[Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?
Art Deco
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
Mon Mar 4 07:35:03 PST 2013
Yes.
The more we can employ empirical data that has some establishable
probability > .5 of being true, the sounder our judgments on value/ethical
matters are likely to be.
w.
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>wrote:
> Wayne,
>
> In some ways my thoughts about polygamy parallel my thoughts about gun
> control -- as absurd as that sounds! I have worries about issues of consent
> when it comes to polygamy, and escalating violence in America when it comes
> to guns. Of course, these are just worries; worries alone are not enough to
> justify a law.
>
> Also, I understand (as you have pointed out) that there are examples to
> the contrary in the case of polygamy; just as I understand that the
> majority of gun owners (especially in this area of the country) are
> responsible folks who not only use and enjoy guns but feel in some deep
> sense that it is their responsibility to do so.
>
> One thing that we can agree on is these issues should be settled primarily
> by appeal to empirical data.
>
> Joe
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> @Gary,
>>
>> You may find that reading a primer on elementary logic helpful.
>>
>> The way to refute statements of the kind "All X are Y." is to produce a
>> counter example show there is an X that is not a Y.
>>
>> Hence, to refute Wilson's or anyone else's claim tha*t ALL* arguments
>> that support gay marriage can be used to support polygamy, it is only
>> necessary to find one that doesn't.
>>
>> Three people on the list have already done that by showing one argument
>> for gay marriage is to define marriage as a legal union between two
>> people. As noted before, and in response to Sunil's remark, both that
>> definition and the definition of marriage exclusively as a union between a
>> man and a woman commit the Fallacy of Persuasive Definition:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_definition
>>
>> I note that you did not respond to my previous post about Wilson's
>> motives for making this fallacious claim.
>>
>> w.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Sunil Ramalingam <
>> sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> '1. Marriage is a legal union between a consenting man and woman
>>> period.'
>>>
>>> Gary, since this is the position you've supported over the years, why
>>> should it be so? Let's leave Wilson out of it.
>>>
>>> Sunil
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> From: jampot at roadrunner.com
>>> To: philosopher.joe at gmail.com; moscowlocksmith at gmail.com
>>> Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 18:46:38 -0800
>>> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?
>>>
>>> The lengths people on this list will go to to disagree with Doug are
>>> prodigious indeed. If he were to make the claim that excrement didn't smell
>>> nice, many readers would dab it behind their ears before a night on the
>>> town.
>>>
>>> To effectively refute the Wilson contention that *"...**all* the
>>> arguments employed to advance same sex marriage can be, are being, and will
>>> be used to advance polygamy also. In short, gay marriage greases the skids
>>> for polygamy" I would need to hear a sentence similar to:
>>>
>>> Gay marriage is good because <insert whatever pocket full of sunshine
>>> you like> and have the statement not apply equally to unions of three or
>>> more. This seems like an extremely simple method to determine whether
>>> Wilson's "fallacious claim" stands or falls.
>>>
>>> By the way the most efficient counter to your four point argument would
>>> have to be to simplify it:
>>>
>>> 1. Marriage is a legal union between a consenting man and woman period.
>>>
>>> Any rational you provide to vary that formula will apply to polygamist
>>> unions as well as homosexual.
>>>
>>> g
>>>
>>> *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 03, 2013 10:38 AM
>>> *To:* Gary Crabtree <moscowlocksmith at gmail.com>
>>> *Cc:* <vision2020 at moscow.com> <vision2020 at moscow.com%3E>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?
>>>
>>> If to deny marriage to a man and woman is lacking in the slightest
>>> inkling of human compassion why not a man and man? Why not three or more?
>>>
>>> I can just slightly reword your criticisms and send them back your way.
>>>
>>> That is the point. If there is a slippery-slope it goes in both
>>> directions: all the way from man-woman to group and back again. If Wilson's
>>> argument were sound, and polygamy so horrible, he should work toward
>>> abolishing ALL marriage -- for man-woman marriage HAS led to gay marriage
>>> and (according to Wilson) that will lead to polygamous unions.
>>>
>>> But even Wilson knows enough to ignore such a stupid argument! To defeat
>>> the original argument, all I need to do is show that it has absurd
>>> consequences; consequences so absurd that even the person giving the
>>> argument would reject them. This is a form of reductio ad absurdum.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Gary Crabtree <moscowlocksmith at gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> What you conveniently leave out is the why. If to deny any two an
>>> "experience" is lacking in the slightest inkling of human compassion why
>>> not three or more? If you are asking me to accept your statement based on
>>> your irrefutable moral authority you are asking far too much.
>>>
>>> g
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Perhaps you missed it in my post, Mr. Crabtree.
>>>
>>> So, here it is *AGAIN*.
>>>
>>> "To deny ANY *TWO* [emphasis added] individuals of such an experience,
>>> merely because it runs contra to somebody else's belief system, lacks the
>>> slightest inkling of human compassion."
>>>
>>> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2013-March/089517.html
>>>
>>> Two: More than one and less than three.
>>>
>>> Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
>>>
>>> "Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
>>> http://www.MoscowCares.com
>>>
>>> Tom Hansen
>>> Moscow, Idaho
>>>
>>> "There's room at the top they are telling you still
>>> But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
>>> If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>>>
>>> - John Lennon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 3, 2013, at 6:29 AM, "Gary Crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what else I can take away. I have heard that the topic is
>>> "complex" and that you don't wish to "confuse the issue." What I have not
>>> heard is the slice of logic that would refute the statement that so
>>> outraged Mr. Hansen and kicked off this thread. Perhaps I wasn't paying
>>> proper attention. Please state for me clearly and without obfuscation the
>>> argument in favor of homosexual marriage the can not be applied equally to
>>> polygamous unions. An analogy as to why homosexual marriage doesn't
>>> necessarily lead to polygamy is not at all the same thing. It seems to me
>>> that without anyone being able to provide the example that differentiates
>>> between the two, Wilson's "fallacious claim" stands without refute.
>>>
>>> g
>>>
>>> *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, March 02, 2013 6:12 PM
>>> *To:* Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>
>>> *Cc:* Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> ; Paul Rumelhart<godshatter at yahoo.com>;
>>> vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?
>>>
>>> It pains me that I take my time to carefully spell out why I don't think
>>> these are the same at all, legally etc., but your takeaway, Gary, is that I
>>> add support to Wilson's fallacious claim.
>>>
>>> An analogy similar to one I used before: Saying that legalization of gay
>>> marriage will lead to legalization of polygamy is like saying that sex with
>>> your wife will lead to an orgy. I see no reason for thinking the one than
>>> for thinking the other. After all, if you've got reasons for sex with one
>>> person WHY NOT sex with many? Just the same reason over again, right? But
>>> even you can see the line here, Gary, even though these issues are vague.
>>> And so can members of the Supreme Court when it comes to differentiating
>>> between gay marriage and polygamy.
>>>
>>> This says nothing about my views on polygamy, and for a number of
>>> reasons I don't think it is helpful to talk about polygamy while we're
>>> working on gay marriage -- for one thing, though bad, slippery-slope
>>> arguments happen to be persuasive. My point is I COULD hold that gay
>>> marriage is OK and polygamy is not and not be guilty of an inconsistency
>>> because of it. This is a refutation of the Wilson claim.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>wrote:
>>>
>>> **
>>> "I argued at length that *all* the arguments employed to advance same
>>> sex marriage can be, are being, and will be used to advance polygamy also.
>>> In short, gay marriage greases the skids for polygamy."
>>>
>>> If nothing else this thread has certainly proven Doug to be spot on in
>>> his analysis. Goodness knows that’s gotta sting.
>>>
>>> g
>>>
>>> *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>>> *Sent:* Friday, March 01, 2013 6:06 PM
>>> *To:* Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>
>>> *Cc:* Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> ; Paul Rumelhart<godshatter at yahoo.com>;
>>> vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?
>>>
>>> I'm not denying anything. Maybe three or more. I just don't want to
>>> confuse it with the issue of same-sex marriage. That seems important to me,
>>> just because I can see the folks that such a law might help. I don't happen
>>> to meet many polygamists, so I'm not too concerned for now.
>>>
>>> Why not take one step: include same-sex marriages. If the polygamists
>>> complain as much as the gays and lesbians, we might have to revisit the
>>> issue.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>wrote:
>>>
>>> **
>>> Then why deny three or more?
>>>
>>> g
>>>
>>> *From:* Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
>>> *Sent:* Friday, March 01, 2013 2:07 PM
>>> *To:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>> *Cc:* vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?
>>>
>>> I absolutely fail to see what the happiness of two adults has ANYTHING
>>> to do with a polygamous relationship.
>>>
>>> Let me simply say . . .
>>>
>>> Later this year, I turn 62, my spouse turns whatever age she acquires,
>>> and we (my spouse and I) turn 40; forty of the most wonderfully memorable
>>> and loving years of yesterdays that will only be improved upon with
>>> tomorrows.
>>>
>>> To deny ANY two individuals of such an experience, merely because it
>>> runs contra to somebody else's belief system, lacks the slightest inkling
>>> of human compassion.
>>>
>>> Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
>>>
>>> "Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
>>> http://www.MoscowCares.com
>>>
>>> Tom Hansen
>>> Moscow, Idaho
>>>
>>> "There's room at the top they are telling you still
>>> But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
>>> If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>>>
>>> - John Lennon
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 1, 2013, at 1:48 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the general argument would run something like this: "if it's
>>> OK for any two consenting adults of either gender to marry, then why isn't
>>> it OK for any three or more consenting adults of any gender to marry?"
>>>
>>> If that's what he's thinking, I can kind of see his point. Of course,
>>> I'm personally fine with gay marriage, and would have no problems with
>>> polygamy either. I'd be happiest if the government got out of the marriage
>>> racket to begin with, frankly.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>>> *To:* Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
>>> *Cc:* vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> *Sent:* Friday, March 1, 2013 11:39 AM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?
>>>
>>> Well, if he argued that polygamy and gay marriage are similar, then that
>>> is just another fallacious argument. It is like arguing that we can give
>>> every adult the right to vote because that would lead to some folks voting
>>> more than once. We would be powerless to avoid that!
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>> Cultmaster Wilson is hopelessly floundering as he is swept out to sea
>>> on the tide of reality and oncoming change. But that's what happens to
>>> those that allege total faith in some "inerrant" ancient texts.
>>> Foolhardiness begets misery for others.
>>>
>>> It's too bad that the Cultmaster is not a Mormon so that he could have a
>>> "new" vision from some alleged God correcting his current views.
>>>
>>> w.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "I argued at length that *all* the arguments employed to advance same
>>> sex marriage can be, are being, and will be used to advance polygamy also.
>>> In short, gay marriage greases the skids for polygamy."
>>>
>>> - Doug Wilson (March 1, 2013)
>>> http://www.dougwils.com/Sex-and-Culture/a-century-of-sinkholes.html
>>>
>>> Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
>>>
>>> "Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
>>> http://www.MoscowCares.com
>>>
>>> Tom Hansen
>>> Moscow, Idaho
>>>
>>> "There's room at the top they are telling you still
>>> But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
>>> If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>>>
>>> - John Lennon
>>>
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
>>> art.deco.studios at gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>> ======================================================= List services
>>> made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the
>>> Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com=======================================================
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
>> art.deco.studios at gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> http://www.fsr.net
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>
>
--
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130304/481baec6/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list