Bad Logic

[moniker]

I am not sure this is of any relevance. My OP really had to do with some funny logic that was being used in another thread (that got locked).

It's tangential. Potluck was discrediting an argument which is only used to justify the legalization of victimless crimes by pairing it with a crime that has a fairly obvious victim. I just wanted to call him on it and things ballooned a bit.

 

[Drew]

Re: re bad logic

Drew,
The 'xxxxxx' is what I substituted for 'stealing chocolate' eg. the 'xxxxxx' can be 'smoking marjuana', 'increasing speed limits' . . . whatever. . .

Your argument would read:
1. There are people who want to 'smoke marjuana' and are motivated to argue that the public should accept this as acceptable behaviour.

2. These same people have a deep inner desire for smoking marjuana.

3. Therefore, those with a deep inner desire for smoking marjuana are inclined to argue for public acceptance of smoking marjuana.

Let's suppose that 1 and 2 have been established as factual. Does conclusion 3 follow?

Yes, it most certainly does.

In Christ: stranger

You are probably correct here. And I now realize that I chose entirely the wrong example in my OP, so I intend to repost another version which properly focuses in on the logic error that I want to discuss.

See, admitting one is wrong is not the end of the world :D

 

[Relic]

2. It is not at all clear to me whether the fact that an act harms another is sufficient grounds for making it illegal - I suspect it is probably not.

:o

I am not sure this is of any relevance. My OP really had to do with some funny logic that was being used in another thread (that got locked).

And we all know that your strange logic was not gaining ground in that thread in which you were being denied a spoon feeding, by anyone. There were plenty enough links for you to go through to try to disprove it as you wanted it to be done through insisting I provide proof that it was indeed true, instead you insisted that I present your case for you. But yet, you denied the fact that you wanted to be spoon fed and created a huge argument that I was obligated to provide evidence to you. Those links were not enough evidence as far as "you" were concerned.

And these examples you are presenting here in this thread do not make a wrong right, either.

.

 

[Drew]

And we all know that your strange logic was not gaining ground in that thread in which you were being denied a spoon feeding, by anyone.

Again, I most heartily invite any and all readers to read through that entire thread. It is most illuminating. I will let you reach your own conclusions. Moniker, you seem like a person capable of examining the quality of arguments - perhaps you would like to have a read. Here is the start of the thread:

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=26660

 

[ChristineES]

You have to look very carefully at "victimless" crimes. Let's use drugs. If a person is using heroin, he is only hurting himself, right? No. What if said person drives a car. He could kill someone when driving incapacitated. What if said person uses machinery at work while high, he can cause the equipment to malfunction and maim someone else. This can go on and on.

Stealing chocolate seems almost innocent. But if you look at it this way: person steals from store, the store owner must pay for the loss, which will cause him to raise prices to compensate. Which means we all pay more at the store and not just for chocolate but for everything. The more people steal, the higher prices will get.

You really have to look at the big picture.

Child molestation is always wrong and in my opinion deplorable.

 

[stranger]

Re: re bad logic

You are probably correct here. And I now realize that I chose entirely the wrong example in my OP, so I intend to repost another version which properly focuses in on the logic error that I want to discuss.

See, admitting one is wrong is not the end of the world :D

Its a blessing to you.

In Christ: Stranger

 

[Drew]

OK. Here is a replacement for my OP which was poorly chosen by me:

Suppose we have a world where 95 % of the people like beef (and do not like chicken) while the other 5 % like chicken (and do not like beef). Suppose that when cows and chickens achieve the age of 1, they lose their ability to feel pain, but before the age 1, they suffer great horrible pain when killed. Assume also that the supply of cows and chickens older than 1 is large enough so that any beef or chicken lover does not need to kill an underage cow or chicken to get fed.

Now we would probably all agree that it is immoral to kill an underage cow or chicken in such a world. But suppose a tiny organization emerges: "Committee to Legalize Underage Chicken Killing" (CLUCK). These people don't care about the pain these underage chickens feel and lobby for societal approval of their behaviour.

Now suppose a beef-lover argued as follows:

1. The members of CLUCK lobby for abuse of young chickens.

2. The members of CLUCK like chicken

3. Therefore chicken-lovers are promoting the abuse of young chickens.

Points 1 and 2 are clearly true. Does point 3 follow?

I trust the allusion is clear.....

 

[Solo]

The whole argument of this debate disappears into the wasteland of wood, hay, and stubble when one recognizes that in the flesh dwells no good thing, and anything feeding the flesh over and above the word of God is a futile attempt to satisfy pleasure as opposed to the will of God in one's life.

None of this is, however, surprising as many only know the one-sided natural man perspective.

 

[moniker]

You have to look very carefully at "victimless" crimes. Let's use drugs. If a person is using heroin, he is only hurting himself, right? No. What if said person drives a car. He could kill someone when driving incapacitated. What if said person uses machinery at work while high, he can cause the equipment to malfunction and maim someone else. This can go on and on.

Driving under the influence is, and should be, illegal. The same goes for operating heavy machinery while drunk/stone/whatever. They are different and separate actions being taken which are pretty clearly creating victims or increasing the likelihood of damage. Those separate acts deserve legislation against them, however the heroin use, by itself, did not cause them to occur.

I don't know enough about the impacts that heroin use has on a person psychologically or physiologically, so I don't know if I would promote it's legalization. I do know that it being a victimless crime deserves taking a second look, at the very least.

 

[Rick W]

members of CLUCK ..."Committee to Legalize Underage Chicken Killing"

:

Best laugh I've had all day!

Anyway, let me consider your very imaginative analogy.
This one is a classic! :-D

No, I don't mean that in any derogatory manner but as a genuine compliment.

 

[Rick W]

Maybe CLUCK could do as they want on a small scale. Sure the beef lovers and other chicken lovers will show distain and maybe some outrage... for a while. Now, CLUCK could then find some chickens who feel, "Well, I'm going to die anyway so may as well get it over with." to go along with CLUCK's agenda. (The chickens and cows can talk too?) Adding these tesimonials of consent to their lobbying and knowing the other chickens aren't going to say anything anyway the cause is bolstered as "Consent for Underage Death" ... or "CUD" which is a PC term the cow lovers feel comfortable with.
So, chickens who have no idea what death will feel like decide it's ok to do so.
Therefore killing of underage chickens gains momentum.

:

 

[Vic C.]

Hey! I had chicken for supper. :smt117

 

[Rick W]

Somehow I knew you couldn't resist responding to this thread :-D

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

Please forgive my ignorance here. Could someone tell me what a victimless crime is? Give examples. Oh...and pray that God will keep me calm when I read your answers.

 

[Relic]

... Could someone tell me what a victimless crime is? Give examples. ...

It's an oxymoron. :


.

 

[Rick W]

Please forgive my ignorance here. Could someone tell me what a victimless crime is? Give examples. Oh...and pray that God will keep me calm when I read your answers.

Drug sales, prostitution, etc.
Both parties consent but it's illegal to do so.

 

[Relic]

Maybe CLUCK could do as they want on a small scale. Sure the beef lovers and other chicken lovers will show distain and maybe some outrage... for a while. Now, CLUCK could then find some chickens who feel, "Well, I'm going to die anyway so may as well get it over with." to go along with CLUCK's agenda. (The chickens and cows can talk too?) Adding these tesimonials of consent to their lobbying and knowing the other chickens aren't going to say anything anyway the cause is bolstered as "Consent for Underage Death" ... or "CUD" which is a PC term the cow lovers feel comfortable with.
So, chickens who have no idea what death will feel like decide it's ok to do so.
Therefore killing of underage chickens gains momentum.

:

And, any left wing cows caught chewing a CUD containing chicken feathers would be considered a victimless crime.

and since the cows have learned to enjoy eating CUD, being that killing underage chickens has become okay, An uprising of radical cows have taken the issues of defining liberties to an even more extreeme, and have begun lobbying for more controversial issues which were against the law amongst the mainstream society. Legalize Pot, and of course the cookies contain pot, not kosher at all.

And, they thought to include the milk as an extra to throw the commities off guard (that is to make it appear as if it is not harmful at all) , being that everyone must have milk to drink down the cookies. :roll:


And so, on and on and on they lobby for more and more liberties for things the mainstream society has deemed harmful, they continue on until all laws have been abolished and chaos presides. It's a free for all! Yeeee Haaaaa! The Wild Wild West Returns.

Mabel cow:
Ah, hey there Ellycow, you see that under age little chickie over there off to the left?

Ellycow:
Yeah! Yee haw, Mabelcow! You catch it, and kill it while I go off and fetch the milk and cookies for desert!




.

 

[christian_soldier]

This thread is udderly ridiculous.

:smt024

 

[Rick W]

Well, if this argument has anything to do with sexual morality all bets are off concerning logic. Even hard truths, facts and just plain common sense don't seem to have much effect to slow the ever-broadening envelope of tolerance.
How far can it go? Even the proponents of certain sexual tolerance today have some form of sexual morality they live by. That doesn't mean sexual tolerance will stop there once the particular sexual freedom advocated is attained. There will always be people wanting more and fighting hard, doing everything and saying anything to get it.
We sow what we reap. What we plant today will produce fruit tomorrow. If the fruit doesn't turn out as expected, well, that's too bad. Social engineering is a risky business at best yet we're willing to gamble the future to get what we want today. And the odds are always against us.

 

[moniker]

Please forgive my ignorance here. Could someone tell me what a victimless crime is? Give examples. Oh...and pray that God will keep me calm when I read your answers.

Behavior that is illegal but does not violate or threaten the rights of anyone else. Sitting at home and smoking marijuana rather than drinking a bottle of scotch. Or a bottle of milk, for that matter. Also, when all parties have granted consent (without coercion, etc.) to an act. Such as a poker game in a state where gambling is illegal.