2.17.2004
oh my, my.
I made the mistake of checking the blog immediately before going to bed, which was a mistake because now I can't sleep with all the thoughts of response churning through my brain, and sleep at this moment is something I desperately need. So I am hauling myself back out of bed for a preliminary response, and ask for your patience for the larger, more comprehensive response to come.
First, clarification. I assume (please forgive me if I am wrong about this, but it seems too obvious to be a coincidence) that Chad talked to at least Anna about conversations we had at our last meeting because her post is pulled right out of our conversation. I said to chad that basically the only real political issue for me was the abotion issue. Chad was a bit upset because he viewed that as too narrow, which perhaps in itself it is, because I failed to discuss it further and explain why I thought so. In short, I think that compared to the abortion issue, all other issues are so miniscule as to hardly be worth mentioning. Further, I think that the abortion issue is the litmus test for all of my other political thoughts, because they can all be basically traced back to this root, which ties in with the fundamental nature of goverment, and the reason for its existence. I will elaborate on that more in my larger response, so I will leave it at that for the moment.
Anna: If my assumption is true (about the whole me/chad conversation thing), then I am very honored that you would think of me as an "intelligent, sound-minded person". I hope that my coming response will live up to that assesment.
Adam: I somewhat resent the implication that pro-lifers (and by extraction, me) are simply religious automatons who thoughtlessly toe the party line. This could not be further from the truth, and the dismissive nature of your response casts serious doubt on your conclusion. I urge you to rethink your position and resubmit it in a format that puts everyones intelligence in a better light.
Ok, now I have some requirements for you. If we are to engage in thoughtful, meaningful discussion on this, we all have to be on the same page, in a lot of different ways. The quickest way is required reading.
First, look up this site It is a list of many different logical fallacies. These are some starting points for intelligent discussion. They help weed out poorly formed thoughts. The original thought that is illustrated in a logical fallacy may not be in itself wrong, but if it is right, the thinker is just either too lazy or not sufficiently informed to put it in a correct format or is being deceptive. It will also help you get into the mindset for the thornier issues of reductionist ethics to come.
Second, buy this book. If the link doesn't work, it is Elements of Moral Philosophy by James Rachels. This was my textbook in one of the ethics courses I took. I am sure there are many others, but this seems to be a very common text, and I am familiar with it. I am going to buy it too, and brush up on it for my response. Please read this book twice. It is not that long, compared with many of the other books I know you have read, and it is something that should be read first, before other philosophers, just so you know what they are talking about and can form an opinion of your own without being swayed by theirs.
I also request some information on your views so I can best fit my response to them. It is pointless for me to respond to things we all agree on (preach to the choir) or to dive into things you don't know anything about.
I am going to put a LOT of work into this, because I think this is one of, if not THE largest human rights issues in the history of the world. I am serious about that. I hope that you will agree with me when I am done, or at least understand where I am coming from.
I hope I can sleep now...
jeff
I made the mistake of checking the blog immediately before going to bed, which was a mistake because now I can't sleep with all the thoughts of response churning through my brain, and sleep at this moment is something I desperately need. So I am hauling myself back out of bed for a preliminary response, and ask for your patience for the larger, more comprehensive response to come.
First, clarification. I assume (please forgive me if I am wrong about this, but it seems too obvious to be a coincidence) that Chad talked to at least Anna about conversations we had at our last meeting because her post is pulled right out of our conversation. I said to chad that basically the only real political issue for me was the abotion issue. Chad was a bit upset because he viewed that as too narrow, which perhaps in itself it is, because I failed to discuss it further and explain why I thought so. In short, I think that compared to the abortion issue, all other issues are so miniscule as to hardly be worth mentioning. Further, I think that the abortion issue is the litmus test for all of my other political thoughts, because they can all be basically traced back to this root, which ties in with the fundamental nature of goverment, and the reason for its existence. I will elaborate on that more in my larger response, so I will leave it at that for the moment.
Anna: If my assumption is true (about the whole me/chad conversation thing), then I am very honored that you would think of me as an "intelligent, sound-minded person". I hope that my coming response will live up to that assesment.
Adam: I somewhat resent the implication that pro-lifers (and by extraction, me) are simply religious automatons who thoughtlessly toe the party line. This could not be further from the truth, and the dismissive nature of your response casts serious doubt on your conclusion. I urge you to rethink your position and resubmit it in a format that puts everyones intelligence in a better light.
Ok, now I have some requirements for you. If we are to engage in thoughtful, meaningful discussion on this, we all have to be on the same page, in a lot of different ways. The quickest way is required reading.
First, look up this site It is a list of many different logical fallacies. These are some starting points for intelligent discussion. They help weed out poorly formed thoughts. The original thought that is illustrated in a logical fallacy may not be in itself wrong, but if it is right, the thinker is just either too lazy or not sufficiently informed to put it in a correct format or is being deceptive. It will also help you get into the mindset for the thornier issues of reductionist ethics to come.
Second, buy this book. If the link doesn't work, it is Elements of Moral Philosophy by James Rachels. This was my textbook in one of the ethics courses I took. I am sure there are many others, but this seems to be a very common text, and I am familiar with it. I am going to buy it too, and brush up on it for my response. Please read this book twice. It is not that long, compared with many of the other books I know you have read, and it is something that should be read first, before other philosophers, just so you know what they are talking about and can form an opinion of your own without being swayed by theirs.
I also request some information on your views so I can best fit my response to them. It is pointless for me to respond to things we all agree on (preach to the choir) or to dive into things you don't know anything about.
I am going to put a LOT of work into this, because I think this is one of, if not THE largest human rights issues in the history of the world. I am serious about that. I hope that you will agree with me when I am done, or at least understand where I am coming from.
I hope I can sleep now...
jeff
< 01:01 >< /j >
