should be".

As for your saying I should ask for clarification on how you use these words, scroll back. I asked you to clarify what you mean by "legal person" quite some time ago-- you refused to engage this. I asked you to clarify what you meant by murder-- you refused to engage this.

Now you are finally clarifying and complaining I should have asked you to clarify. Well, I did. In future, when someone asks you to clarify, you should consider doing so.