Moderator: Only_Humean
fuse wrote:I would question the truth of premises 2 and 3.
Where I live, the government has never taken the stand that all killing is wrong. Some killing has always been argued as justified.
Faust wrote:if the government states that private citizens should not kill, except under certain circumstances, but that the government itself may do so, there is no hypocrisy in that.
browser32 wrote:Faust wrote:if the government states that private citizens should not kill, except under certain circumstances, but that the government itself may do so, there is no hypocrisy in that.
So if my mother states I should not smoke, but that she may do so herself, there is no hypocrisy in that? Something seems wrong here.
So if my mother states I should not smoke, but that she may do so herself, there is no hypocrisy in that? Something seems wrong here.
browser32 wrote:Premise 3 is true: The government tells us not to kill. There are laws against murder, and murder is a form of killing. End of story.
fuse wrote:No, you just didn't understand our points. Feel free to respond directly to something I said instead of just telling me I'm wrong...
(mocking smiley)
fuse wrote: I would question the truth of premises 2 and 3.
...
it's not sound.
Flannel Jesus wrote:They tell us not to murder, yes, but that's not the same as "don't kill in general at all."
Flannel Jesus wrote:So if I followed your logic, and whatever they apply to one category of action they must apply to all categories that that category fits in
Flannel Jesus wrote:the government must also be telling us not to interact with other humans if they tell us not to kill...
browser32 wrote:True. Killing is a form of interacting with other humans. So, telling us not to kill is a form of telling us not to interact with other humans. The government tells us not to kill, thus it tells us not to interact with other humans. It's true. The latter is a form of the former.
If the government tells us not to look at squares, it's implicitly telling us not to look at rectangles as well. It may not be telling us not to look at rectangles of any kind, but it's still telling us not to look at rectangles. It's telling us not to look at a specific type of rectangle. But I don't need to specify that. If I'm looking at a square, I'm looking at a rectangle. I don't need to say I'm looking at a specific type of rectangle.
So, as the argument form goes, you, Flannel Jesus, have found yet another way that the government is hypocritical.
browser32 wrote:Is this a valid argument? If not, what is the name of the fallacy committed?
(1) A hypocritical agent is one that says one thing, but does another.
(2) The government kills people. (Through wars, the death penalty, etc.)
(3) The government tells us not to kill. (By making it a law to not murder. Murder is a form of killing, thus making it a law to not murder is a form of making it a law to not kill.)
________________________________________________________
Therefore, (4) The government is hypocritical.
browser32 wrote:Is this a valid argument? If not, what is the name of the fallacy committed?
(1) A hypocritical agent is one that says one thing, but does another.
(2) The government kills people. (Through wars, the death penalty, etc.)
(3) The government tells us not to kill. (By making it a law to not murder. Murder is a form of killing, thus making it a law to not murder is a form of making it a law to not kill.)
________________________________________________________
Therefore, (4) The government is hypocritical.
browser32 wrote:Is this a valid argument? If not, what is the name of the fallacy committed?
(1) A hypocritical agent is one that says one thing, but does another.
(2) The government kills people. (Through wars, the death penalty, etc.)
(3) The government tells us not to kill. (By making it a law to not murder. Murder is a form of killing, thus making it a law to not murder is a form of making it a law to not kill.)
________________________________________________________
Therefore, (4) The government is hypocritical.
browser32 wrote:Is this a valid argument? If not, what is the name of the fallacy committed?
(1) A hypocritical agent is one that says one thing, but does another.
(2) The government kills people. (Through wars, the death penalty, etc.)
(3) The government tells us not to kill. (By making it a law to not murder. Murder is a form of killing, thus making it a law to not murder is a form of making it a law to not kill.)
________________________________________________________
Therefore, (4) The government is hypocritical.
(Source: Wikipedia)"[S]omething is "a 'state' if and insofar as its administrative staff successfully upholds a claim on the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence (German: das Monopol legitimen physischen Zwanges) in the enforcement of its order."
Users browsing this forum: No registered users