Fairness: Liberal vs Conservative

[_Res Ipsa]

The Declaration of Independence itself undercuts sub's argument. The reason the declaration is necessary in the first place is that, in fact, not all people were experiencing equal rights because of the actions of the British Government. So, at the time the declaration was written, Jefferson in fact believed the same as beastie: in practice, everyone did not have the same opportunities. (Of course, Jefferson does not address ability.)

you should really look into a reading class.

If we lived in a world where all human beings were born with equal ability and opportunities

(emphasis mine)
yet once again we read you "revising" history to suit whatever argument you would rather have, since the actual argument is slapping you around.

The "experience" of these opportunities is another claim altogether different. In the case of the Declaration, both citizen and British Rule subscribed to the concept that all men were NOT created equal - thus there was no inherent conflict for there was no expectation. If you were not born the son of a King you likely did not expect that one day you could be King - everyone not having the same opportunities was a given and thus it was administered as such.



Whereas the Declaration and Constitution set forth a new "COMMON SENSE"

and this common sense directly contradicts the statement posted by beastie (cited above) - and directly affirms my statement.

Now as to your claim that all human beings are not experiencing equal opportunities/abilities - i agree....but, in the context of this thread and the topic we have been more or less adhering to...this experience is dominated by self determination, motivation, and personal choice - none of which should be infringed upon by Federal Legislation.

Remember our discussion about conservatives evaluating fairness in a vacuum. That's what you are doing here, as well as claiming that's what beastie was saying, too. Jefferson said that all men are created equal in the sense that they have certain inalienable rights. However, he was smart enough to realize that rights in a vacuum mean nothing. So, the Declaration goes on to say:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Thus, it is government's job to secure those rights. Saying that all men are created equal is not enough. It's the government's job to make sure everyone actually experiences those rights.

If we put it in Jefferson's terms, beastie is saying that, while everyone has the same rights in a vacuum, some people are prevented from securing them by the circumstances into which they are born. And, according to Jefferson, it's the government's job to secure those rights.

It's clear from beastie's original comment that she was not rejecting the notion that all people are created equal in some theoretical vacuum. DarthJ is right -- your entire argument is one big equivocation fallacy. Beastie's sentence fragment and Jefferson's "all men are created equal" are talking about two different things, and treating them the same is fallacious.

Once you put together an actual valid argument we can talk about whether it is slapping me around.

[_subgenius]

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Thus, it is government's job to secure those rights. Saying that all men are created equal is not enough. It's the government's job to make sure everyone actually experiences those rights.

Yet you seem to ignore the most important portion of your reference - "consent of the governed"
This proves the equality of every person...government has power by proxy and it is power that actually resides with each and every person...equally...for ever person has the same opportunity as another...yet another affirmation that contradicts beastie's claims...regardless of how many ways you try to revise it.
So, while the government has a role, its role simply protects liberty, a liberty that exists without government... it simply protects the fact that every person has been "born" with equal ability and opportunity - once again contrary to beastie's statement.

That is what is clear by the deliberate phrase of Government "securing" the rights as opposed to Government "creating" the rights.

Now, if you or beastie believe that the super-rich are somehow "taking" (or making unequal) this birth-right ability and/or opportunity away from another then make your argument....because that is the only circumstance that could merit Government intrusion.

[_Res Ipsa]

Yet you seem to ignore the most important portion of your reference - "consent of the governed"
This proves the equality of every person...government has power by proxy and it is power that actually resides with each and every person...equally...for ever person has the same opportunity as another...yet another affirmation that contradicts beastie's claims...regardless of how many ways you try to revise it.
So, while the government has a role, its role simply protects liberty, a liberty that exists without government... it simply protects the fact that every person has been "born" with equal ability and opportunity - once again contrary to beastie's statement.

That is what is clear by the deliberate phrase of Government "securing" the rights as opposed to Government "creating" the rights.

Now, if you or beastie believe that the super-rich are somehow "taking" (or making unequal) this birth-right ability and/or opportunity away from another then make your argument....because that is the only circumstance that could merit Government intrusion.

The only argument I've made (and intend to make) is that your responses to beastie are riddled with logical flaws. Talk about trying to have the argument you want to have instead of the argument that is occurring...

I see yet another unwarranted inference in your last post. The notion that government gets its power from consent of the government in no way requires that persons have equal abilities and opportunities. It simply requires that they have the opportunity to and do consent. Once again, your response to beastie is a non sequitur. And you continue to equivocate on the word "opportunity," switching back and forth between equal opportunity in the air and equal opportunity on the ground.

[_subgenius]

The only argument I've made (and intend to make) is that your responses to beastie are riddled with logical flaws. Talk about trying to have the argument you want to have instead of the argument that is occurring...

I see yet another unwarranted inference in your last post. The notion that government gets its power from consent of the government in no way requires that persons have equal abilities and opportunities. It simply requires that they have the opportunity to and do consent. Once again, your response to beastie is a non sequitur. And you continue to equivocate on the word "opportunity," switching back and forth between equal opportunity in the air and equal opportunity on the ground.

If what you say is true then,
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

[_subgenius]

Subgenius:

"All men are created equal" is a phrase from the Declaration of Independence. It is not found in the Constitution. It's sad that you don't know the source of one of the most famous maxims in U.S. history.

merely a typographical error, as is evidenced by the link provided. but please, continue to rely on distraction, for you have little else.

Your dictionary link provides several alternative definitions of "equal."

1. as great as; the same as (often followed by to or with): The velocity of sound is not equal to that of light.
2. like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; of the same rank, ability, merit, etc.: two students of equal brilliance.
3. evenly proportioned or balanced: an equal contest.
4. uniform in operation or effect: equal laws.
5. adequate or sufficient in quantity or degree: The supply is equal to the demand.

ok.

The Declaration of Independence talks about "equal" in terms of natural rights. This is the sense of "equal" under definition #4 from your link.

Please, reference the list of unnatural rights which the DoI makes distinct? Then, please provide reference that clearly states what the DoI "really meant" when using the term equal.
Nevertheless, the influence is the same and is definitely contrary to beastie's statement.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The principle stated in the Declaration of Independence means that, for example, Dwayne Wade and I both have the same right to freedom of expression, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom to vote, and so on. It does not mean that I am as good a basketball player as Dwayne Wade is.

i agree...especially with the "and so on".
again...you always know what things "really mean" regardless of what they actually say.
let me respond in kind:
It also clearly means that you have the same right to pursue playing basketball for the Miami Heat and that the Miami Heat has the same right to hire you as they do to hire Dwayne. It does not mean that the government should force the Heat to let you play basketball because it is not "fair" that Dwayne is 1,000 times better than you...or that somehow Dwayne and you should occupy the same court but Dwayne must have an arm tied behind his back and you get to shoot at a lower goal.

You are taking the sense of "equal" in terms of everyone having the same natural rights to be free from governmental tyranny and trying to say that this means "equal" in terms of everyone having the same intelligence, educational opportunities, physical prowess, etc. You are trying to make a point by shifting the meaning of a word from what it means in a specific context to what it means in an entirely different context. This technique is known as the fallacy of equivocation.

Completely disagree. My use of the term "equal" is consistent and in accordance with beastie's original statement.
As you posture yourself it seems ironic that you are unaware of Jefferson's use of John Locke's "tabula rasa" particular to the phrase "All men are created equal". Locke, myself, nor Jefferson, insinuate anything about government tyranny when using that phrase.

Now if we consider Locke's statement
"There is "nothing more evident, than that Creatures of the same species…born to all the same advantages of Nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal amongst one another without Subordination or Subjection…. "
Then yes, there is a notion there of being free from Government...tyranical or not...however that is contrary to whatever distinction you are trying to draw, or insist that i am drawing, above between tyranny and educational opportunity.

My position has been un-equivocable...beastie's absolute statement is incorrect...Obama is an anecdote that the incestuous context beastie was implying with that statement does not exist....Jefferson's usage of the Locke sentiment of all men being created equal supports this very notion that indeed "anyone can be rich" and "anyone can be super rich"....and the reason that "anyone" can be is because i nthe context of the OP everyone IS born with equal ability and opportunity. (fyi - another way to state "born with" is "created")...and that all these ideas are free from the influence of moose urine.

[_Res Ipsa]

The only argument I've made (and intend to make) is that your responses to beastie are riddled with logical flaws. Talk about trying to have the argument you want to have instead of the argument that is occurring...

I see yet another unwarranted inference in your last post. The notion that government gets its power from consent of the government in no way requires that persons have equal abilities and opportunities. It simply requires that they have the opportunity to and do consent. Once again, your response to beastie is a non sequitur. And you continue to equivocate on the word "opportunity," switching back and forth between equal opportunity in the air and equal opportunity on the ground.

If what you say is true then,
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

LOL. Now you're just making stuff up.

I have never taken the position you attribute to me: that because your responses to beastie are riddled with logical fallacies, that beastie is correct. Like I said: the only argument I'm making is that your responses to beastie are fallacious. If I want to make the argument that the inference from beastie's subjunctive sentence fragment is correct, I'll explicitly say so.

[_subgenius]

LOL. Now you're just making stuff up.

I have never taken the position you attribute to me: that because your responses to beastie are riddled with logical fallacies, that beastie is correct. Like I said: the only argument I'm making is that your responses to beastie are fallacious. If I want to make the argument that the inference from beastie's subjunctive sentence fragment is correct, I'll explicitly say so.

then you do not have actually an argument, only a criticism.

but
pretty sure you may being trying an argument here
viewtopic.php?p=672432#p672432
but it seems more like opinion

Yet you seem to affirm beastie's statement here
viewtopic.php?p=672699#p672699
even though you erroneously "revise" the statement to read as "some" rather than beastie's own use of the word "all" - in your attempt to say i was illogical in claiming beastie was making an absolute statement.

so no wonder you offer the criticism you are offering...i don't agree with your strawman either.

[_Res Ipsa]

LOL. Now you're just making stuff up.

I have never taken the position you attribute to me: that because your responses to beastie are riddled with logical fallacies, that beastie is correct. Like I said: the only argument I'm making is that your responses to beastie are fallacious. If I want to make the argument that the inference from beastie's subjunctive sentence fragment is correct, I'll explicitly say so.

then you do not have actually an argument, only a criticism.

but
pretty sure you may being trying an argument here
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 32#p672432
but it seems more like opinion

Yet you seem to affirm beastie's statement here
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 99#p672699
even though you erroneously "revise" the statement to read as "some" rather than beastie's own use of the word "all" - in your attempt to say i was illogical in claiming beastie was making an absolute statement.

so no wonder you offer the criticism you are offering...i don't agree with your strawman either.

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.

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."

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.

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."

"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." That is logically equivalent to "There exist some person without the same opportunities and abilities as everyone else." The negation of an "all" statement is a "some" statement. Beastie was negating an "all" statement, so my translation of her statement is accurate. http://www.csee.umbc.edu/~stephens/203/PDF/2-1.pdf

So, it's you who is constructing the "straw man" of beastie's clause by giving it an incorrect translation into logic. You simply ignore the word "if," in beastie's clause, which is required to properly translate the clause into logical terms. Moreover, criticizing me for use of the word "some," when I used it in a logical equivalent of beastie's clause, is an invalid criticism.

[_beastie]

Brad,

I don't know if you're patient or crazy. You will never be able to reason with subgenius. My advice is to ignore him unless you find interacting with him entertaining or diverting in some way. Personally, I've been ignoring him for almost as long as he's been on the board.

[_subgenius]

Brad,

I don't know if you're patient or crazy. You will never be able to reason with subgenius. My advice is to ignore him unless you find interacting with him entertaining or diverting in some way. Personally, I've been ignoring him for almost as long as he's been on the board.

obviously not....jus sayin'