[Victoribus Spolia]

Well, if you want to look at it that way, his specific goal was to kill Sarah Connor.

Not-in-and-of-itself. It was, as Dr. Silverman stated, a "retro-active abortion." Which is the point, if the Terminator (via modified programming from Skynet) could have made Sarah Connor permanently sterile, would he have succeeded in the goal desired by Skynet? The answer is Yes. But that movie plot would of sucked, so we got violence instead.

Again, people intentionally trying to not get pregnant can and do get pregnant.

So what? That would be qualified under all things being equal as well; hence, all things being equal = the condom does not break. lol.

At best, we would have attempted murder, which is not what I am talking about.

Now potential people exist solely as logical concepts? Lol.

If that is the case, then sex and potential people are two unrelated things. One is a biological act, and the other is an idea.

If you want to treat killing potenetial people as murder, then you are arguing that murder should be redefined to include not allowing ideas to come to fruition. I have an idea of myself as an awesome dancer. So, if you were to break my kneecaps, that would be the equivalent of murder, because you “killed” the potential me that would dance.

Once again, the act of sex IS NEVER defined as a potential or actual person, sex is the circumstance of actualization (and not all sex mind, just potentially conceiving sex).

Logic and biology are not unrelated, obviously, but we are speaking of a subject that does not exist in a physical sense when we are speaking of a potential person, hence, when I say:

1- All intentionally procreative sexual acts are transitional acts of a potential person (who’s existence is implicit in procreative or “natural” sexual relations) being made into an actual person. This is given by (1) The natural course of events, and (2) all things being equal.

2- All intentionally non-procreative sexual acts are purposefully disruptive acts of stopping a potential person from transitioning into an actual person through procreative or “natural” sexual relations. This is given because to purposefully engage in such acts is to stop the natural consequence of procreation which is transitioning a potential person into an actual person.

Also, regarding your example of a dancer. If I broke your knee caps I did "destroy" something under my definition, but it would not be murder, What I destroyed was an actual career by destroying that career as a potential implicit in the circumstance of actualization. Now, that latter part is a possible problem, as you would have to say why that (all things being equal) dancing as a career was an inevitability given a natural course of events in your life for it to mirror my example, which I think is possible, but more difficult than lets say referring to conception in fertile sexuality.

See what I mean?

I see, you are redefining “all things being equal” to a specific set of circumstances and actions that could easily not occur.

And yes, my point was that non-intentional acts can also interfere.

"All things being equal" is used by logicians, and was given to me in my training, to account for variable exceptions, so that we can account for such. For instance, I could say, that if a tornado touches down in downtown Manhattan buildings will be damaged. Someone could object: "well not necessarily, it could go down times square if it was an F1 and not lift any heavy debris or cause or any damage if all of the small cars were on the other side or town, or that side was shutdown because a bridge was out, etc, etc, etc."

So, the person making the original argument will add the qualifier "All Things Being Equal" in order to account to such objections, so on the face, the statement that "if a tornado touches down in downtown Manhattan, buildings will be damaged" will remain as a general statement that accurately represents the state of affairs as part of the argument being given. Hence, the author controls for exceptions such as those to keep the argument clean.

Furthermore, a caterpillar is a potential butterfly all things being equal. "Potential butterfly" is a logical concept not a physical reality per se; however, this does not mean that the logical concept is divorced from reality or is of no consequence to it. If you destroy all caterpillars you destroy all potential butterflies and therefore all of the correlated actual butterflies that would otherwise exist.

As long as we agree that not all potential people become actual people.

Well obviously. That is part of the point, if that were true than there could be no murder in my definition, for the point of the argument is that a potential person can actually be "destroyed" by my definitions which correlates conceptually to the destruction of an actual life via logical relation.

No, i just used words as they actually are defined and took biology into account.

In dialectics, the definitions as presented by the one making the argument are to be the ones used in evaluating that persons argument; otherwise, one imputes equivocation where such does not exist.

Once again, your objections thus far are covered in my argument's construction and definitions. Which is fine.

And like I said, If my premises are true, that does not necessarily mean that such a consequence would be murder, in the moral sense. That is based on your ethical school. If you are a utilitarian (for instance) such would not be a crime (under most circumstances), but that would not invalidate that through contraception actual life was destroyed via an intentionally anti-procreative sex act.

[Rancid]

The answer is no.

[Pants-of-dog]

Not-in-and-of-itself. It was, as Dr. Silverman stated, a "retro-active abortion." Which is the point, if the Terminator (via modified programming from Skynet) could have made Sarah Connor permanently sterile, would he have succeeded in the goal desired by Skynet? The answer is Yes. But that movie plot would of sucked, so we got violence instead.

The Terminator’s actual goal was to kill Sarah Connor. Skynet’s long term goal was to nullify the resistance. Neither the Terminator nor Skynet cared about Silverman’s opinion of the mission.

So what? That would be qualified under all things being equal as well; hence, all things being equal = the condom does not break. lol.

At best, we would have attempted murder, which is not what I am talking about.

So, you are redefining “all things being equal” to mean “the exact conditions under which no one else’s objectiosn and criticisms can be said to apply”.

Cool.

As long as we agree that some intentionally non-procreative sex ends up with actual people.

Therefore the statement that “All (Intentionally Non-Procreative Sexuality) is (Potential Person Destroying)“ is incorrect.

Once again, the act of sex IS NEVER defined as a potential or actual person, sex is the circumstance of actualization (and not all sex mind, just potentially conceiving sex).

Since I never argued that the act of sex defined as a potential or actual person, I will just ignore this.

Logic and biology are not unrelated, obviously, but we are speaking of a subject that does not exist in a physical sense when we are speaking of a potential person, hence, when I say:

1- All intentionally procreative sexual acts are transitional acts of a potential person (who’s existence is implicit in procreative or “natural” sexual relations) being made into an actual person. This is given by (1) The natural course of events, and (2) all things being equal.

2- All intentionally non-procreative sexual acts are purposefully disruptive acts of stopping a potential person from transitioning into an actual person through procreative or “natural” sexual relations. This is given because to purposefully engage in such acts is to stop the natural consequence of procreation which is transitioning a potential person into an actual person.

Also, regarding your example of a dancer. If I broke your knee caps I did "destroy" something under my definition, but it would not be murder, What I destroyed was an actual career by destroying that career as a potential implicit in the circumstance of actualization. Now, that latter part is a possible problem, as you would have to say why that (all things being equal) dancing as a career was an inevitability given a natural course of events in your life for it to mirror my example, which I think is possible, but more difficult than lets say referring to conception in fertile sexuality.

See what I mean?

How is the logical concept of myself as a dancer different from the logical concept of my potential child as a child? Both exist solely as metaphysical concepts.

Anyway, the idea that all intentionally procreative sex leads to actual people is also incorrect.

"All things being equal" is used by logicians, and was given to me in my training, to account for variable exceptions, so that we can account for such. For instance, I could say, that if a tornado touches down in downtown Manhattan buildings will be damaged. Someone could object: "well not necessarily, it could go down times square if it was an F1 and not lift any heavy debris or cause or any damage if all of the small cars were on the other side or town, or that side was shutdown because a bridge was out, etc, etc, etc."

So, the person making the original argument will add the qualifier "All Things Being Equal" in order to account to such objections, so on the face, the statement that "if a tornado touches down in downtown Manhattan, buildings will be damaged" will remain as a general statement that accurately represents the state of affairs as part of the argument being given. Hence, the author controls for exceptions such as those to keep the argument clean.

Furthermore, a caterpillar is a potential butterfly all things being equal. "Potential butterfly" is a logical concept not a physical reality per se; however, this does not mean that the logical concept is divorced from reality or is of no consequence to it. If you destroy all caterpillars you destroy all potential butterflies and therefore all of the correlated actual butterflies that would otherwise exist.

In every debate I have ever had before, people used the term to describe a set of parameters that clarify a comparison. E.g. All things being equal, the stronger man will win the fight.

You seem to be expanding the defintion to include a situation where all criticisms of your position are magically inapplicable.

Also, caterpillars are actual objects as well as metaphysical concepts. Your defintion of a potential person is not an actual object.

Well obviously. That is part of the point, if that were true than there could be no murder in my definition, for the point of the argument is that a potential person can actually be "destroyed" by my definitions which correlates conceptually to the destruction of an actual life via logical relation.

Since potential people only exist as metaphysical concepts, they cannot be destroyed.

In dialectics, the definitions as presented by the one making the argument are to be the ones used in evaluating that persons argument; otherwise, one imputes equivocation where such does not exist.

Once again, your objections thus far are covered in my argument's construction and definitions. Which is fine.

And like I said, If my premises are true, that does not necessarily mean that such a consequence would be murder, in the moral sense. That is based on your ethical school. If you are a utilitarian (for instance) such would not be a crime (under most circumstances), but that would not invalidate that through contraception actual life was destroyed via an intentionally anti-procreative sex act.

Your definitions are also wacky and inconsistent with observable reality.

[Victoribus Spolia]

The Terminator’s actual goal was to kill Sarah Connor. Skynet’s long term goal was to nullify the resistance. Neither the Terminator nor Skynet cared about Silverman’s opinion of the mission.

No one said they did. The Terminator was not programmed by Skynet to kill Sarah Connor irrespective of ends and means. Sarah Connor was the specific target because her death would guarantee that John Connor was not born. If this latter was not guaranteed by such than killing Sarah Connor would not have been the objective. The preventing of John Connor was the end goal, killing Sarah before she conceived John was the means. If Skynet wanted to accomplish this same specific goal it could have easily just sterilized Sarah and accomplished the same goal which was accurately described by Dr. Silverman in reference to Kyle Reese's own testimony.

So, you are redefining “all things being equal” to mean “the exact conditions under which no one else’s objectiosn and criticisms can be said to apply”.

Cool.

As long as we agree that some intentionally non-procreative sex ends up with actual people.

Therefore the statement that “All (Intentionally Non-Procreative Sexuality) is (Potential Person Destroying)“ is incorrect.

Once again, if we were to admit of no qualifications, definitions, explanations, and allow all possible extraneous exceptions and circumstances, then I would never insist on the truth of the premise, but then again, very few premises describing realities would ever be unqualifiedly true and most statements of fact would be false under such conditions. This is why "all things being equal is used."

I am using the phrase to preclude extraneous circumstances that are not in the perview of the argument. This is how the qualifier is meant to be used. I understand you are having trouble with the argument, but that does not invalidate it.

Since I never argued that the act of sex defined as a potential or actual person, I will just ignore this.

Here are exact quotes where you characterized my argument as implying such:

"If that is the case, then sex and potential people are two unrelated things. One is a biological act, and the other is an idea."

and

"Sex is not an act of the potential person."

How is the logical concept of myself as a dancer different from the logical concept of my potential child as a child? Both exist solely as metaphysical concepts.

Anyway, the idea that all intentionally procreative sex leads to actual people is also incorrect.

Because "dancer," metaphysically and logically speaking, is an accidental and not an essential quality because "dancer" in this case is a descriptive predicate.

Hence, you not being a dancer does not mean you will not exist at all if you can't be a dancer. However, for a potential child to not exist is for the actual child to not exist AT ALL. Because "existence" is an essential and not accidental predicate of "person" in that case.

You are equivocating on "existence" as it refers to you and my example because you are confusing the type of predication regarding the subject in question.

In every debate I have ever had before, people used the term to describe a set of parameters that clarify a comparison. E.g. All things being equal, the stronger man will win the fight.

You seem to be expanding the defintion to include a situation where all criticisms of your position are magically inapplicable.

Also, caterpillars are actual objects as well as metaphysical concepts. Your defintion of a potential person is not an actual object.

Actually, that is how I am using the phrase "All Things Being Equal." For instance, in the example you used, lets say that qualifier was not admitted.

You could say: "the stronger man will win the fight"

I could respond: "But"...."what if the weaker man knew karate" or "what if the weaker man had a knife?" or "what if the weaker man knew special pressure points" or "what if the weaker man hit him in just the right spot" etc, etc, etc, etc.

The way I'm using it, colloquially, is: "If one intentionally practices pregnancy prevention, no child will be conceived." I qualified this in the definitions and explanation section with "All Things Being Equal"

You are essentially objecting with versions of: "well condoms can break, so that would be an example of a child conceived from intentionally practicing pregnancy prevention" or "miscarriages" are an example of such and such....

I used "all things being equal" to qualify in the same way as your example, so I don't know what you are bitching about.

Now, I can only assume, its because other people you have debated have used "All Things Being Equal" at the start of the premise; however, that would, technically, be poor propositional form.

good propositional form can only have the modifier "ALL, SOME, NO" ( or its equivalents), the subject, copula, and object; Therefore, "All Things Being Equal" should be placed in a separate section from the actual syllogism because it would be improper form to place it in a premise or a conclusion.

The reason you never saw it used the way I am using it in any of your previous debates is because people rarely follow their logic textbooks on good propositional form.

When I am making a serious argument. I do.

Since potential people only exist as metaphysical concepts, they cannot be destroyed.

Your definitions are also wacky and inconsistent with observable reality.

This is simplistic, as I showed in my analogy. If you destroy a caterpillar, you have destroyed a potential butterfly and therefore any actual butterfly that may exist. A metaphysical concept has an existence that is independent of the physical (in a sense), that does not mean it has no correspondence to reality, that is a non-sequitur.

"Truth," for instance, is a metaphysical concept, but it corresponds to actual states of affairs. To say that there is "no truth" on such grounds would be wrong-headed (because the very claim is a truth claim and therefore self-refuting, demonstrating "truth" as having some reality).

Indeed, all the laws of logic and all logical concepts are supra-temporal in their conceptual essence, but they have temporal referents to which they correspond. Hence, the law: "All A is-not Non-A" is supra-temporal. It is not conditional on temporal events, however, it does correspond to events and reality in time.

[Pants-of-dog]

No one said they did. The Terminator was not programmed by Skynet to kill Sarah Connor irrespective of ends and means. Sarah Connor was the specific target because her death would guarantee that John Connor was not born. If this latter was not guaranteed by such than killing Sarah Connor would not have been the objective. The preventing of John Connor was the end goal, killing Sarah before she conceived John was the means. If Skynet wanted to accomplish this same specific goal it could have easily just sterilized Sarah and accomplished the same goal which was accurately described by Dr. Silverman in reference to Kyle Reese's own testimony.

Destroying the resistance was the end goal. Getting rid of John Connor was a step towards that goal.

Once again, if we were to admit of no qualifications, definitions, explanations, and allow all possible extraneous exceptions and circumstances, then I would never insist on the truth of the premise, but then again, very few premises describing realities would ever be unqualifiedly true and most statements of fact would be false under such conditions. This is why "all things being equal is used."

I am using the phrase to preclude extraneous circumstances that are not in the perview of the argument. This is how the qualifier is meant to be used. I understand you are having trouble with the argument, but that does not invalidate it.

I understand how you are using the term.

I just think that it is a cop out.

It is exactly these other circumstances that disprove your argument.

Here are exact quotes where you characterized my argument as implying such:

"If that is the case, then sex and potential people are two unrelated things. One is a biological act, and the other is an idea."

and

"Sex is not an act of the potential person."

In both of those quotes, I describe sex as an act. I do not describe sex as a person.

Because "dancer," metaphysically and logically speaking, is an accidental and not an essential quality because "dancer" in this case is a descriptive predicate.

Hence, you not being a dancer does not mean you will not exist at all if you can't be a dancer. However, for a potential child to not exist is for the actual child to not exist AT ALL. Because "existence" is an essential and not accidental predicate of "person" in that case.

You are equivocating on "existence" as it refers to you and my example because you are confusing the type of predication regarding the subject in question.

Not quite.

The person who is me as a dancer will never exist at all if I cannot dance.

The person I am now already exists as an actual person. Dancer me exists as a potential person.

It is essential for me to dance for me to be a dancer.

In both cases, we have a metaphysical concept of a person who will only become an actual person if certain conditions are met. You describe these conditions as “all things being equal” when it actually is a complicated set of conditions that may or may not come to pass depending on wide variety of factors. The same could be said for the set of conditions that exist between the idea of dancer me and actual dancer me.

And in both cases, the set of conditions was intentionally disrupted. Murder!

Actually, that is how I am using the phrase "All Things Being Equal." For instance, in the example you used, lets say that qualifier was not admitted.

You could say: "the stronger man will win the fight"

I could respond: "But"...."what if the weaker man knew karate" or "what if the weaker man had a knife?" or "what if the weaker man knew special pressure points" or "what if the weaker man hit him in just the right spot" etc, etc, etc, etc.

The way I'm using it, colloquially, is: "If one intentionally practices pregnancy prevention, no child will be conceived." I qualified this in the definitions and explanation section with "All Things Being Equal"

You are essentially objecting with versions of: "well condoms can break, so that would be an example of a child conceived from intentionally practicing pregnancy prevention" or "miscarriages" are an example of such and such....

I used "all things being equal" to qualify in the same way as your example, so I don't know what you are bitching about.

Now, I can only assume, its because other people you have debated have used "All Things Being Equal" at the start of the premise; however, that would, technically, be poor propositional form.

good propositional form can only have the modifier "ALL, SOME, NO" ( or its equivalents), the subject, copula, and object; Therefore, "All Things Being Equal" should be placed in a separate section from the actual syllogism because it would be improper form to place it in a premise or a conclusion.

The reason you never saw it used the way I am using it in any of your previous debates is because people rarely follow their logic textbooks on good propositional form.

When I am making a serious argument. I do.

You said “all” when you said all sex using birth control kills a potential person.

I am not wrong when I point out that it is more correct to say that some sex using birth control kills a potential person.

I understand that you are using to compare the various processes that start with getting horny and eventually result in the birth of a child with all the various processes that start with getting horny and do not result in the birth of a child (except intent, obviously).

But that means that you are saying that all sex using birth control kills a potential person, if we ignore all the situations when this is not true.

This is simplistic, as I showed in my analogy. If you destroy a caterpillar, you have destroyed a potential butterfly and therefore any actual butterfly that may exist. A metaphysical concept has an existence that is independent of the physical (in a sense), that does not mean it has no correspondence to reality, that is a non-sequitur.

"Truth," for instance, is a metaphysical concept, but it corresponds to actual states of affairs. To say that there is "no truth" on such grounds would be wrong-headed (because the very claim is a truth claim and therefore self-refuting, demonstrating "truth" as having some reality).

Indeed, all the laws of logic and all logical concepts are supra-temporal in their conceptual essence, but they have temporal referents to which they correspond. Hence, the law: "All A is-not Non-A" is supra-temporal. It is not conditional on temporal events, however, it does correspond to events and reality in time.

But when you hypothetically bust my kneecaps, you make it impossible for me to be actual dancer me, but the idea of dancer me (i.e. the potential person) is still fine. Dancer me still exists just fine as a potential person, even though you “murdered actual dancer me”.

[Suntzu]

Yes!

Every sperm is sacred!

[Victoribus Spolia]

Destroying the resistance was the end goal. Getting rid of John Connor was a step towards that goal.

I never said otherwise, I just referred to ends and means, killing Sarah Connor was the direct programming made in view of preventing John Connor from being born, for the ultimate purpose of defeating the human resistance.

I understand how you are using the term.

I just think that it is a cop out.

It is exactly these other circumstances that disprove your argument.

The "circumstances" I mentioned in the strong man example would equally apply. they would disprove your argument, unless it was qualified with the qualification you mentioned which is the exact same usage I am applying with my argument. I am using it in its appropriate sense.

Not quite.

The person who is me as a dancer will never exist at all if I cannot dance.

The person I am now already exists as an actual person. Dancer me exists as a potential person.

It is essential for me to dance for me to be a dancer.

In both cases, we have a metaphysical concept of a person who will only become an actual person if certain conditions are met. You describe these conditions as “all things being equal” when it actually is a complicated set of conditions that may or may not come to pass depending on wide variety of factors. The same could be said for the set of conditions that exist between the idea of dancer me and actual dancer me.

And in both cases, the set of conditions was intentionally disrupted. Murder!

Once again, you are confusing essential versus descriptive predication. Dancing is an occupation, hobby, or accidental quality. PoD in his essence will exist irrespective of whether or not he dances.

Here is a quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the matter:

The distinction between essential versus accidental properties has been characterized in various ways, but it is currently most commonly understood in modal terms: an essential property of an object is a property that it must have, while an accidental property of an object is one that it happens to have but that it could lack. Let’s call this the basic modal characterization, where a modal characterization of a notion is one that explains the notion in terms of necessity/possibility. In the characterization just given of the distinction between essential and accidental properties, the use of the word “must” reflects the fact that necessity is invoked, while the use of the word “could” reflects that possibility is invoked. The notions of necessity and possibility are interdefinable: to say that something is necessary is to say that its negation is not possible; to say that something is possible is to say that its negation is not necessary; to say that an object must have a certain property is to say that it could not lack it; and to say that an object could have a certain property is to say that it is not the case that it must lack it.

Many would say that each individual human could not fail to be human; if so, then the basic modal characterization counts the property of being human as an essential property of each human. And, too, many would say that although someone, say Socrates, is in fact fond of dogs, Socrates could have lacked that property; if that is right, then the basic modal characterization counts the property of being fond of dogs as an accidental property of Socrates.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/esse ... ccidental/

You said “all” when you said all sex using birth control kills a potential person.

I am not wrong when I point out that it is more correct to say that some sex using birth control kills a potential person.

I understand that you are using to compare the various processes that start with getting horny and eventually result in the birth of a child with all the various processes that start with getting horny and do not result in the birth of a child (except intent, obviously).

But that means that you are saying that all sex using birth control kills a potential person, if we ignore all the situations when this is not true.

Firstly, I use destroy and not kill, which I think is somewhat important.

Second, I describe the process of actualization at which time a potential person exists, logically speaking. It is very specific in the argument itself:

Pregnancy prevention is not: the elimination of circumstances by which procreation and conception could take place, but the use of semen for non-procreative purposes when procreation was not only possible but the circumstances also permitted it.

All intentionally procreative sexual acts are transitional acts of a potential person (who’s existence is implicit in procreative or “natural” sexual relations) being made into an actual person. This is given by (1) The natural course of events, and (2) all things being equal.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Yes!

Every sperm is sacred!

Funny Skit, but not my position.

[Pants-of-dog]

The "circumstances" I mentioned in the strong man example would equally apply. they would disprove your argument, unless it was qualified with the qualification you mentioned which is the exact same usage I am applying with my argument. I am using it in its appropriate sense.

I disagree.

In the comparison I used as an example, the term is used to point out that all other points of compaeison are exactly equal and can be ignored for the purposes of discussing the single point of comparison that differs. You are using it to dismiss a whole set of other possible conditions that would impact the outcome.

Once again, you are confusing essential versus descriptive predication. Dancing is an occupation, hobby, or accidental quality. PoD in his essence will exist irrespective of whether or not he dances.

Here is a quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the matter:

The distinction between essential versus accidental properties has been characterized in various ways, but it is currently most commonly understood in modal terms: an essential property of an object is a property that it must have, while an accidental property of an object is one that it happens to have but that it could lack. Let’s call this the basic modal characterization, where a modal characterization of a notion is one that explains the notion in terms of necessity/possibility. In the characterization just given of the distinction between essential and accidental properties, the use of the word “must” reflects the fact that necessity is invoked, while the use of the word “could” reflects that possibility is invoked. The notions of necessity and possibility are interdefinable: to say that something is necessary is to say that its negation is not possible; to say that something is possible is to say that its negation is not necessary; to say that an object must have a certain property is to say that it could not lack it; and to say that an object could have a certain property is to say that it is not the case that it must lack it.

Many would say that each individual human could not fail to be human; if so, then the basic modal characterization counts the property of being human as an essential property of each human. And, too, many would say that although someone, say Socrates, is in fact fond of dogs, Socrates could have lacked that property; if that is right, then the basic modal characterization counts the property of being fond of dogs as an accidental property of Socrates.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/esse ... ccidental/

No, I am saying that you could define dancing as an essential property for the actual or potential beings that are dancing me.

Firstly, I use destroy and not kill, which I think is somewhat important.

Second, I describe the process of actualization at which time a potential person exists, logically speaking. It is very specific in the argument itself:

Pregnancy prevention is not: the elimination of circumstances by which procreation and conception could take place, but the use of semen for non-procreative purposes when procreation was not only possible but the circumstances also permitted it.

All intentionally procreative sexual acts are transitional acts of a potential person (who’s existence is implicit in procreative or “natural” sexual relations) being made into an actual person. This is given by (1) The natural course of events, and (2) all things being equal.

If I am reading this correctly, getting a vasectomy would not count as pregnancy prevention.

Anyway, I have already described my criticisms of the second paragraph enough times that I am becoming bored with discussing it.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I disagree.

In the comparison I used as an example, the term is used to point out that all other points of compaeison are exactly equal and can be ignored for the purposes of discussing the single point of comparison that differs. You are using it to dismiss a whole set of other possible conditions that would impact the outcome.

I am using it as it was supposed to be used, for hypothetical isolation of a concept for the purpose of argument, which was also the way you were using it. You are free to disagree, but you are wrong. You may not like the implications of the argument, but that does not invalidate it. You have yet to show any error in my premises.

Please Note The Following:

....two ways in which the ceteris paribus clause may be used: The one is hypothetical, in the sense that some factor is assumed fixed in order to analyse the influence of another factor in isolation. This would be hypothetical isolation. An example would be the hypothetical separation of the income effect and the substitution effect of a price change, which actually go together. The other use of the ceteris paribus clause is to see it as a means for obtaining an approximate solution. Here it would yield a substantive isolation.

Substantive isolation has two aspects: temporal and causal. Temporal isolation requires the factors fixed under the ceteris paribus clause to actually move so slowly relative to the other influence that they can be taken as practically constant at any point in time. So, if vegetarianism spreads very slowly, inducing a slow decline in the demand for beef, and the market for beef clears comparatively quickly, we can determine the price of beef at any instant by the intersection of supply and demand, and the changing demand for beef will account for the price changes over time (Temporary Equilibrium Method).

The other aspect of substantive isolation is causal isolation: those factors frozen under a ceteris paribus clause should not significantly be affected by the processes under study. If a change in government policies induces changes in consumers' behaviour on the same time scale, the assumption that consumer behaviour remains unchanged while policy changes is inadmissible as a substantive isolation (Lucas critique).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceteris_paribus#Two_uses

No, I am saying that you could define dancing as an essential property for the actual or potential beings that are dancing me.

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.

If I am reading this correctly, getting a vasectomy would not count as pregnancy prevention.

Anyway, I have already described my criticisms of the second paragraph enough times that I am becoming bored with discussing it.

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.

[Godstud]

All I see is arrogant and sanctimonious posts by a person who really doesn't want to discuss anything. You simply want everyone to accept your opinion, and if they don't they are dumb.

You're trolling your own thread, Viccy.

[MistyTiger]

Dumb question, OP!

What sane woman wants to keep popping out babies from her stomach every year or so? I have been around big families with 4 or more kids and the mother always looks exhausted. And the middle kids are usually grouchy because they get ignored. Dad praises the oldest and mom croons at the baby. It is not fair for the kids or the momma.

I thought you men like it tight down there, but so many births make it loose if you know what I mean.

[Victoribus Spolia]

All I see is arrogant and sanctimonious posts by a person who really doesn't want to discuss anything. You simply wants everyone to accept your opinion, and if they don't they are dumb.

You're trolling your own thread, Viccy.

Thats real rich coming from the guy who lectured me on how I should "properly" post articles and links on another thread.

Now that I am here criticizing the abysmal understanding of proper argument by folks, such as yourself, all of a sudden I'm the sanctimonious one.

The thing is about logical argument, is that if the conclusion can be shown to not follow from the premises, than the argument is wrong. Likewise, the argument is wrong if a fallacy was committed, or if some law of discourse was violated.

Thats the point, my argument is plain and it is written-down, I will analyze and respond to any critique of the argument given. Thats not trolling, that called debating. Perhaps you've been on PoFo too long and don't know the fucking difference, so let me explain it you you.

If you analyze my argument as presented and give objections to the substance of the argument as presented, I will respond to those objections and weigh them out in accord with the laws or reason. If you want to go on a tirade about overpopulation or how "every sperm is sacred" or all other such red-herrings and straw-mans, then yes, I will be dismissive because that would be a load of crap. That would be trolling.

If you are not up to debating the substance of the actual argument, that doesn't make me a troll, that makes you intellectually inadequate for the task and merely upset about it. Thats not my problem, thats yours.

So, as they say, Buck Up or Shut Up. Put Out or Get Out.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Dumb question, OP!

What sane woman wants to keep popping out babies from her stomach every year or so? I have been around big families with 4 or more kids and the mother always looks exhausted. And the middle kids are usually grouchy because they get ignored. Dad praises the oldest and mom croons at the baby. It is not fair for the kids or the momma.

I thought you men like it tight down there, but so many births make it loose if you know what I mean

Its a rhetorical question, I am actually making an argument as to what pregnancy prevention is logically speaking.

I actually have five kids so far and we do not practice contraception in our marriage and are both fully committed to it, and everything is still pretty tight, or I just haven't noticed any difference? Maybe i'm just getting thicker as she gets looser

[Godstud]

Your response was even sanctimonious, arrogant, mealy-mouthed clap trap. You wouldn't know how to argue like a normal human being because, quite frankly, it's quite beyond you.

You post your argument(if it can even be called that, since there's no coherent point) in near-decipherable legalize bullshit, after asking a very simple question, and you don't like the responses to your question(the only truly straight forward thing you posted). So then you start telling people not to post on your thread.

Then you post Terminator bullshit about time travel and contraception. Your argument is all over the board, if it can even be considered an argument.

Start posting like an adult, who wants to discuss a topic you made for discussion, instead of some philosophical bullshitter, who wants to dissect the manner in which the argument is presented.

Not everyone is going to agree with your "argument", and if they do not, it doesn't mean they are stupid, or not as intelligent as you.

[MistyTiger]

Its a rhetorical question, I am actually making an argument as to what pregnancy prevention is logically speaking.

I actually have five kids so far and we do not practice contraception in our marriage and are both fully committed to it, and everything is still pretty tight, or I just haven't noticed any difference? Maybe i'm just getting thicker as she gets looser

To a businessman, pregnancy prevention allows for a tighter spending budget. As families expand, they expand their budget to spend more on utilities, food, recreation, transportation, et cetera. More spending is good for the economy but not good for people whose salaries are not increasing to keep up with inflation.

Or maybe it starts really getting loose down there once the woman is in her 40s.

Geez, 5?

[Victoribus Spolia]

Your response was even sanctimonious, arrogant, mealy-mouthed clap trap. You wouldn't know how to argue like a normal human being because, quite frankly, it's quite beyond you.

You post your argument(if it can even be called that, since there's no coherent point) in near-decipherable legalize bullshit, after asking a very simple question, and you don't like the responses to your question(the only truly straight forward thing you posted). So then you start telling people not to post on your thread.

Then you post Terminator bullshit about time travel and contraception. Your argument is all over the board, if it can even be considered an argument.

Start posting like an adult, who wants to discuss a topic you made for discussion, instead of some philosophical bullshitter, who wants to dissect the manner in which the argument is presented.

Not everyone is going to agree with your "argument", and if they do not, it doesn't mean they are stupid, or not as intelligent as you.

Need A Safe Space There Cup Cake?



No one is compelling you to agree. You have every right to disagree. That doesn't mean I am wrong, for that to be the case, you would have to disprove my fucking argument.

But since you call it "legalize" (WTF?) and "indecipherable" "philsophical bull-shit" etc, etc. I am forced to assume that it must be over your head then right?

Also, if you read the fucking argument you would know that my example from the Terminator was clearly an analogy for the point my argument is trying to make. I give such analogies to entertain and illustrate for those who are intelligent enough to understand the argument as well as to help the shit-tards that don't. Which category do you fall in exactly?

So, like I said, I am not a troll because you are not up to the challenge. That is not my problem, that is your problem, and I only told you that I did't care if you posted because I want posters that can actually carry on a debate regarding my argument.

If you can't do that, don't give me all this horseshit about your feelings and how much of a "condescending meanie" I am. I don't really care. If you can't debate on topic and can't understand the argument, just bite your upper lip and take your toys and go home.

Quit throwing these bitch-fits here in front of everyone and go invest in some more books and come back when you care to debate the fucking points made in the OP.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Geez, 5?

5 So far. I expect she will be pregnant again before March. We will likely have 14 before she hits menopause if she hits it at 45.

[Godstud]

More bullshit. Your arguments are shit, and your analogy was idiotic.

You're the one having their feelings hurt, Sport.

I am so proud that you found out how to use smileys.

As for your "feelings"...

[Victoribus Spolia]

More bullshit. Your arguments are shit, and your analogy was idiotic.

Whoa there killer, your combination of brilliance and sophistication is starting to overwhelm me.

You're the one having their feelings hurt, Sport.

Sure. Okay. Says The One Hurling Insults. Plus, this sounds a whole lot like "I know you are but what am I?" on repeat. Such a manifest example of maturity, you really are inspiring.

I am so proud that you found out how to use smileys.

Thanks. I was pretty proud of it myself.

As for your "feelings"..

I have no feelings, I have an argument, that you have failed to address because you are not up to the task.