Free Republic

What does the morning after pill have to do with abortion?

Diggstown.

Probably an airman based in Korea or somewhere bought it, then got transferred to Eglin, then sold it?

200 years ago he would have been eligible.

I don’t want to play with you anymore.

Straw man and ad hominem.

So now we know that you will deliberately post things that you don't believe when you believe it is convenient for you.

Straw man and appeal to motive.

So, it's your position that you can engage in fallacy and non sequitur in normal conversation? IOW, you can claim anything you want to in conversation because it isn't 'real'?

It's my position that I can state an opinion in conversation. So can you. You do it every time you type IOW. That doesn't make my opinion not real. It's just not real to you.

Unfortunately, the world view of the non-existence of God and the process of evolution must engage in logical fallacy and non sequitur to even have a 'conversation'.

Bare assertion fallacy.

If you can simply say whatever you want with no regard for logic and steal your opponent's positions and claim them for yourself with no basis whatsoever in your own beliefs, you aren't really showing anything but an extreme lack of principle. Of course, principle has no basis in an atheistic, evolutionary worldview anyway, so lack of principle apparently isn't viewed as a problem.

Bare assertion fallacy. Ad hominem.

Unfortunately, your opinions have no basis in the facts of your stated position. You simply state them even though they are based from the position of your opponent and are without basis in your own.

I'm not sure what claim I stated from my opponents position. I'm assuming you're referring to "God wrote these things in our very being. It’s part of the “general revelation” which drives humans to seek Him. Sounds like the Bible says that people know right from wrong whether they believe in God or not. What was the argument about then? " I wasn't trying to steal points from his position. I was trying to find common ground that would lead to agreement on the issue regardless of the existence of God.

Apparently, we can assume that you will continue to make statements that you don't actually believe when it is convenient for you.

Yes, I reserve the right to use sarcasm. Since it has been a sticking point for you though, I will also continue to let you know when I'm doing that.

Unfortunately, based on your previous behavior and admissions, I can't even assume that you actually believe that.

You've proven yourself quite capable of assuming whatever you want to assume about me.

I think we have already established that you will make statements that you don't actually believe, use your opponents arguments when your own position has no basis to support them and generally say whatever you want without regard to logic.

Straw man and ad hominem. We've established no such thing. Again, is there any specific issue that you wish to debate, or are you just enjoying showing everyone how bad my logic skills are? Because I'm pretty sure no one cares but you and me, and I'm quickly losing interest.

"I’m guessing you just took a logic class, you have a new hammer and everything in the world looks like a nail." Which would make you wrong yet again.

Yes, I didn't actually believe that. I was making a sarcastic comment regarding your naive misuse of logic terms.

"Maybe I’m just not smart enough to understand your superior intellect, but it seems to me that nothing you have said has anything to do with anything that I have said." Or maybe avoiding non sequitur isn't something that is important to you.

It wasn't at the time. I didn't realize that I was engaged in a formal debate. I was making conversation. But if you insist on this silly technicality, it wasn't a non-sequitur, and here's why. I was expressing an opinion. You see, a debate using formal logic requires that both parties begin their suppositions from the same axiomatic system. This wasn't the case in our discussion, because I was speaking from the world view of the non-existence of God and the process of evolution as fact, which I believe to be true, while MrB was speaking from the world view of the existence of God-as-creator as fact. The only way for any logical proposition to be valid would be for me to assume that the existence of God was irrelevant to the discussion, or to backtrack to a higher level debate over the existence of God before engaging in the debate over whether a non-believer can be moral, which would have taken more time than I cared to invest and would likely have been an exercise in futility. Since we were not starting from the same axiomatic system of suppositions, the entire concept of logical fallacy was meaningless in our discussion. I did not intend for the two statements you called a non-sequitur to be consecutive steps in a propositional calculus. I was stating an opinion, then stating another opinion. From my perspective we were simply having a conversation, which is what people with actual social skills do sometimes when they wish to talk to each other and learn from each other in a non-confrontational way. You'll understand when you get to Logic 102. (Yes, I know you aren't actually taking logic classes. Recognizing sarcasm is a valuable skill. You should look into it.)

"I see no reason to engage you any further." Which brings us back full-circle to my initial post which offended you so.

I'm not sure I see how.

"Feel free to claim victory if it makes you happy." Feel free to ignore the logical fallacies in your 'arguments' when it suits your purposes.

I feel I've covered this point sufficiently already.

Now, if you wish to engage me in formal debate, please do me the honor of expressing exactly what topic you wish to debate rather than attacking me from behind.

I respect your opinion. I don't agree.

I’m guessing you just took a logic class, you have a new hammer and everything in the world looks like a nail. I don’t understand the point you are trying to make, other than to be antagonistic for no reason. Maybe I’m just not smart enough to understand your superior intellect, but it seems to me that nothing you have said has anything to do with anything that I have said. I see no reason to engage you any further. Feel free to claim victory if it makes you happy.

Nope. The concept being discussed was obviously the concept that you were implying I didn't have the critical thinking capability to understand. All other concepts are irrelevant.

If not, what objective standard are you using to define it an 'insult' to point that out?

The standard that it is rude to point out a perceived deficiency in someone that doesn't concern you directly and without offering something constructive to help them overcome that deficiency.

Nope, that wasn’t the question. I was answering the question “Why is lessening the survival of the species an undesirable option?”

Were you not referring to my critical thinking ability?

Because that’s how life works. Successful species ensure the best chance of survival. Unsuccessful species become extinct.

I’m not sure that I agree that we have evolved to have a propensity to violate it.

MrB and I are having a civil conversation. He has not disrespected or insulted me, and I hope that he has not felt disrespected or insulted. You should look to his example of proper behavior, and at least offer something to the discussion before insulting me unprovoked.

Because it’s the winning option. All others lesson the chance for survival and perpetuation of the species.

Ok, so if the why is relevant, is it still futile if the unbeliever accepts as his why the logical game theory argument? something along the lines of “adhering to the golden rule benefits everyone if everyone in society does it. I’ll start with me and lead by example.” Are there other “whys” that aren’t futile, even if they are in your opinion incorrect?

Newborn infants suckle without knowing why. It’s instinctual. Or written on their being by God. Either way, the why is irrelevant.

Doesn't everyone's?

Yes, I read it. I just didn't think it was relevant to the discussion at hand, which was about belief in God and the codification of God's laws being necessary for morality. From a non-believer's perspective, the golden rule does exist and is universal, they would just disagree on the "why" that is so. But if you believe I'm missing a subtlety I'll listen.

I agree that the two arguments are independent. The first was the point of the thread though, and I think we are in agreement on that one. As for your question, what am I doing that I know is wrong?