Recent Posts6026
Living Room / Re: Software Alliance's FRAND proposes to have Free software outlawed in the EU?
« Last post by Renegade on March 01, 2012, 08:52 AM »I didn't mean for baby killing to really enter in here... It was merely meant as a radical example. Please forgive the diversion...
The ONLY thing relevant is:
Anything else is merely excuses.
I do not understand how:
Differs in any significant semantic way from:
i.e. To advocate is to endorse or to say that something "should" be. (I make the same distinction between "is" and "ought" that C.S. Lewis makes in that there is an infinite divide and no method to logically get from one to the other.)
As such, "advocate killing newborn babies" is logically equivalent to "killing newborn babies should be permissible", and I do not believe that in context there is any significant difference in stating it in the plural or singular case.
That is to say:
advocate killing newborn babies == killing a newborn should be permissible
There, I mean "==" in the sense of being distinct from "===", where "===" is referential equivalence or "direct quotation" and "==" is logical equivalence or "indirectly quoted but semantically the same".
In the same way that we can rationalize genocide or anything else. The question is do we want to argue for creation or destruction. It really is that simple.
And yes... I'm being all stubbornly Kantian about this, categorical imperative and all that jazz.
Killing babies
The argument being put forward is that:...the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion ...is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.There was nothing in the paper (that I could see, anyway) that specifically suggests that the authors of the paper:...advocate killing newborn babies.-IainB (March 01, 2012, 07:06 AM)
The ONLY thing relevant is:
‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible
Anything else is merely excuses.
I do not understand how:
killing a newborn should be permissible
Differs in any significant semantic way from:
advocate killing newborn babies
i.e. To advocate is to endorse or to say that something "should" be. (I make the same distinction between "is" and "ought" that C.S. Lewis makes in that there is an infinite divide and no method to logically get from one to the other.)
As such, "advocate killing newborn babies" is logically equivalent to "killing newborn babies should be permissible", and I do not believe that in context there is any significant difference in stating it in the plural or singular case.
That is to say:
advocate killing newborn babies == killing a newborn should be permissible
There, I mean "==" in the sense of being distinct from "===", where "===" is referential equivalence or "direct quotation" and "==" is logical equivalence or "indirectly quoted but semantically the same".
The paper appears to be making a rational argument.-IainB (March 01, 2012, 07:06 AM)
In the same way that we can rationalize genocide or anything else. The question is do we want to argue for creation or destruction. It really is that simple.
And yes... I'm being all stubbornly Kantian about this, categorical imperative and all that jazz.
(Couldn't resist that one!)
