Old age, after all, is only the punishment for having lived. — Emil Cioran

To live then must be a crime/sin. Is it? The non-living commit no sins - they can be used to do bad stuff but they themselves don't initiate any action let alone evil ones (natural evil :chin: ). To be evil, one must first live - life then is the gateway to immorality, from mendacity to mass murder. There's hope though because the doorway to evil is also the path to goodness - the good life is the philosopher's holy grail.

Nevertheless, as I like to say to myself: Those who commit sins shall die! Those who do not commit sins shall also die! What's the point? Hence, God, sky daddy, father.

Yes, but the Serenity Prayer is more geared towards AA and NA members... Hmm... — Shawn

The serenity prayer is a very good match for the stoic spirit. I don't know how far this is true but it's claimed christianity & stoicism have some elements in common, the latter influencing the former. Nietzsche was probably critiquing stoicism in christianity, he must've interpreted it as defeatism, only the weak are like that - the set of things they can change is the null set. Nietzsche'swill to power makes sense now - stoics must be eradicated and stoicisim buried for good.

That the stoic attitude is suited for addicts proves the point, doesn't it?, that Zeno's (of Citium) philosophy is about control, the lack thereof to be precise. It speaks volumes regarding how life was back then - the 3rd century BC was likely a time when "people had very little autonomy."

Intriguingly, there's a paradox lurking at the very foundation of the stoic way of life. Thus the quotes around, "people had very little autonomy". The stoic call to accept instead of resist one's circumstances makes sense also if people did have high levels of control over their lives. Isn't that precisely what "...can't be changed" - other people?!

Man up, Fool. C'mon. James Riley is :100: :smirk: — 180 Proof

I would've but @James Riley made it crystal clear that I have a choice. :lol:

You are sorry. It was implied in your statement. You'll just have to accept the implications of your statement. TheMadFool is a sorry person. — James Riley

:up: :ok:

I'll take the first bite.

Serenity Prayer by Reinhold Niebuhr

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.

Sorry you feel that way. G'day. See you around.

Foundationalism — Noisy Calf

:up: An example please of a self-evident truth.

Coherentism — Noisy Calf

There can be no such thing as lies on this view.

Scenario 1 (traditional truth): Jane's gone to the market. The keys to the car are not there. Jane said earlier she wanted to buy some popcorn.

Scenario 2 (traditional lie): Jane hasn't gone to the market. Her boyfriend came by and borrowed the car. Jane said she'd buy popcorn but never said she'd do it today.

Good luck. I hope you have better luck than me, Corvus.

aging is not necessary and should in fact be considered a disease, — darthbarracuda

One of humanity's greatest abilities, if we could call it that, is to change necessity into contingency. Kudos to those pathfinders who make this possible.

It makes sense. Diseases kill, aging kills. Why shouldn't aging be a disease?

life will be like without aging. — darthbarracuda

Not aging is, as Tithonus found out, a feature that doesn't come with immortality.

Immortality: $99.99
Not aging: Sold separately

discomfort is good for longevity. — darthbarracuda

I don't think you understand the full import of your statement. Discomfort makes the increased life-span pointless. It's torture - live longer but suffer more. Maybe I'm reading too much into your statement. I hope I am.


The most appropriate quote for this thread is

Youth is wasted on the young — George Bernard Shaw

My own feelings: Once wise, soon dies

I thought for the fact that you replied to this thread with the good write up, you must also be very much interested in the topic, but what made you feel that way, I am lost. :) But never mind. I hope you feel better. — Corvus

Ranting! Venting! Blowing off steam! Sorry you had to see this! By the way, did I say anything even mildly inappropriate? Apologies if I did.

On a more serious note, logic is logic's own worst enemy (it fails its own tests). That's the beauty!

As I see it, the Stoic ideal was a harmonious balance between the extremes of Spock Logic and Captain Kirk passion. It was the Cynics that tended to the extreme of living life like a dog (sorry mutts). :grin: — Gnomon

Balance, not my strong suit. Imbalance, my middle name.

You then made the fundamental mistake of saying that I must be saying that all choice in all cases trumps all life — James Riley

It was implied by your statement. Either you're pro-choice or you're pro-life. If you're pro-choice then, isn't it obvious?, life doesn't matter. If life doesn't matter, nothing does (except choice)

That is stupid — James Riley

You're referring to yourself, right? If you're not, you've failed to recognize your own reflection. I'm just like you so, don't fret. I think everyone is like that.

I am 100% consistent. — James Riley

Did I say you were inconsistent? You're not. You'll just have to accept the implications of your statement.

Finally, the devil better get himself a better advocate or he'll end up talking to a hand. — James Riley

The devil made me do it! — A child murderer

Doesn't seem relevant but you brought up the devil. Beware, fellow human, speak of the devil and the devil will appear

I thought they are great practices in the Critical Argument studies. It is certainly helping me understanding the topics more.

It depends on from what angle you are looking at anything. If you feel sh*t, then everything looks sh*t. You can criticise anything, if you want. But it is just a psychology, not the objects out there. — Corvus

How right you are. The angle makes all the difference. From a certain angle, shit looks like shit, from another angle, shit looks like... :chin:

Really? — frank

Yes, really!

There are a few books on logic I've read and the points you're discussing are part of what some have lovingly and condescendingly (reality's messy) called baby logic - you can imagine from that description alone how vast and deep as the mighty oceans of the world logic, in fact every single subject, really is. We are, as those who have come face to face with this seemingly obvious but usually ignored and frustrating truth know, barely scratching the surface. If you're anything like me, you'll despair. All I can say is, Aristotle would give you his nod of approval - the situation and the feeling are a perfect match! It's all a giant pile of shit I tell you and it doesn't matter where you are in a giant pile of shit, you're in shit! Rant alert!

You need a Prime Mover — frank

Agreed!

What is the middle term, and how should it be distributed? Where is the counter-example? Could you elaborate with more details and examples? — Corvus

1. All A are B
2. All C are B
Ergo, you feel
3. All A are C

A, B, and C are terms or classes/categories.

In 1, A is the subject term, B is the predicate term. 1 is making a claim about members of the subject term/class/category (A), specifically that ALL of them also belong to the predicate term/class/category (B). 2 is the exact same story but this time about C and B.

Remember this is categorical (term/class/category) logic developed I'm told by Aristotle.

The major premise contains the predicate term of the conclusion. In your argument, it's 2. The minor premise is the one that has the subject term of the premise viz. 1.

The middle term is the link between the subject term of the conclusion (A) and the predicate term of the conclusion (C) and is not found in the conclusion. The middle term is B.

The middle term has to be distributed i.e. there must be a premise that makes a claim about ALL the members of the middle term.

All X are Y type of statements are called a universal statements and the subject term (X) is distributed but, unfortunately, for your argument not the predicate term (Y).

As you can see all the premises (1, 2) are universal statements that have B as a predicate term i.e. The term/class/category B isn't distributed. That makes your argument invalid.

An intuition on why the middle term needs to be distributed is that it's the link between the subject term of the conclusion and the predicate term of the conclusion and the link needs to be as strong as possible and for that a premise must make a claim about ALL members of the middle term.

The argument invalid. The middle term is not distributed (it should be). That's why you're able to construct a counter-example.

Sure.

But (1) is true. — Banno

P = Republicans won
R = Reagan won
A = Anderson won

P -> (~R -> A)

Let's ignore "P ->" for the moment.

Is (~R -> A) true? No!

The conditional as a whole, P -> (~R -> A) is false if P is true.

Or we change the economics into something else that does not require that. It will be a necessity in the future when automation takes care of most stuff. What will people do then? — Christoffer

Thanks for giving me an aha moment.

The etymology of "robot" is slave. Ah, those good ol' days!

How? — Banno

[1] If a Republican wins the election, then if it's not Reagan who wins it will be Anderson.

The conditional is formulated as if the following is true,

Republicans win then the vote ranking will be:

1. Reagan
2. Anderson
3. Jimmy Carter

It fails to consider the possibility that actually did occur:

Republicans win then the vote ranking will be:

1. Reagan
2. Jimmy Carter
3. Anderson

I have my doubts about trials-by-fire. Reminds of how theists argue about evil being necessary to apprehend good. But, by Jupiter, this much evil?! Are we imbeciles that we can't take a hint?

As for work, it's economics. Everybody has to sell something.

The conditional [1] is false.

Obviously theists haven't proven their God. Theism.

Goldilocks: Too hot!

Should I now become an atheist? No if you don't want to commit the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy (argument from ignorance). Atheism

Goldilocks: Too cold!

This logic (above) applies in full if the situation were reversed and we had begun with attempted proofs by atheists.

We simply don't know whether God exists/not. Agnosticism is purrfect!

Goldilocks: Just right!

I don't get it. Why can't both be taught? Patriotic slaves. Hmmmmm :chin:

Clearly, the object did not go through all that in between space to get to the new position — elucid

Clearly?! Now that's what I call sorcery.

If believing that the Earth is flat and wearing a aluminum foil hat gives them security and happiness what right do we have to take that way. — SteveMinjares

Absolutely none! The problem is if you claim that the earth is flat you're saying those who believe that it's round are wrong! What a great way to start a conversation!

Second, wear anything you want, aluminium foil hat or the Pope's regalia but don't tell others to do the same. That religious folks try to spread their beliefs not just as an opinion but as the unequivocal truth is what breeds militant atheism which this thread is ultimately evolving into a discussion of.

That's because consistency does matter. I win, you lose. :smirk: — 180 Proof

:grin:

Shameless strawman. :yawn: — 180 Proof

:lol: Inconsistency doesn't matter. You win, I lose.

And yet, in the real world, this "inconsistency" you're babbling about neither makes any sense nor is relevant to a woman having to make the decision whether to abort or not on the basis of her circumstances living in the real world. You've made a fetish of this specious bit of sophistry, my friend, while ignoring substantive pro-choice arguments of consequence. Ha ha ha, Fool, time to extract that swollen cranium from your pinched sphincter. — 180 Proof

:rofl: This gets interesting post by post. The real world then, you mean to say, is messy - there really is no way reasoning the way I did could lead to a decision on this issue or others that would convince people one way or the other. People don't give two shits as you like to put it about logic or its rules - they want something and they'll do whatever they can to get it. I concur but only to the extent that's how it is but I imagine it could be better, right?

This very attitude you're espousing - to hell with logic! - may turn on you one day and you'll have to simply grin and bear it. I'll come up to you, if I can, and say, "the real world, remember."

On your accusation that I'm "...ignoring substantive pro-choice arguments of consequence", mea culpa. :zip:

It makes sense to do this right? — TiredThinker

Yes! The dollars you earn as minimum wage should be able to feed a family of 5 (the poor have more mouths to feed), buy other basic necessities, pay for decent accommodations, send children to school, and enough to spare for recreation - all the stuff the so-called middle-class are said to "enjoy."

I wonder how the government calculates what a minimum wage should be? Probably in a way to keep people just, only just, above the international definition of the poverty line. There are many ways to look rich, one of them is on a technicality.

I'm not evangelical about it but I do feel intellectually duty-bound, so to speak, to exorcise and dispel the Old Shadow (sky daddy, zombie-rabbi-on-a-stick, baba yaga) whenever proselytizers & woo-thumpers conjure It (him), especially in politics. — 180 Proof

That's it. God beliefs aka religions save Buddhism if you ignore Hinduism absorbing it tend to come with a lot of rules, dos and don'ts that cover every aspect of our lives, it's, as the late Christopher Hitchens calls it, a total solution that micromanages a person's life from womb to tomb, cradle to grave.

We being naturally free-spirited tend not to like rules and religions come with boatloads of them. The response is we'll follow the rules if God exists because if God doesn't there really is no point to it - it would be a complete waste of our time. This in no way implies those who have such an attitude want to do away with all the rules in religion - throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not on their to-do list. The rules have to make sense and they need to be reasonable.

In other words, God must exist if religion is to become part of our lives and it's patently clear that it wants exactly that. Thus people argue about the existence/nonexistence of a God. A lot is at stake - if religion were to be proven false then all religious people would be living a lie, they would've squandered away their lives. Not something a level-headed person would want to do, right?

My position on abortion is usually the narrow empirical-based ethical one (re: personhood, homicide vs murder, etc). The much broader political position, germaine in the American historical context, with which I also have a strong affinity is this:

The state claims its own interest in, or on behalf of, the fetus just as it claims an interest in protect the rights of property owners to keep their property and protect it from arbitrary takings.

In this analogy: the state prohibits a woman from terminating her pregnancy by treating a fetus as a property-owner and the womb it's in as the fetus' property, that is confers on a fetus the role of slaveholder and a pregnant woman the role of slave. But slavery is 'officially' outlawed in most modern, secular, nation states, right? And yet state-sanctioned denial of an actual woman's inherent right-to-choose (& think) for herself is overlooked and deemed less repugnant in practice than killing a non-viable fetus with human DNA (possible person) in theory.

It's quite difficult to think of any prospect more morally repugnant than the circumstance that a pregnant woman is equivalent before the law as slave property who's owned (by state enforcement) by her unviable fetus. "Pro-life" in this sense is, in practice, indiscernible from pro-slavery.

So show me where my judgment goes wrong here, Fool (or anyone). — 180 Proof

The inconsistency in the pro-choice position which I reported has to do with what a woman who chooses abortion wants and how she thinks she can get what she wants.

Lemme try and keep this simple:

If I, god forbid, amputate the fetus' toes, the baby will be born toeless. No one will object to the claim that I did something to the actual baby. If I now amputate the fetus' legs, the baby will be born legless. Again, no one will disagree that I did something to the actual baby. I cut off the fetus' hands, the actual baby will be handless. No one will even dream of saying I did nothing to the actual baby. Continue chopping off parts of the fetus and no one in faer right mind will say I did nothing to the actual baby. Yet, this I find puzzling, if I remove the entire fetus (conduct an abortion), people are not sure that I did something to the actual baby and hence the abortion debate.

Either me slicing off parts of the fetus is not to be considered as doing something to the actual baby (preposterous) or abortion destroys an actual baby (more plausible).

A macabre example I know but I had no choice! :chin:

What follows is too obvious to mention.

As for comparing expectant women to slaves and the unborn child as the master, all I can say is women seem to be in a tight spot insofar as this issue is concerned.

What is choice without life and what is life without choice? Both ingredients are essential but, unfortunately, women can't have both.
Choices for women:

1. Slave

or

2. Murderer

Now that I made it as clear as crystal, thanks to 180 Proof, I wonder how women will choose?

The only trick is your foolish extrapolation from the case in point to a generalization about power and choice. Try to keep your eye on the ball. We are talking about abortion here, not some general principles of power and choice beyond the criteria I laid out for you. You are trying to make a philosophical debate where none exists. — James Riley

You made the statement, "choice trumps life" and since nothing is more important than life to pro-lifers, it follows that choice is priority #1. Rest as mentioned in the previous post to you. Please don't take this the wrong way but you need to be more aware of what you're saying/writing and if you can't do that, don't worry I'm in the same boat, at least listen to what others have to say. G'day.

Do you mind if other people's choices impact you negatively, such sometimes involving the possibility of much suffering and even death?
— TheMadFool

I do mind. But some things are subordinate to others. When it comes to a women's choice regarding that which resides within her body, all other considerations are subordinate to her choice — James Riley

You have a point. Women's choice is important, who could deny that? It's in line with your thoughts that choice trumps life. The question above was meant to bring to the fore what your stance on the abortion issue implies - either you must agree that we should all scramble for power, you made the association between power and choice not me, and that, as history attests to, has been the cause of much misery. You don't want a repeat of events in which countless lives were lost to power struggles do you? This is an implication of your position that choice is all that matters. It's an old trick you'll find in an old book on logic. You should familiarize yourself with it, it's helpful.

I don't understand any of what you just said in those paragraphs. I think it is entirely possible that you did not understand anything I said in my paragraph about power. The state (power) gets to decide who can kill who, and under what circumstances it can be done, if at all, with impunity. In the case of a human being living inside the body of another human being, the state can (and I think should) delegate that power to whoever has someone else living inside of them. In that case, choice trumps all else.

The rest of your ramblings are nonsensical — James Riley

Then I'm afraid you don't understand yourself - all that I've said are corollaries of your very intriguing statement that "choice trumps life" which essentially means choice is all that matters. Choice and power are chums and you were clearly perceptive enough to notice that. I haven't said anything you wouldn't eventually have said. If it gives you the impression of being "nonsensical" then you've scuttled your own ship. I have nothing more to discuss with you sir/madam. Please rethink your position until it makes sense to you.

The only thing at stake for a woman is her right to choose. — James Riley

My position is not concerned with her loss of freedom — James Riley

Inconsistency bothers me a great deal — James Riley

:up: :ok:

Choice trumps life. Simple, consistent. — James Riley

host — James Riley

Interesting choice of words. :chin:

powerful — James Riley

You bring up this notion only in relation to choice I suppose.

But in the end, it’s about the power to choose vs the right to life — James Riley

Pro-choice vs Pro-life.

Do you mind if other people's choices impact you negatively, such sometimes involving the possibility of much suffering and even death?

If "no" then you're advocating a free-for-all, no-holds-barred contest for power which, interestingly, you associate with choice. A very good observation to my reckoning but is that what you want? I'm not so sure but isn't democracy, the "dominant" political system in the world today, the surest sign of humanity's frustration with power? Choice is everything -> Power is a must -> Suffering galore -> Exasperation -> Choice is not everything. You don't have to agree of course and do forgive me if I've strayed off-topic, it just seemed relevant.

If "yes" then choice isn't the be-all-and-end-all. Other things, like life, are equally if not more important. Also, what's choice without life, right? Before one can even begin to think about choice, one needs to be alive and ergo, if choice is that big a deal, life, the sine qua non, must be as/more vital to us. :chin: Another good point, in my humble opinion, against pro-choicers: if every pregnancy were aborted then humanity would die out and choice would be rendered meaningless - Dodos can't choose!

Some people might say that as a general rule, humans have an aversion to change. I would have to disagree, if you ask me it would depend on the change.

As a child, ever experience the rush of opening a Christmas present? That's a change. This Christmas present that you had on your wish list, before you got the present you didn't have it. Now on Christmas morning when you open the present and its what you wanted, now you've got it. What you didn't have previously now you've got, so that's a change, and if you ask me its a really nice change, certainly not the kind of change I would have an aversion to.

That is just one example of a change that might be a desire as opposed to an aversion — HardWorker

Change occurs and either it's for the better or for the worse. One of the unspoken, unwritten rules of life is to find a niche for oneself (relationship, job, whathaveyou) and achieve some kind of equilibrium with it. This naturally results in a more or less stable (read: no or minor variations/change) state of well-being. Change then becomes a threat for it signals disequilibrium, your well-being is coming under fire so to speak. Thus, we're averse to change - it usually doesn't bode well for a person.

That said, change for the better is as real as real can get but I suspect such occur few and far between and when it happens we thank our lucky stars and that's precisely the point!

I guess I'm having a problem with painting something like "the pro-choice movement" with a single brush. I'm pro-choice as they come and my position is 100% internally consistent. Just because some pro-choice people get sucked down a rabbit hole of noise, arguing about stupid things like "when life begins" etc. doesn't mean that placing choice over life is inconsistent. — James Riley

Now I see where you're coming from. You're not really concerned about the arguments against abortion whatever they may be - they're all "noise" and "stupid", plus inconsistency isn't something that bothers you all that much. I don't blame you for such an attitude because there's a lot at stake for a woman.

If abortion is made illegal, it limits, some would say severely, a woman's freedom - she's first stuck with the fetus for 9 months, then with the child for another 18 - 20 years. That's a lot of time; even murderers, some of them at least, get a better deal. :chin: A promising lead if one takes the fact that abortion has been equated with homicide into account.

As you already seem to know, I've been hyperfocused on a single inconsistency: wanting to destroy the fetus is to worry about what the fetus can become (a baby) and thinking that we can destroy the fetus is based on what the fetus is/is not (not a baby).

I completely forgot about the welfare of the baby, faer future. It isn't enough that I saved a baby by preventing an abortion. The baby's journey has just begun - it'll need to be fed and fed well, between a child and a young adult it has to be given a decent education, after that a well-paying job, etc. If none of these requirements can be fulfilled, the baby would've been better off dead because the suffering involved would make life pointless. On this view, stopping/prohibiting abortions is to take the baby out of the frying pan only to put it in the fire. Yikes!

Then there's suicide. Some of us wish we didn't exist.

I wonder about that. The assumption there is that it only functions around deception. My skepticism starts with me and I value truth (in as much as truth is possible). I often find myself pondering 'Why do I think that?" What evidence do I have for that view?' 'Do I really have an opinion on this subject?' "What am I not considering here?' Etc. I just consider it a necessary part of interacting with the world. — Tom Storm

First off, there's something I can't quite wrap my head around. There's Doubting Thomas and he's been labeled a skeptic but, in my humble opinion, he is one in spirit (doubtful) but not in letter (there's so much more to skepticism).

A true skeptic won't be convinced by anything at all for fae knows that justificatory methods (logic and its ilk) have been built on shaky foundations. I'll not go into that and it isn't hard to figure it out given one has a coupla months to spare and loads of patience.

Doubting Thomas is doubtful but then proof (Jesus' wounds) dispels his uncertainty regarding the veracity of Jesus' claims. That's not skepticism - that's just reason mimicking skepticism - something I found out the hard way. A true skeptic, the way I see it, suspends judgment - given a claim, fae neither affirms nor denies. A skeptic is always in two minds about everything, ironclad proof or not a shred of evidence. I suppose given that any proposition can be rendered as p v ~p, a skeptic will not commit to either of them for to do so is to give logic a clean bill of health, the wrong move, not according to some other system of thinking but as per logic itself. Need I say more?

How does all I said mesh with faith?

Faith is, if you really look at it, a cross between dogmatism (I hope I got that right) and skepticism (as I outlined above): You commit to one possibility (dogmatism -> p or ~p) sans proof (skepticism -> no proof is gonna cut it). Faith then is an acknowledgement of the deep flaw in logic - it's kinda like poking fun at Doubting Toms (prove it to me!) and at all the folks who mix proof and religion, by extension all other claims - and also reveals what seems to be a fundamental truth about how we (should) deal with each other - we need to be truthful to ourselves and other people. That's where good people come in. I'm not sure though as I'm a die-hard skeptic. Did I say anything?

Look,

1. If (the fetus has not been destroyed and the baby has not been killed) then the baby exists.

2. If the baby doesn't exist then (the fetus has been destroyed or the baby has been killed) [from 1]

In other words, if I have a woman who I know was pregnant and then one fine day I see her and she doesn't have a baby, there are two possibilities: 1. she destroyed the fetus OR 2. she killed the baby. Both 1 and 2 have the same effect (no baby). I couldn't tell from her status (no baby) whether she killed the baby or she had an abortion. That implies, insofar as the effect (no baby) is the issue, there's no difference between an abortion and killing the baby i.e. abortion = killing the baby.

You fail to grasp the essence of the problem.

If you do nothing to the baby, it exists. Ergo, if it doesn't exist, you did something to the baby!