Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-10-2016, 01:19 PM
RE: Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
Thanks! I suspect that any further attempt to engage in this conversation would amount to my simply repeating things I've already said, so I believe I'll call my part in this to a close. However, if you think you have something to add to the conversation that hasn't already been addressed by something I've said, feel free to call it to my attention and I'll take a look at it.

Have a good evening!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2016, 01:33 PM
RE: Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
(10-10-2016 01:19 PM)mhausam Wrote:  Thanks! I suspect that any further attempt to engage in this conversation would amount to my simply repeating things I've already said, so I believe I'll call my part in this to a close. However, if you think you have something to add to the conversation that hasn't already been addressed by something I've said, feel free to call it to my attention and I'll take a look at it.

Have a good evening!

You've added nothing to this topic. All you did was make unfounded, unsupported assertions, and demonstrated you are a presupositionalist.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
10-10-2016, 01:45 PM
RE: Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
(10-10-2016 01:19 PM)mhausam Wrote:  Thanks! I suspect that any further attempt to engage in this conversation would amount to my simply repeating things I've already said, so I believe I'll call my part in this to a close. However, if you think you have something to add to the conversation that hasn't already been addressed by something I've said, feel free to call it to my attention and I'll take a look at it.

Have a good evening!

Hey amigo

I appreciate that you came over here to chat, even though it's your blog. I think you've not really shown me anything that convinces me that you're correct. Even though my previous post in this thread might have seemed facetious, I haven't seen any refutation. Namely, if you want "neutrality" but want to force your views on others via the state, what stops me from forcing my views on you? Why shouldn't Catholicism be ruled illegal in the US, if I can rouse a sufficient majority? Freedom to practice your religion is guaranteed you by your law. Freedom to make others participate via e.g. inscribing 10 commandments in a courtroom is not - in fact is explicitly prohibited. This is not difficult.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
10-10-2016, 02:47 PM
RE: Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
Morondog, you've completely misunderstood my position and argument. I do not want neutrality, nor am I arguing that Catholics should be able to impose their views in law, nor am I arguing that Catholics should not be persecuted. All I am arguing is that any set of laws will fail to be religiously neutral (or neutral with regard to competing beliefs and values) because any set of laws will assume the beliefs and values of some people and not others. If there is a law outlawing abortion, that law will be compatible with the assumption of the truth of the Catholic worldview, but it will not be compatible with the assumption of any worldview in which there is no basis to oppose abortion. Likewise, if the law allows abortion, whatever assumptions that law is based on are assumptions contrary to the assumptions of the Catholic worldview, because they lead to conclusions contrary to the conclusions a Catholic worldview would lead to. (To be more specific, in a Catholic worldview, the objective moral law of God opposes legalizing abortion, and so abortion should be illegal. If we legalize abortion, then, we can only be doing so on grounds contrary to the Catholic worldview--probably what I call "Agnostic" grounds, namely the assumption that the claims of the Catholic faith are not factual or are not known to be factual and so should not be treated as factual.)

There is no way around this. Laws are rooted in values and beliefs, and various sorts of laws make sense given various values and beliefs. Since this is the case, competing values and beliefs will tend to lead to competing proposals in terms of civil law, and whatever civil laws are put in place will reflect the assumptions of some over others.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2016, 03:13 PM
RE: Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
(10-10-2016 02:47 PM)mhausam Wrote:  Morondog, you've completely misunderstood my position and argument. I do not want neutrality, nor am I arguing that Catholics should be able to impose their views in law, nor am I arguing that Catholics should not be persecuted. All I am arguing is that any set of laws will fail to be religiously neutral (or neutral with regard to competing beliefs and values) because any set of laws will assume the beliefs and values of some people and not others. If there is a law outlawing abortion, that law will be compatible with the assumption of the truth of the Catholic worldview, but it will not be compatible with the assumption of any worldview in which there is no basis to oppose abortion. Likewise, if the law allows abortion, whatever assumptions that law is based on are assumptions contrary to the assumptions of the Catholic worldview, because they lead to conclusions contrary to the conclusions a Catholic worldview would lead to. (To be more specific, in a Catholic worldview, the objective moral law of God opposes legalizing abortion, and so abortion should be illegal. If we legalize abortion, then, we can only be doing so on grounds contrary to the Catholic worldview--probably what I call "Agnostic" grounds, namely the assumption that the claims of the Catholic faith are not factual or are not known to be factual and so should not be treated as factual.)

There is no way around this. Laws are rooted in values and beliefs, and various sorts of laws make sense given various values and beliefs. Since this is the case, competing values and beliefs will tend to lead to competing proposals in terms of civil law, and whatever civil laws are put in place will reflect the assumptions of some over others.

Well, yes, a society's laws will reflect the prevailing values of that society, and I don't see that as a problem. I think what's putting people off here is your false dichotomy between a "Catholic worldview" and a "non-Catholic worldview", as if those are basic categories. There are many kinds of worldviews, and it's a bit hubristic of you to assign Catholicism the same importance as all the rest of them put together. Catholicism may be special to you, because it's your particular worldview, but in general, it's no more special than any of the others. It's just one among many. And the law absolutely should not give special consideration to that one at the expense of the others -- unless the society in question is a Catholic theocracy. The US is not such, and may it never be.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2016, 03:48 PM
RE: Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
(10-10-2016 02:47 PM)mhausam Wrote:  Morondog, you've completely misunderstood my position and argument. I do not want neutrality, nor am I arguing that Catholics should be able to impose their views in law, nor am I arguing that Catholics should not be persecuted. All I am arguing is that any set of laws will fail to be religiously neutral (or neutral with regard to competing beliefs and values) because any set of laws will assume the beliefs and values of some people and not others. If there is a law outlawing abortion, that law will be compatible with the assumption of the truth of the Catholic worldview, but it will not be compatible with the assumption of any worldview in which there is no basis to oppose abortion. Likewise, if the law allows abortion, whatever assumptions that law is based on are assumptions contrary to the assumptions of the Catholic worldview, because they lead to conclusions contrary to the conclusions a Catholic worldview would lead to. (To be more specific, in a Catholic worldview, the objective moral law of God opposes legalizing abortion, and so abortion should be illegal. If we legalize abortion, then, we can only be doing so on grounds contrary to the Catholic worldview--probably what I call "Agnostic" grounds, namely the assumption that the claims of the Catholic faith are not factual or are not known to be factual and so should not be treated as factual.)

There is no way around this. Laws are rooted in values and beliefs, and various sorts of laws make sense given various values and beliefs. Since this is the case, competing values and beliefs will tend to lead to competing proposals in terms of civil law, and whatever civil laws are put in place will reflect the assumptions of some over others.

The law makes no moral judgements though. If your doctrine says that abortion is *bad*, the law doesn't say anything about the morality of it, just that it's perfectly *legal*. Same with same-sex marriage.

It's only if you want to *impose* your own law, based on religion, that abortion should be illegal, that you are in conflict with the law - and not just the mundane law of thou shalt or thou shalt not, but the legal principle of not allowing one religious sect to have dominance in the state.

Law is ultimately just codified custom, which is why it takes time to change. But for my money law *should* be about what's best for society. Hence in my mind ideally murder should be illegal not because there's inherently anything wrong with it ( Gasp ) but because killing should always be done legally (hur hur), otherwise society becomes more violent and all kindsa crap ensues. Just finding something like abortion repugnant is insufficient basis for a law.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2016, 04:07 PM
RE: Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
(10-10-2016 02:47 PM)mhausam Wrote:  If there is a law outlawing abortion, that law will be compatible with the assumption of the truth of the Catholic worldview, but it will not be compatible with the assumption of any worldview in which there is no basis to oppose abortion. Likewise,w, because they lead to conclusions contrary to the conclusions a Catholic worldview would lead to. (To be more specific, in a Catholic worldview, the objective moral law of God opposes legalizing abortion, and so abortion should be illegal. If we legalize abortion, then, we can only be doing so on grounds contrary to the Catholic worldview--probably what I if the law allows abortion, whatever assumptions that law is based on are assumptions contrary to the assumptions of the Catholic worldviecall "Agnostic" grounds, namely the assumption that the claims of the Catholic faith are not factual or are not known to be factual and so should not be treated as factual.)



You really should learn
1. to think critically, instead of confusing apples with oranges.
[quote]
if the law allows abortion, whatever assumptions that law is based on are assumptions contrary to the assumptions of the Catholic worldview

Totally false assumption. They could be totally IN LINE (or alternatively out of line) with Catholic teaching, and unless they are examined, there is no way of knowing what they are actually based on. They could just be coincidentally in agreement by happenstance, and address COMPLETELY different issues. You are making UNFOUNDED assumptions.

2. You do not speak for the Catholic Church, and indeed you seem to be rather ignorant of what it actually teaches.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist_c1.htm

As far as "no way around this", .... so what ? No one is ever going to be perfectly free to have 100 % of their wishes in a society that agrees to have people live together. Your issue is a RED HERRING.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2016, 04:11 PM
RE: Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
(10-10-2016 12:33 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I think that your ideas are built upon demonstrably false premises, which will necessarily lead to false conclusions.

I must quibble: false premises can also lead to correct conclusions.

If P then Q and if ~P then Q have the same truth table.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
10-10-2016, 04:23 PM
RE: Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
(10-10-2016 04:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-10-2016 12:33 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I think that your ideas are built upon demonstrably false premises, which will necessarily lead to false conclusions.

I must quibble: false premises can also lead to correct conclusions.

If P then Q and if ~P then Q have the same truth table.

I must also quibble. F -> Q is always true. P -> Q and ~P -> Q are different though.

P Q P -> Q
F F T
F T T
T F F
T T T

P Q ~P -> Q
F F F
F T T
T F T
T T T

Tongue

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2016, 04:45 PM
RE: Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
(10-10-2016 04:23 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(10-10-2016 04:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  I must quibble: false premises can also lead to correct conclusions.

If P then Q and if ~P then Q have the same truth table.

I must also quibble. F -> Q is always true. P -> Q and ~P -> Q are different though.

P Q P -> Q
F F T
F T T
T F F
T T T

P Q ~P -> Q
F F F
F T T
T F T
T T T

Tongue

They are different yet the same. Big Grin

P->Q is false if and only if P is true and Q is false.

~P->Q is false if and only if ~P is true and Q is false.

Those two true statements have the same logical form. You have just replaced P by ~P. In that sense, they are logically identical statements with identical truth tables. Substitution of variable does not change the logic.

However, I'm not sure that calling this a "substitution" is playing entirely fair, since P and ~P are not random unrelated variables.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: