Spirituality
07 Jun 07
07 Jun 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeOh grow up ivanhoe, you know full well that my intention was to suggest your claim to resemblance was not one proven by supporting evidence, but by personal conjecture.
Verb: infer (inferred,inferring) in'fur
Reason by deduction; establish by deduction
- deduce, deduct, derive
Draw from specific cases for more general cases
- generalize, generalise [Brit], extrapolate
Conclude by reasoning; in logic
- deduce
Guess correctly; solve by guessing
- guess
Believe to be the case
- understand
Derived forms: ...[text shortened]... **********************************************
I infer the resemblance ? Can you elaborate ?
07 Jun 07
Originally posted by StarrmanThen you must have missed that evidence.
Oh grow up ivanhoe, you know full well that my intention was to suggest your claim to resemblance was not one proven by supporting evidence, but by personal conjecture.
... but maybe you can give the quotes which prove that claim of yours.
07 Jun 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeOkay.
I did not. All the answers are in that very thread.
Where in it do you discuss the means by which bbarr determines what
is and is not an act of mercy as compared with that which the Nazi's
determine is an act of mercy?
Where in it do you discuss the means by which bbarr determines who
has the right to enact these acts of mercy as compared with that which
the Nazi's determine has the right to enact the same?
Nemesio
07 Jun 07
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'm giving you an opportunity, wihtout distraction from tangential issues, to show everybody that my views are similar to the Nazis. I was being generous by giving you the opportunity to make your case using any normative proposition about euthanasia. If your claims are limited to the similarity betwen respective views on the treatment of the disabled, then present a proposition related to that topic that meets the above criteria.
Why is it you choose such a dominating and forcing approach when you are cornered ? As I said earlier I present historic facts which prove the resemblance between your ideas and the Nazis' regarding the killing of certain disabled people.
What proposition do you have in mind ? I do not know what you are trying to prove. Since when is the issue in the th y came ... " your stance on euthanasia as such ? The thread is about killing disabled people.
The rationale for the criteria is as follows:
1) The proposition should be normative (i.e., it should refer to what is obligatory, permissible or wrong) because purely descriptive claims are irrelevant to your rhetorical goal. That both the Nazis and I beleive that, as a matter of fact, some disabled folk have been euthanized doesn't entail anything about whether our respective beliefs about how disabled people should be treated are simlar.
2) This should be obvious, since it is a necessary condition for your claims about respective similarity of views to be correct that the Nazis and I both endorse at least one identical proposition.
3) You need to show that the proposition the Nazis and I endorse is false (or at least unjustified), lest the proposition in question fail to support your general argument. I take your general argument to be of the following form: Nazis have monstrous beliefs about the treatment of the disabled. Bbarr's beliefs are similar to the Nazis'. Hence, bbarr's beliefs about the treatment of the disabled are also monstrous. Yet, if the proposition mutually endorsed by the Nazis and me is, in fact, true, then there would be no reason to grant the first premise of your argument. if all you can do is show that there is some proposition mutually endorsed by the Nazis and me, without providing any reason to think that the proposition in question is false, then you will have merely succeeded in showing that I and the Nazis had a justified belief in common.
So, again, what is the proposition that the Nazis and I both endorse?
07 Jun 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou are either stupid or an evil little man: he's offered the defence so
It seems His Majesty has left the defense to his sidekicks again.
many times that even I understand it. That you persist in your obtuseness
or conniving games makes it a mystery why anyone ever addresses you
at all.
But, that having been said, you once again avoid/ignore my questions
(not to mention bbarr's at the beginning of this thread).
What a shock!
Nemesio
07 Jun 07
Originally posted by bbarrOkay. No more distractions from me. I withdraw everything I've said
I'm giving you an opportunity, without distraction from tangential issues, to show everybody that my views are similar to the Nazis.
in this thread in order to cede the floor to Ivanhoe that he might in fact
show us that your views are similar to the Nazis.
My apologies.
Nemesio
07 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: "Where in it do you discuss the means by which bbarr determines what is and is not an act of mercy as compared with that which the Nazi's determine is an act of mercy?"
Okay.
Where in it do you discuss the means by which bbarr determines what
is and is not an act of mercy as compared with that which the Nazi's
determine is an act of mercy?
Where in it do you discuss the means by which bbarr determines who
has the right to enact these acts of mercy as compared with that which
the Nazi's determine has the right to enact the same?
Nemesio
They are essentially the same. I have not been able to detect any fundamental differences. Have you ?[/b]
Nemesio: "Where in it do you discuss the means by which bbarr determines who has the right to enact these acts of mercy as compared with that which the Nazi's determine has the right to enact the same?
No differences here either. The doctors perform the killing in both situations.
07 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Starrman... a lack of evidence ... I see .... It is so convenient to state this.
What? You want me to provide evidence to support claims to a lack of evidence from you? What world do you live in?
You can always continue to claim there isn't enough evidence. How much is enough ? Of course you will be the judge of that, right ?
07 Jun 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeAs I said, for the joint reason of not distracting from bbarr's interest in
They are essentially the same. I have not been able to detect any fundamental differences. Have you ?
this thread and to avoid giving you the impression that I am part of
his 'gang,' I'm going to withdraw from discussion for now and let you
and bbarr discuss it in plain sight so that we might draw conclusions of
our own from the fruits of the deliberation.
Nemesio
07 Jun 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeProofs (if we can even call them that) of opinion rely on the reciprocation of belief between parties. You can't just state an opinion and hold that opinion is true when it isn't backed by either deductive reasoning or democratic agreement. Nobody yet agrees that you've shown a connection, until at least one person does you haven't proved anything.
... a lack of evidence ... I see .... It is so convenient to state this.
You can always continue to claim there isn't enough evidence. How much is enough ? Of course you will be the judge of that, right ?
Perhaps if you actually laid out your argument as Bbarr has requested you'd have something. Oh wait, that's never going to happen is it? That would mean you actually might have to lay out premises and reach a conclusion for once...