[Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?
Joe Campbell
philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Mon Mar 4 07:43:01 PST 2013
Dang! I thought we did agree but I wouldn't put it like that. I have no
view about ethical claims!
When deciding what laws to pass, we should be concerned with harms. Whether
or not worries like mine indications of genuine harm, is an empirical
matter.
Of course, one could construct a moral theory from here but whether the
ethical claims -- whatever it is that gives it the "ought" beyond a mere
epistemic "ought" (likely to be true) or pragmatic "ought" -- are reducible
to the empirical data is a complex issue.
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130304/4ca382b7/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list