[Godstud]

I never insulted you, but feel free to report me if I hurt your feelings because I found your whole "argument" to be philosophical nonsense.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Godstud,

Sorry, "Intellectually Incompetent" Does not exist as re-portable offense at this time on PoFo, so my hands are tied. Perhaps I can get a moderator to add that, but then your days really would be numbered.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, you cannot define it as such, logically speaking.

If you can make the argument, from modal logic (possible-worlds reasoning), which is the only form of logic that can establish essential v. accidental qualities, then I will admit to your premises. Until you can do that, however, dancing is what all logicians would define it as in regards to your existence (from modal reasoning), which is as a descriptive and not essential predicate, an accidental quality.

You misunderstood me, but it doesn’t matter.

I would still count a vasectomy as pregnancy prevention and it would still meet my definition since it acts to preemptively make all future sex-acts by nature "intentionally anti-procreative" as all semen further produced post-vasectomy would be, now by nature, useful only for non-procreative ends.

I understand if you are bored, being so out of your league when it comes to the proper use of syllogistic logic can be tiresome. I could offer you some free tutoring if you'd like.

I am bored because this is a long and boring treatise on why ideas receive personhood.

This while argument hinges on the idea that destroying the idea of a person is the same as detroying an actual person. You make a logical leap from “all non potentials are non actuals” to “all potential person destroying is actual person destroying”.

This is obvioulsy wrong.

Just because an actual cannot be without first being a potential does not mean that all potentials will be actuals, nor does it mean that all potentials are actuals.

Yes, you will go back to your all things being equal thing, but that is simply a deliberate attempt to ignore all the potentials that are not actuals and will never be.

[Victoribus Spolia]

This is obvioulsy wrong.

Prove it.

[Pants-of-dog]

You define a potential person as the metaphysical concept of a person implied every time a couple enegage in coitus.

Regardless of intent, not all these people will be born, even if every single couple was trying their hardest to do so.

Thus, there will always be a number of potential people who will never be actual people. Destroying one of these dudes is not destroying an actual person.

[Victoribus Spolia]

You define a potential person as the metaphysical concept of a person implied every time a couple enegage in coitus.

Regardless of intent, not all these people will be born, even if every single couple was trying their hardest to do so.

Thus, there will always be a number of potential people who will never be actual people. Destroying one of these dudes is not destroying an actual person.

When fertility is possible, all things being equal, a potential person arises under such conditions that, given the natural course of events, all things being equal, it will transition into an actual person via conception. This is true.

That is, if you fuck your wife and no one is using birth control, controlling for extraneous conditions, conception will occur. If you willfully use birth control, controlling for extraneous conditions, a child will not be conceived. This is all true and common sense.

Why will no child be conceived? Because you intentionally prevented the potential person from transitioning to an actual person and this was your intent.

You intentionally and preemptively destroyed the existence of an actual life by the means of destroying the potential person via contraception. This potential person would have, given the natural course of events (all things being equal), transitioned into an actual life had you not intervened in the process. You are acting as the Terminator in relation to John Connor.

All my syllogism is arguing is about the above:

Premise One. All (Intentionally Non-Procreative Sexuality) is (Potential Person Destroying).[All X is Y]

Premise Two. All Non-Potentials Are Non-Actuals.

Corollary To P2: All (Potential Person Destroying) is (Actual Person Destroying). [All Y is B]

Conclusion. All (Intentionally Non-Procreative Sexuality) is (Actual Person Destroying). [All X is B]

Lets look at premise two, which seems to be the object of your critique. Is this premise valid?

Is it true that if no person exists potentially, then no corresponding person can exist in actuality? Yes, this is true, for if there was never any potential person there could have been no actual person, as that would mean no conditions ever existed for that potential to transition into an actual.

Thus, premise one states, that the intention to destroy a potential person for the purpose of preventing an actual person is, all things being equal, exactly what it claims to be: a destroyer of potential persons in order to destroy actual persons. Hence the Corollary.

So, for you to say: "Thus, there will always be a number of potential people who will never be actual people. Destroying one of these dudes is not destroying an actual person." is to make an invalid objection. Why do I say that? Well, because even though there are potential persons who arise that do not actualize because of extraneous circumstances (which was never denied), YOU are using contraception in order to destroy those who you believe would become actuals, if you did not think so, you would not use contraception in the first place. You have claimed that those potentials you are destroying are those that would not become actuals anyway, but if that were the case, why use contraception at all? If they are not going to become actuals anyway than whether you practice unprotected sex or not is irrelevant.

That is, when you fuck your wife when she is able to conceive, and you use a condom, you are intentionally destroying a potential life in order preemptively destroy an actual life, that you believe, would come into existence given the natural course of events.

If YOU did not believe that a potential person existed that would otherwise transition into an actual person, then the use of contraception would be pointless, because there was no potential for a child to be conceived to begin with (duh).

Likewise, If you would claim that you did not want to preemptively destroy an actual life that would otherwise exist if you pursued "unprotected sex," then you would likewise not use contraception and would just be open to getting a child.

So Which Is It? Are you destroying potentials that you do not think would otherwise become actuals like when you said "there will always be a number of potential people who will never be actual people. Destroying one of these dudes is not destroying an actual person"

Because if that is the case you having nothing to fear by not using contraception.

or are you destroying potentials that you believe would otherwise become actuals? [There are no alternatives logically speaking (according to the law of the excluded middle, either A or Non-A)].

If the former, than birth control is unnecessary and you may rid yourself of the inconvenience, or, if the latter, you are destroying actual people via a destruction of potential people.

But lets be honest here:

The fact of the matter is, you use birth control so that people who you believe would otherwise come into existence given your sexual conduct, will not exist. This is accomplished by disrupting the process of a potential person becoming an actual person in fertile sexuality (coitus), by making that sexuality sterile for your own purposes.

It is really that simple, and when logically expressed, this fact is rationally undeniable.

If destroying, as I defined, is a form of murder (ethically speaking), then given the relation of potentials and actuals, and most importantly, the motive of those using contraception, such acts are murderous for they are intentionally anti-life in their approach and purpose. Their ends is to prevent people from coming into existence that otherwise would exist, given a natural course of events and all things being equal.

But even if such would be justifiable according to your code of morality, it still would not change the substance of the point that willful pregnancy prevention is an actual-life destroying act (logically), it would just mean your school of morality permits you to do it just like euthanasia or third-term abortions, or sacrificing three cops for one hundred civilian hostages etc. Those are still instances of killing, but some schools justify them as moral killings. contraception will be no different (logically speaking).

[Pants-of-dog]

When fertility is possible, all things being equal, a potential person arises under such conditions that, given the natural course of events, all things being equal, it will transition into an actual person via conception. This is true.

That is, if you fuck your wife and no one is using birth control, controlling for extraneous conditions, conception will occur. If you willfully use birth control, controlling for extraneous conditions, a child will not be conceived. This is all true and common sense.

Why will no child be conceived? Because you intentionally prevented the potential person from transitioning to an actual person and this was your intent.

You intentionally and preemptively destroyed the existence of an actual life by the means of destroying the potential person via contraception. This potential person would have, given the natural course of events (all things being equal), transitioned into an actual life had you not intervened in the process. You are acting as the Terminator in relation to John Connor.

All my syllogism is arguing is about the above:

Premise One. All (Intentionally Non-Procreative Sexuality) is (Potential Person Destroying).[All X is Y]

Yes, if you ignore all the times when this is wrong, this is right.

In teality, though, it is not always true.

Premise Two. All Non-Potentials Are Non-Actuals.

Corollary To P2: All (Potential Person Destroying) is (Actual Person Destroying). [All Y is B]

Conclusion. All (Intentionally Non-Procreative Sexuality) is (Actual Person Destroying). [All X is B]

Lets look at premise two, which seems to be the object of your critique. Is this premise valid?

Is it true that if no person exists potentially, then no corresponding person can exist in actuality? Yes, this is true, for if there was never any potential person there could have been no actual person, as that would mean no conditions ever existed for that potential to transition into an actual.

Thus, premise one states, that the intention to destroy a potential person for the purpose of preventing an actual person is, all things being equal, exactly what it claims to be: a destroyer of potential persons in order to destroy actual persons. Hence the Corollary.

So, for you to say: "Thus, there will always be a number of potential people who will never be actual people. Destroying one of these dudes is not destroying an actual person." is to make an invalid objection. Why do I say that? Well, because even though there are potential persons who arise that do not actualize because of extraneous circumstances (which was never denied), YOU are using contraception in order to destroy those who you believe would become actuals, if you did not think so, you would not use contraception in the first place. You have claimed that those potentials you are destroying are those that would not become actuals anyway, but if that were the case, why use contraception at all? If they are not going to become actuals anyway than whether you practice unprotected sex or not is irrelevant.

That is, when you fuck your wife when she is able to conceive, and you use a condom, you are intentionally destroying a potential life in order preemptively destroy an actual life, that you believe, would come into existence given the natural course of events.

If YOU did not believe that a potential person existed that would otherwise transition into an actual person, then the use of contraception would be pointless, because there was no potential for a child to be conceived to begin with (duh).

Likewise, If you would claim that you did not want to preemptively destroy an actual life that would otherwise exist if you pursued "unprotected sex," then you would likewise not use contraception and would just be open to getting a child.

So Which Is It? Are you destroying potentials that you do not think would otherwise become actuals like when you said "there will always be a number of potential people who will never be actual people. Destroying one of these dudes is not destroying an actual person"

Because if that is the case you having nothing to fear by not using contraception.

or are you destroying potentials that you believe would otherwise become actuals? [There are no alternatives logically speaking (according to the law of the excluded middle, either A or Non-A)].

If the former, than birth control is unnecessary and you may rid yourself of the inconvenience, or, if the latter, you are destroying actual people via a destruction of potential people.

Actually, I can think of several reasons why condoms would be used that have nothing to do with pregnancy prevention. Infertile people do not enjoy STIs.

Thus, the idea that people use contraception just to destroy people is wrong.

But lets be honest here:

The fact of the matter is, you use birth control so that people who you believe would otherwise come into existence given your sexual conduct, will not exist. This is accomplished by disrupting the process of a potential person becoming an actual person in fertile sexuality (coitus), by making that sexuality sterile for your own purposes.

It is really that simple, and when logically expressed, this fact is rationally undeniable.

If destroying, as I defined, is a form of murder (ethically speaking), then given the relation of potentials and actuals, and most importantly, the motive of those using contraception, such acts are murderous for they are intentionally anti-life in their approach and purpose. Their ends is to prevent people from coming into existence that otherwise would exist, given a natural course of events and all things being equal.

Well, you are playing fastband loose with definitions here.

You define “destroy” to mean “intentionally preventing from happening” and then using “murder” to mean “destroy”.

So, you are equating “intentionally preventing from happening” with “the intentional and unlawful killing of an actual person”.

But even if such would be justifiable according to your code of morality, it still would not change the substance of the point that willful pregnancy prevention is an actual-life destroying act (logically), it would just mean your school of morality permits you to do it just like euthanasia or third-term abortions, or sacrificing three cops for one hundred civilian hostages etc. Those are still instances of killing, but some schools justify them as moral killings. contraception will be no different (logically speaking).

I never discussed morality.

[Rich]

To some extent murder is what ever you want it to be, and its not what ever you want it not to be. According to the Bible its fine to kill people for committing homosexual acts, drawing a human, an animal or a tree or engaging in fortune telling. Lying Christian misogynist bigots like to say that abortion is murder. The fact that these bigots think women should not be punished at all, let alone face the death penalty exposes the corrupt frauds that they are. They don't really believe it is murder.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Yes, if you ignore all the times when this is wrong, this is right.

In teality, though, it is not always true.

No, if we control for extraneous circumstances it is true, which is proper logic. You claim to be a man on logic, so prove me wrong from logic. Likewise, if something is true, logically speaking, especially regarding something as practical as we are speaking of, it does have implications for reality. It would be foolish to deny such.

Actually, I can think of several reasons why condoms would be used that have nothing to do with pregnancy prevention. Infertile people do not enjoy STIs.

Thus, the idea that people use contraception just to destroy people is wrong.

In the example you mention above it can only be said they are not using for contraception only, but they are still using it for contraception. Likewise, I am speaking in lay-manner above and you are clearly dodging. You know exactly what I mean. The purpose of contraception, in the context of the above discussion is exactly what it is meant by the term "Contraception" which is to prevent people that would otherwise exist from existing by destroying potential persons. This is what pregnancy prevention is.

con·tra·cep·tion
ˌkäntrəˈsepSH(ə)n/
noun
the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse. The major forms of artificial contraception are barrier methods, of which the most common is the condom; the contraceptive pill, which contains synthetic sex hormones that prevent ovulation in the female; intrauterine devices, such as the coil, which prevent the fertilized ovum from implanting in the uterus; and male or female sterilization.

Well, you are playing fastband loose with definitions here.

You define “destroy” to mean “intentionally preventing from happening” and then using “murder” to mean “destroy”.

So, you are equating “intentionally preventing from happening” with “the intentional and unlawful killing of an actual person”.

No, I gave a definition of "destroying" in my original OP and have not failed to post consistently with that definition:

1.Destroying: Stopping, or causing to cease, what would otherwise exist given a natural course of events (all things being equal).

Murder could be subsumed under this as a form of destroying, the difference being intention and the relation of such to other laws. If I murder you, I have caused caused you to cease from existing when otherwise given a natural course of events you would have continued to exist, all things being equal. This definition applies equal to actual persons who are preemptively destroyed via a destroying of potential persons. If the motive is intentional and arbitrary, it would be a type of murder under most ethical schools, but justifiable by some.

I never discussed morality.

But I did in my OP and I am bringing it up now.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, if we control for extraneous circumstances it is true, which is proper logic. You claim to be a man on logic, so prove me wrong from logic. Likewise, if something is true, logically speaking, especially regarding something as practical as we are speaking of, it does have implications for reality. It would be foolish to deny such.

I already provided real world examples of you being wrong.

In the example you mention above it can only be said they are not using for contraception only, but they are still using it for contraception. Likewise, I am speaking in lay-manner above and you are clearly dodging. You know exactly what I mean. The purpose of contraception, in the context of the above discussion is exactly what it is meant by the term "Contraception" which is to prevent people that would otherwise exist from existing by destroying potential persons. This is what pregnancy prevention is.

con·tra·cep·tion
ˌkäntrəˈsepSH(ə)n/
noun
the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse. The major forms of artificial contraception are barrier methods, of which the most common is the condom; the contraceptive pill, which contains synthetic sex hormones that prevent ovulation in the female; intrauterine devices, such as the coil, which prevent the fertilized ovum from implanting in the uterus; and male or female sterilization.

Sure. Please note that infertile people will use condoms to prevent STIs.

No, I gave a definition of "destroying" in my original OP and have not failed to post consistently with that definition:

1.Destroying: Stopping, or causing to cease, what would otherwise exist given a natural course of events (all things being equal).

Murder could be subsumed under this as a form of destroying, the difference being intention and the relation of such to other laws. If I murder you, I have caused caused you to cease from existing when otherwise given a natural course of events you would have continued to exist, all things being equal. This definition applies equal to actual persons who are preemptively destroyed via a destroying of potential persons. If the motive is intentional and arbitrary, it would be a type of murder under most ethical schools, but justifiable by some.

I have noticed you using these definitions interchangeably.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I already provided real world examples of you being wrong.

No you have not.

You have either posted examples that are irrelevant to the argument being made, or controlled for under "all things being equal."

Sure. Please note that infertile people will use condoms to prevent STIs.

Well then its not contraception in that instance, per the definitions given, or the intent of the individual, and therefore would not have anything to do with the argument under discussion.

I have noticed you using these definitions interchangeably.

I have not used "murder" and "destroying" interchangeably to my knowledge and in the last post I qualified the difference in light of moral philosophy.

[Pants-of-dog]

No you have not.

You have either posted examples that are irrelevant to the argument being made, or controlled for under "all things being equal."

Yes, that is what I said: if we ignore all the situations where you are wrong, you are right.

Well then its not contraception in that instance, per the definitions given, or the intent of the individual, and therefore would not have anything to do with the argument under discussion.

So this is another sitiation where you are right as long as we ignoree those times you are wrong.

I have not used "murder" and "destroying" interchangeably to my knowledge and in the last post I qualified the difference in light of moral philosophy.

People can just read the thread and see for themselves.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Yes, that is what I said: if we ignore all the situations where you are wrong, you are right.

If we use proper logic and syllogistic form, I am right.

So this is another sitiation where you are right as long as we ignoree those times you are wrong.

If we ignore irrelevant factors and red herrings, I am still right, correct.

People can just read the thread and see for themselves.

They can indeed.

[Pants-of-dog]

If we use proper logic and syllogistic form, I am right.

If we ignore irrelevant factors and red herrings, I am still right, correct.

Sure. You may have well used the right form to ignore all the sitautions where you are wrong.

They can indeed.

Yes, the part where you switch from philosophy to legal terms is hilarious. I have heard of people being charged with murder despite a lack of a body. This is the first time i have ever heard of people being charged with murder becuase there was never a body.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Sure. You may have well used the right form to ignore all the sitautions where you are wrong.

Yes, I used the correct syllogistic format to exclude extraneous circumstances, something necessitated to make almost any simple statement that is assumed to represent an accurate state of affairs, valid. If this practice was not followed, intelligible conversation would be almost impossible.

Yes, the part where you switch from philosophy to legal terms is hilarious. I have heard of people being charged with murder despite a lack of a body. This is the first time i have ever heard of people being charged with murder becuase there was never a body.

Well there is a first time for everything.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, I used the correct syllogistic format to exclude extraneous circumstances, something necessitated to make almost any simple statement that is assumed to represent an accurate state of affairs, valid. If this practice was not followed, intelligible conversation would be almost impossible.

I am not trained in logic, so I will assume you used the correct form for excluding all the situations that disprove your premises. I am just a craftsperson and parent, not a logician. But I can still have intelligible conversations about contraception that include things not going as intended.

Well there is a first time for everything.

This is not the first time I have seen people deliberately muddying terms in order to make outlandish claims.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I am not trained in logic

Clearly, though you claim it as a standard when you debate in other places and you demand that people you use it and use it correctly. I have. Craftsperson or not, this is the standard and I used it correctly, to the "t" as they say.

This is not the first time I have seen people deliberately muddying terms in order to make outlandish claims.

Nobody muddied anything. I brought up murder in a later point, and discussed ethics in a separate section designating such in the OP. Your claims are invalid. When I discuss the syllogism and when I discuss the ethical implications, they are clearly distinguished in my presentations.

[Pants-of-dog]

Clearly, though you claim it as a standard when you debate in other places and you demand that people you use it and use it correctly. I have. Craftsperson or not, this is the standard and I used it correctly, to the "t" as they say.

Sure.

This does not change the fact that you have excluded all the situations that disprove your premises. All it does is say that you did it “properly”.

Nobody muddied anything. I brought up murder in a later point, and discussed ethics in a separate section designating such in the OP. Your claims are invalid. When I discuss the syllogism and when I discuss the ethical implications, they are clearly distinguished in my presentations.

Sure.

It must have been someone else who wrote “ is contraception murder”.

[Victoribus Spolia]

This does not change the fact that you have excluded all the situations that disprove your premises. All it does is say that you did it “properly”.

No, at most, even if such were admitted, they would admit of exceptions to the rule and would force the premises to be impractically qualified via modification.

It must have been someone else who wrote “ is contraception murder”.

That was the title and it was written as a rhetorical question in a provactive manner, the substance of which is based on the connection between the syllogism and ethical implication sections of the OP....you're really starting to grasp at straws now bud....

Are you ready to throw in the towel yet, or do you want to keep on going?

[snapdragon]

god's tripes! That crappy film was not a documentary.

No, contraception isn't murder.

There's nothing to discuss.