Fairness: Liberal vs Conservative

[_subgenius]

Your point about the terms argument v. criticism is a red herring. I'm very happy to amend my statement to say "I'm not making an argument -- I'm merely criticizing yours." My point remains unchanged: I have not committed the "fallacy fallacy" because I have not made the following argument: subgenious's arguments are fallacious, therefore beastie's implication is correct.

amendment accepted.
However, it has been apparent, has it not, that your posts have been a confirmation of beastie's position? Thus your critique may be assumed as being motivated by a desire to support that position and discredit any that may negate that position?
do you not equate "born with equal ability and opportunities" with the "vacuum" you mention in your first post on this thread?

Your statement that I may have been trying to make an argument in the first post you cite to is another red herring. The statement was not made in response to your attempted refutation of beastie's implication. Thus, it cannot be an example of the "fallacy fallacy."

fair enough

There's an easy way to tell if I'm making an argument: ask me. I'll tell you. My only "argument" here is that your responses to beastie's implication are bad reasoning/logic. If I choose to make the affirmative case that "not everyone is born with equal opportunity and talent," I'll let you know.

duly noted.

Finally, you're simply repeating the original error you made in translating the implication of beastie's subjunctive clause into logical terms. You're obsessed with the fact that the clause contains the word "all," while ignoring the actual meaning of the clause. If you had studied some quantifier logic, you'd understand the relationships between universal (what you are labeling "absolute" statements) and existential statements (what you refer to as my use of "some.") The negation of a universal statement is an existential statement. In other words, the negation of "All Mormons obey the word of wisdom" is not "No Mormons obey the word of wisdom." The negation is: Not all Mormons obey the word of wisdom. Logically, that is the same statement as "There exists some Mormon who doesn't obey the word of wisdom."

So, then the negation of beastie's statement "...[not] all human beings were born with equal ability and opportunities.." would be __________ ?

"All people are born with the same opportunities and abilities" is a universal or absolute statement. But that's not what beastie said. Beastie used the subjunctive "if all people were born with the same opportunities and abilities...." You keep trying to translate that as "No people are born with the same opportunities and abilities." That's an error of logic. The correct translation is "Not all people are born with the same opportunities and abilities."

correct, but since you already noted that such a statement would intended as a negation of the statement "all people are born with ..." - yet i have made it clear that i consider that negation invalid...just as i consider "not all people are born with..." to be invalid and contrary to common sense.

additionally, i have always understood the subjunctive clause as an emphasis on speaker not topic, which would be a conditional clause...yet i feel you are using it differently. For example, beastie clearly uses the word "if" at the beginning of the statement...thus it is a conditional clause...not subjunctive...correct?
you can usually tell it is not the subjunctive mood when the word "would" is appropriate...like "if all people were born with...it would be great!"
this is why the condition of "not all" was objectionable.

That being said...beastie's assumption that "not all" are born with equality is unfounded and unsupported for the conclusion being drawn...whereas common sense is that "all" are born with equality, so i can validate beastie's argument based on beastie's condition.

[_Res Ipsa]

However, it has been apparent, has it not, that your posts have been a confirmation of beastie's position? Thus your critique may be assumed as being motivated by a desire to support that position and discredit any that may negate that position?
do you not equate "born with equal ability and opportunities" with the [url=http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=672432#p672432]"vacuum" you mention in your first post on this thread?

I don't think so. Beastie offered an analysis of differences between the ways liberals and conservatives evaluate fairness. I thought it was an interesting analysis and, in turn, shared my own personal thinking on the subject. My post really had nothing to do with her last paragraph, in which she explained why she was not comparatively receptive to the free rider problem. My critique was motivated by an interest in seeing how the board's resident logical fallacy cop would respond to a critique of his own logical fallacies. Had I been motivated by a desire to support some position beastie had taken, I would have responded in a different manner.

Finally, you're simply repeating the original error you made in translating the implication of beastie's subjunctive clause into logical terms. You're obsessed with the fact that the clause contains the word "all," while ignoring the actual meaning of the clause. If you had studied some quantifier logic, you'd understand the relationships between universal (what you are labeling "absolute" statements) and existential statements (what you refer to as my use of "some.") The negation of a universal statement is an existential statement. In other words, the negation of "All Mormons obey the word of wisdom" is not "No Mormons obey the word of wisdom." The negation is: Not all Mormons obey the word of wisdom. Logically, that is the same statement as "There exists some Mormon who doesn't obey the word of wisdom."

So, then the negation of beastie's statement "...[not] all human beings were born with equal ability and opportunities.." would be __________ ?

The negation of beastie's implication would be: "all human beings are born with equal ability and opportunity." Keep in mind, in the above paragraph, I'm responding to your incorrect criticism of my use of the word "some" in translating beastie's implication. Once you moved from your original Barak Obama example to arguing that all people are born with equal opportunity and abilities, you corrected that initial problem. However, continuing to accuse me of mistranslating beastie's implication simply because I used the word "some" was (and is) bad logic.

"All people are born with the same opportunities and abilities" is a universal or absolute statement. But that's not what beastie said. Beastie used the subjunctive "if all people were born with the same opportunities and abilities...." You keep trying to translate that as "No people are born with the same opportunities and abilities." That's an error of logic. The correct translation is "Not all people are born with the same opportunities and abilities."

correct, but since you already noted that such a statement would intended as a negation of the statement "all people are born with ..." - yet i have made it clear that i consider that negation invalid...just as i consider "not all people are born with..." to be invalid and contrary to common sense.

Here is how I'm understanding the positions you are taking: (1) everyone is born with the same ability and opportunity and (2) there is no obligation to present proof of (1) because it is "common sense." As always, feel free to correct me if I've stated your positions incorrectly. So far, you have not put together a fallacy-free argument in support of either proposition.

additionally, i have always understood the subjunctive clause as an emphasis on speaker not topic, which would be a conditional clause...yet i feel you are using it differently. For example, beastie clearly uses the word "if" at the beginning of the statement...thus it is a conditional clause...not subjunctive...correct?
you can usually tell it is not the subjunctive mood when the word "would" is appropriate...like "if all people were born with...it would be great!"
this is why the condition of "not all" was objectionable.

I read the wiki entry on the subjunctive mood. I think my terminology is correct:

The English subjunctive also occurs in counterfactual dependent clauses, using a form of the verb that in the indicative would indicate a time of action prior to the one implied by the subjunctive. It is called the past subjunctive when referring counterfactually to the present, and is called the pluperfect subjunctive when referring counterfactually to the past. It occurs in that clauses following the main-clause verb "wish" ("I wish that she were here now"; "I wish that she had been here yesterday") and in if clauses expressing a condition that does not or did not hold ("If she were here right now, ..."; "If she had been here yesterday, ...").

[emphasis added]

I don't think a conditional implies that first term is false. Example: If today is Tuesday, I will go to the store. That statement does not tell us whether it is Tuesday or not. The subjunctive would be: "If today were Tuesday, I would go to the store." The difference is the implied statement that today is not Tuesday. If beastie had just been stating a conditional, there would have been no reason for you to contradict her and for us to have this discussion. She would not have been making a truth claim about whether people were born with equal opportunity and ability.

I'm going to address your last paragraph in a separate post, because I think it raises some interesting (and perhaps lengthy) issues.

[_Res Ipsa]

That being said...beastie's assumption that "not all" are born with equality is unfounded and unsupported for the conclusion being drawn...whereas common sense is that "all" are born with equality, so i can validate beastie's argument based on beastie's condition.

Okay. This is the equivocation problem. From reading beastie's last paragraph and what you've posted in the thread, it's quite clear that you and beastie are talking about very different concepts. However, you are taking the same word "equality", using it to apply to different meanings, and then constructing your argument as though the word has only a single meaning. In beastie's paragraph, she actually describes factual situations that lead her to believe that everyone is not born with the same ability and opportunity. And it's clear that has nothing to do with Jefferson's "all men are created equal." Yet, because you can use the term "equality" to cover both, you act as if the meanings are the same.

And it really sounds like you're all over the place here. What conclusion does beastie draw from her assumption? All she's saying is that if the world were different, she'd feel differently about the free rider problem. I don't think she's making an argument at all -- just explaining her worldview and why she feels the way she does.

And you haven't established that anything is "common sense" or that "common sense" is an accurate measure of what is true. You don't just get to declare something as "common sense" so that you can avoid having to, you know, make an argument or produce evidence.