| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Skepticus" |
| Date: |
02 Apr 2004 03:56:17 PM |
| Object: |
Re: there ought to be a law |
MG wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
...
Then somebody stole your identity and wrote, "IT IS FALSE THAT there
ought to be a law prohibiting such behavior."
No they didn't. I challenged you to demonstrate a contradiction in that
proposition.
"IT IS FALSE THAT there ought to be a law prohibiting murder." is
contradictory to common sense.
.
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: there ought to be a law |
02 Apr 2004 06:21:51 PM |
|
|
In article <5klbc.61860$K91.150055@attbi_s02>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
MG wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
...
Then somebody stole your identity and wrote, "IT IS FALSE THAT there
ought to be a law prohibiting such behavior."
No they didn't. I challenged you to demonstrate a contradiction in that
proposition.
"IT IS FALSE THAT there ought to be a law prohibiting murder." is
contradictory to common sense.
That scarcely makes a thing true or false, as common sense is
notoriously unreliable. Common sense insisted that there is only one
infinite cardinality but common was wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MG" |
|
| Title: Re: there ought to be a law |
04 Apr 2004 01:59:48 AM |
|
|
Skepticus wrote:
MG wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
...
Then somebody stole your identity and wrote, "IT IS FALSE THAT there
ought to be a law prohibiting such behavior."
No they didn't. I challenged you to demonstrate a contradiction in
that proposition.
"IT IS FALSE THAT there ought to be a law prohibiting murder." is
contradictory to common sense.
That's not a contradiction *in* that proposition (or, therefore, in the
original conjunctive proposition of which it is a part). It is, at most,
a contradiction *between* the proposition and (what many take to be)
common-sense.
So I challenge you again to demonstrate a contradiction *in* the
statement. That is, demonstrate that it is *self*-contradictory. If you
can't, Hume wins the argument.
MG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Skepticus" |
|
| Title: Re: there ought to be a law |
04 Apr 2004 05:49:07 PM |
|
|
MG wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
MG wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
...
Then somebody stole your identity and wrote, "IT IS FALSE THAT there
ought to be a law prohibiting such behavior."
No they didn't. I challenged you to demonstrate a contradiction in
that proposition.
"IT IS FALSE THAT there ought to be a law prohibiting murder." is
contradictory to common sense.
That's not a contradiction *in* that proposition ...
You must be joking! The proposition in question, that even though people
come into the world endowed with the right to life, that a murderer
should be free anyway to take another person's life, on a whim?
That isn't logically consistent. See the inherent logical contradiction?
On the one hand, a person endowed with the unalienable right to lfe, and
contradicting that, a murderer being free to take that other person's
life, on a whim?
What we are discussing here is the grounds for having a law prohibiting
murder as behavior the society considers unacceptable. The reductio ad
absurdum that a murderer being free to take another person's life, to
which that other person has an unalienable right, on a whim, with
impunity, would be an absurd state of affairs, that is sufficient
grounds for a law prohibiting murder. Learn to live with it, with no
need for any hypothetical supreme being to hand down any commandments at
all, since we can figure out these simple matters of common sense for
ourselves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: there ought to be a law |
04 Apr 2004 10:03:33 PM |
|
|
In article <Dh0cc.74353$w54.421650@attbi_s01>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
MG wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
...
Then somebody stole your identity and wrote, "IT IS FALSE THAT there
ought to be a law prohibiting such behavior."
No they didn't. I challenged you to demonstrate a contradiction in
that proposition.
"IT IS FALSE THAT there ought to be a law prohibiting murder." is
contradictory to common sense.
That's not a contradiction *in* that proposition ...
[Another of Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's many Irrelevancies
Deleted]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: there ought to be a law |
05 Apr 2004 11:12:59 AM |
|
|
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote in message news:<Dh0cc.74353$w54.421650@attbi_s01>...
MG wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
MG wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
...
Then somebody stole your identity and wrote, "IT IS FALSE THAT there
ought to be a law prohibiting such behavior."
No they didn't. I challenged you to demonstrate a contradiction in
that proposition.
"IT IS FALSE THAT there ought to be a law prohibiting murder." is
contradictory to common sense.
That's not a contradiction *in* that proposition ...
simple matters of common sense
Your appeal to common sense is laughable, Septic, since common sense
says that you're a mendacious idiot. Would you like Sniper or myself
to once again show you the quotes from virtually _all_ of your peers
which demonstrate _that_ fact? Bwahahahahahahahahaha!
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MG" |
|
| Title: Re: there ought to be a law |
05 Apr 2004 05:34:19 AM |
|
|
Skepticus wrote:
MG wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
MG wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
...
Then somebody stole your identity and wrote, "IT IS FALSE THAT
there ought to be a law prohibiting such behavior."
No they didn't. I challenged you to demonstrate a contradiction in
that proposition.
"IT IS FALSE THAT there ought to be a law prohibiting murder." is
contradictory to common sense.
That's not a contradiction *in* that proposition ...
You must be joking!
No.
The proposition in question, that even though people
come into the world endowed with the right to life, that a murderer
should be free anyway to take another person's life, on a whim?
The proposition in question, which you continue to fail to demonstrate
to be logically contradictory is:
"IT IS FALSE THAT there ought to be a law prohibiting murder."
That isn't logically consistent. See the inherent logical contradiction?
On the one hand, a person endowed with the unalienable right to lfe, and
contradicting that, a murderer being free to take that other person's
life, on a whim?
What we are discussing here is the grounds for having a law prohibiting
murder as behavior the society considers unacceptable.
Nope - we're discussing Hume's claim that one cannot logically derive a
moral conclusion from purely descriptive premises: you challenged that
with an alleged counter-example. Since it would only be a
counter-example if the premise plus negation of the conclusion were
self-contradictory, I challeneged you to demonstrate that - but you've
failed. What you've done so far is suggest that it is in contradiction
with common sense, and now you mendaciously try to change the
proposition at issue by including something that is not in the original
proposition: "even though people come into the world endowed with the
right to life". Neither of these strategies succeed in showing that the
proposition in question is self-contradictory, and so neither show your
alleged counter-example to be valid, and so you have once again failed
to show Hume to be wrong.
If you can't stick to the issue or the stick to the proposition at
issue, go play with the other children.
MG
The reductio ad
absurdum that a murderer being free to take another person's life, to
which that other person has an unalienable right, on a whim, with
impunity, would be an absurd state of affairs, that is sufficient
grounds for a law prohibiting murder. Learn to live with it, with no
need for any hypothetical supreme being to hand down any commandments at
all, since we can figure out these simple matters of common sense for
ourselves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Skepticus" |
|
| Title: Re: there ought to be a law |
05 Apr 2004 12:19:02 PM |
|
|
MG wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
MG wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
MG wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
...
Then somebody stole your identity and wrote, "IT IS FALSE THAT
there ought to be a law prohibiting such behavior."
No they didn't. I challenged you to demonstrate a contradiction in
that proposition.
"IT IS FALSE THAT there ought to be a law prohibiting murder." is
contradictory to common sense.
That's not a contradiction *in* that proposition ...
You must be joking!
No.
The proposition in question, that even though people
come into the world endowed with the right to life, that a murderer
should be free anyway to take another person's life, on a whim?
The proposition in question, which you continue to fail to demonstrate
to be logically contradictory is:
"IT IS FALSE THAT there ought to be a law prohibiting murder."
That's what I said, the proposition in question, that even though people
come into the world endowed with the right to life, that a murderer
should be free anyway to take another person's life, on a whim. That
means the same as, "It is false that there ought to be a law prohibiting
murder."
That isn't logically consistent. See the inherent logical
contradiction? On the one hand, a person endowed with the unalienable
right to lfe, and contradicting that, a murderer being free to take
that other person's life, on a whim?
What we are discussing here is the grounds for having a law
prohibiting murder as behavior the society considers unacceptable.
Nope ...
Yep. It is perfectly reasonable for society to enact a law prohibiting
murder, since the proposition, "Even though people come into the world
endowed with an unalienable right to life, a murderer
should be free anyway to take another person's life, on a whim" is
logically inconsistent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: there ought to be a law |
05 Apr 2004 05:05:29 PM |
|
|
In article <aygcc.73968$gA5.894826@attbi_s03>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
MG wrote:
That's what I said, the proposition in question, that even though people
come into the world endowed with the right to life, that a murderer
should be free anyway to take another person's life, on a whim. That
means the same as, "It is false that there ought to be a law prohibiting
murder."
That isn't logically consistent. See the inherent logical
contradiction? On the one hand, a person endowed with the unalienable
right to lfe, and contradicting that, a murderer being free to take
that other person's life, on a whim?
What we are discussing here is the grounds for having a law
prohibiting murder as behavior the society considers unacceptable.
"Ought to be" takes the statement out of the realm of true or false, and
into the greyer area of ethics and morality. And it is clear that what
fits Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's versions of ethics and morality
need not fit anyone else's.
Yep. It is perfectly reasonable for society to enact a law prohibiting
murder, since the proposition, "Even though people come into the world
endowed with an unalienable right to life, a murderer
should be free anyway to take another person's life, on a whim" is
logically inconsistent.
So is "Even though people come into the world endowed with an
unalienable right to life, a murderer should not be free anyway to take
another person's life, on a whim", since both statements require ethical
and moral assumptions outside of logic.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MG" |
|
| Title: Re: there ought to be a law |
06 Apr 2004 04:57:56 PM |
|
|
Skepticus wrote:
MG wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
MG wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
MG wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
...
Then somebody stole your identity and wrote, "IT IS FALSE THAT
there ought to be a law prohibiting such behavior."
No they didn't. I challenged you to demonstrate a contradiction in
that proposition.
"IT IS FALSE THAT there ought to be a law prohibiting murder." is
contradictory to common sense.
That's not a contradiction *in* that proposition ...
You must be joking!
No.
The proposition in question, that even though people
come into the world endowed with the right to life, that a murderer
should be free anyway to take another person's life, on a whim?
The proposition in question, which you continue to fail to demonstrate
to be logically contradictory is:
"IT IS FALSE THAT there ought to be a law prohibiting murder."
That's what I said,
No it isn't.
the proposition in question, that even though people
come into the world endowed with the right to life, that a murderer
should be free anyway to take another person's life, on a whim. That
means the same as, "It is false that there ought to be a law prohibiting
murder."
That isn't logically consistent. See the inherent logical
contradiction? On the one hand, a person endowed with the unalienable
right to lfe, and contradicting that, a murderer being free to take
that other person's life, on a whim?
What we are discussing here is the grounds for having a law
prohibiting murder as behavior the society considers unacceptable.
Nope ...
Yep.
We are discussing your inability to demonstrate a logical contradiction
in "IT IS FALSE THAT there ought to be a law prohibiting murder", and,
hence, your inability to show Hume to be wrong.
MG
It is perfectly reasonable for society to enact a law prohibiting
murder, since the proposition, "Even though people come into the world
endowed with an unalienable right to life, a murderer
should be free anyway to take another person's life, on a whim" is
logically inconsistent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: there ought to be a law |
07 Apr 2004 01:28:50 AM |
|
|
On 4/6/04 2:57 PM, in article c4v958$ee6$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca, "MG"
<philosophicus@hotmail.com> wrote:
It is false that there ought to be a law prohibiting
murder.
Even though people come into the world endowed with an unalienable right to
life, a murderer should be free anyway to take another person's life, on a
whim?
Naw, I don't buy that. It is lacking in internal logical consistency. It's
the same as saying, "People have an unalienable right to life" and "It is
not the case that people have an unalienable right to life," both at the
same time. Logically contradictory.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MG" |
|
| Title: Re: there ought to be a law |
08 Apr 2004 02:50:24 AM |
|
|
Dixit wrote:
On 4/6/04 2:57 PM, in article c4v958$ee6$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca, "MG"
<philosophicus@hotmail.com> wrote:
It is false that there ought to be a law prohibiting
murder.
Even though people come into the world endowed with an unalienable right to
life, a murderer should be free anyway to take another person's life, on a
whim?
Naw, I don't buy that. It is lacking in internal logical consistency. It's
the same as saying, "People have an unalienable right to life" and "It is
not the case that people have an unalienable right to life," both at the
same time. Logically contradictory.
Since, in the proposition at issue: "It is false that there ought to be
a law prohibiting murder", (itself, a sub-proposition of the original
proposiition at issue), you have been unable to find a logical
contradiction, Hume wins and you lose.
MG
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: there ought to be a law |
07 Apr 2004 02:27:32 AM |
|
|
In article <BC98EDB3.2BE0%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
On 4/6/04 2:57 PM, in article c4v958$ee6$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca, "MG"
<philosophicus@hotmail.com> wrote:
It is false that there ought to be a law prohibiting
murder.
Even though people come into the world endowed with an unalienable right to
life, a murderer should be free anyway to take another person's life, on a
whim?
A statement about what ethically or morally should be is beyond the
boundaries of either science or logic to prove true or false, so that
the statement that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, objects to is
neither true nor false, but merely inappropriate.
Naw, I don't buy that. It is lacking in internal logical consistency. It's
the same as saying, "People have an unalienable right to life" and "It is
not the case that people have an unalienable right to life," both at the
same time. Logically contradictory.
It is one statement saying one thing, which is quite different from two
statements saying mutually incompatible things.
The logical contrdiction is in the spurious attampts by Septic Capon,
the Simple Pimple, to paint every sttement he doesn't like as logical
contradictions.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: there ought to be a law |
07 Apr 2004 02:20:39 AM |
|
|
In article <BC98EDB3.2BE0%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
On 4/6/04 2:57 PM, in article c4v958$ee6$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca, "MG"
<philosophicus@hotmail.com> wrote:
It is false that there ought to be a law prohibiting
murder.
Even though people come into the world endowed with an unalienable right to
life, a murderer should be free anyway to take another person's life, on a
whim?
When a statement is about what should or should not be with respect to
morality or ethics, it is no longer something that science can say is
either true or false, as morality and ethics are outside of the reach of
science.
Naw, I don't buy that. It is lacking in internal logical consistency. It's
the same as saying, "People have an unalienable right to life" and "It is
not the case that people have an unalienable right to life," both at the
same time. Logically contradictory.
Whle it may contradict what Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, thinks the
world should be like, it does not contradict itself, as it only says one
thing. A self-contradiction must at least say two things, as the example
given by Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, does.
Thus it is Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, who is being logically
contradictory in claiming something that cannot be the case.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
