- 17 Nov 2017 16:30
#14863540
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.
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.
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?
"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.
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.
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.
"It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals... is incompatible with freedom."
- Patrick Henry
Pants-of-dog wrote: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.
Pants-of-dog wrote: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.
Pants-of-dog wrote: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?
Pants-of-dog wrote: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.
Pants-of-dog wrote: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.
Pants-of-dog wrote: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.
"It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals... is incompatible with freedom."
- Patrick Henry