how much does your local spiritual leader earn?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Nice slogan but apparently in your "wide" view of the world anyone who is too helpless to keep themselves alive deserves to die.

Do you really think that follows from my view that the government ought not be responsible for them? You are fallaciously deducing one of the few useful purposes of your Church right out of existence.

I'm all in favor of people helping others according to their will. I'm only against compelling others to do the same against their will under threat of imprisonment.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Do you really think that follows from my view that the government ought not be responsible for them? You are fallaciously deducing one of the few useful purposes of your Church right out of existence.

I'm all in favor of people helping others according to their will. I'm only against compelling others to do the same against their will under threat of imprisonment.

Do you really think that follows from my view that the government ought not be responsible for them?

Er ... yes.

What does it mean to say that the government is reponsible for the homeless (say) if it is not permitted to provide them homes? It's okay to let them die of starvation or exposure so long as no one bashes their head in? Why protect them in the latter case then?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Do you really think that follows from my view that the government ought not be responsible for them?

Er ... yes.[/b]

Then you are retarded, because this is not in fact a valid deduction:

The government ought not be responsible for ensuring that the helpless are fed and housed.
Hence, the helpless deserve to die.

If it were, then this formally equivalent deduction would be valid:

The government ought not be responsible for ensuring that its citizens go to heaven.
Hence, its citizens deserve to go to hell.

But here, we have a true premise and a false conclusion, so the deduction cannot be valid, contrary to your claim that it is. In each argument, there is absolutely no analytical connection whatsoever between the premise and the conclusion, whose truth values may vary freely, independently of one another.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I would prefer to live in such socitey than in one in which people are enslaved to keep the helpless alive.

Do you consider the government taking a portion of my money for collective or humanitarian putposes equivalent to the government enslaving me?

At most, it's a form of mild, repeated theft. But I retain plenty of other freedoms. And it is theft if I am in favour of the government taking and using my money to put it towards those causes?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole

At most, it's a form of mild, repeated theft. But I retain plenty of other freedoms. And it is theft if I am in favour of the government taking and using my money to put it towards those causes?

Do you consider the government taking a portion of my money for collective or humanitarian putposes equivalent to the government enslaving me?

Yes.



And it is theft if I am in favour of the government taking and using my money to put it towards those causes?

Yes, just as if the priest robs you of your offering on your way to church. The fact that the ends - the distribution of the money - are the same whether you donate or are robbed does not mean the robbery isn't robbery.

Similarly, the government as a matter of policy takes your money under threat of force. The fact that you endorse the spending of the funds, and would even volunteer them, doesn't make the policy of forceful taking proper, any more than it is proper for the priest to rob you of your offering even if you're happy to smile into the barrel of his gun as you hand it over.

The evil is in the means, not the ends, and your endorsement of the ends doesn't detract from the evil of the means.

There's nothing evil about giving a sandwich to somebody. There is something evil about taking a sandwich from somebody. If you have a policy of entitling people to sandwiches, it must entail a policy of taking sandwiches from other people.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
[b]Do you consider the government taking a portion of my money for collective or humanitarian putposes equivalent to the government enslaving me?

Yes.



And it is theft if I am in favour of the government taking and using my money to put it towards those causes?

Yes, just as if the priest robs you of your offering on your way ...[text shortened]... tling people to sandwiches, it must entail a policy of taking sandwiches from other people.[/b]

But isn't there an implication that if I have to take a sandwich from somebody to give to somebody, the person I am giving it to is too damn stupid to know how to get it themselves? But they are supposed to like me because I am giving them a sandwich.

Originally posted by kirksey957
But isn't there an implication that if I have to take a sandwich from somebody to give to somebody, the person I am giving it to is too damn stupid to know how to get it themselves? But they are supposed to like me because I am giving them a sandwich.

Yes. How else could you account for millions of people turning out to vote for the politicians of the day? A vote is typically equivalent to saying, "I want one of those sandwiches" or "Don't let that other guy take away my sandwiches." Unfortunately, votes of the form, "Nobody ought to take away anybody else's damn sandwiches" are ineffective, due to the overwhelming majority of myopic voters who can't forsee the ultimate disastrous consequences of sandwich-taking policies, and who see them only as sandwich-giving or sandwich-receiving policies.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Then you are retarded, because this is not in fact a valid deduction:

And you, Doctor, are trying to be too clever by half.

Your deduction is a strawman. This is what you asked me:

DS: "Do you really think that follows from my view that the government ought not be responsible for them?"

LH: "Er ... yes."

If you want to show that some deduction is not valid, what you've listed as the premise must be the conclusion.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Yes. How else could you account for millions of people turning out to vote for the politicians of the day? A vote is typically equivalent to saying, "I want one of those sandwiches" or "Don't let that other guy take away my sandwiches." Unfortunately, votes of the form, "Nobody ought to take away anybody else's damn sandwiches" are ineffec ...[text shortened]... king policies, and who see them only as sandwich-giving or sandwich-receiving policies.

Sounds like you're pi$$ed about the Govt. taking your sandwiches.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
And you, Doctor, are trying to be too clever by half.

Your deduction is a strawman. [b]This is what you asked me:

DS: "Do you really think that follows from my view that the government ought not be responsible for them?"

LH: "Er ... yes."

If you want to show that some deduction is not valid, what you've listed as the premise must be the conclusion.[/b]

That's nonense.

To say that B follows from A is to say that B can be validly deduced as a conclusion from premise A, not the other way around.

You asserted that "the helpless deserve to die" follows from my view that "the government ought not be responsible for them," which is to assert the validity of this syllogism:

The government ought not be responsible for ensuring that the helpless are fed and housed.
Hence, the helpless deserve to die.

And I gave a demonstration of why that is not a valid syllogism.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
That's nonense.

To say that B follows from A is to say that B can be validly deduced as a conclusion from premise A, not the other way around.

You asserted that "the helpless deserve to die" follows from my view that "the government ought not be responsible for them," which is to assert the validity of this syllogism:

The government ...[text shortened]... deserve to die.

And I gave a demonstration of why that is not a valid syllogism.

Sorry, I read you wrong the first time around.

However, you did say the following:

"I would prefer to live in [a society where people who cannot afford to keep themselves alive simply curl up and die] than in one in which people are enslaved to keep the helpless alive."

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Sorry, I read you wrong the first time around.

However, you did say the following:

"I would prefer to live in [a society where people who cannot afford to keep themselves alive simply curl up and die] than in one in which people are enslaved to keep the helpless alive."

Of course. Feel free to add that as a premise to the syllogism. You still cannot conclude that I think the helpless deserve to die, any more than you would be able to conclude that I think people ought to be enslaved if my preference were the opposite, which is to say, not at all.

Originally posted by flexmore
have you ever wondered how much your local spiritual leader earns?

can you find out?

tell us here.

i dont know the local priests, im not a religious man, but i have noticed a priest in cork drives a very posh lexus....hmmm..is that really neccessary? im not sure, i can just see him saying mass with a rolex on his wrist waffling about charity.
i suppose why not eh...would u?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Of course. Feel free to add that as a premise to the syllogism. You still cannot conclude that I think the helpless deserve to die, any more than you would be able to conclude that I think people ought to be enslaved if my preference were the opposite, which is to say, not at all.

I cannot infer by deduction that you think the helpless deserve to die.

But deduction is not the only form of inference.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I cannot infer by deduction that you think the helpless deserve to die.

But deduction is not the only form of inference.

Okay, answer this: Do you think people who are too helpless deserve to live?