tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post6093370204677862411..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Catholic Social Teaching and Myself: Brief Explanation and ClarificationDave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-31261751892706399742012-01-05T14:50:19.822-05:002012-01-05T14:50:19.822-05:00Since you have again (despite my urging and virtua...Since you have again (despite my urging and virtual pleading) refused to grapple with my <i>actual argumentation</i> about Paul's statement in his book (that I re-posted in this thread), and want to continue nitpicking and majoring on the minors, I am now closing this thread. <br /><br />I'm quite willing to revise my position on Paul's opinion as I understand it, if someone will merely give me good reason to do so. Failing that, there is no reason to change my mind.<br /><br />Should you change your mind about making a rational argument in an attempt to overthrow my reasoning / interpretation, you can send me an e-mail, and I will be more than happy to post it here:<br /><br />apologistdave [at] gmail [dot] com<br /><br />If I do not post such a comment in this thread, readers can safely assume that it has not been attempted.<br /><br />For my part, I will certainly not hold my breath waiting for the thing that has not yet been offered, despite my repeated. increasingly exasperated pleas for it to be.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-62977212131795248312012-01-05T14:33:05.398-05:002012-01-05T14:33:05.398-05:00Dave Armstrong: "While you take head counts (...Dave Armstrong: <i>"While you take head counts (the ad populum fallacy)"</i><br /><br />Had I attempted to <i>prove</i> that my reading of the passage was correct by appeal to head-count <i>then</i> it would have been the ad populum fallacy. But in fact I was pointing out a reason why you were seeming to get so little grappling with your arguments -- because quite a sizeable fraction of people simply don't read the passage the same way as you.<br /><br />Dave Armstrong: <i>"I do thank you for the rare factual clarification of Paul's book title, though. I made the outrageous (obviously intentional) error of reversing the words in it."</i><br /><br />Your very first comment in this thread pointed out a minor error. Is it somehow only other people's minor errors that are worth pointing out?Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06146312371165996392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-86738062588835853522012-01-05T13:58:14.400-05:002012-01-05T13:58:14.400-05:00Going over just the comments here, myself and abou...<i>Going over just the comments here, myself and about three other people just don't read that passage the same way you do.</i> <br /><br />I guess that clinches it, then, huh? <i>Three</i> people, after all!<br /><br />While you take head counts (the <i>ad populum</i> fallacy), I've made my arguments and counter-arguments. If you wish to ignore them and engage in mere monologue, ignoring the actual substance and particulars, then do so. It's a free country.<br /><br />Thus far, that's what you have done. If you continue to do so, then I will simply ignore you, and folks will know why, since I am stating so here. I engage in back-and-forth dialogue, where the other guy's arguments are actually directly dealt with, not ignored for the purpose of more monolithic, oblivious preaching. <br /><br />I tired of Ron Paul discussions at least a week ago. And this thread (along with many others on my Facebook page) is ample illustration of why.<br /><br />I do thank you for the rare factual clarification of Paul's book title, though. I made the outrageous (obviously intentional) error of reversing the words in it.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-24598278666844263852012-01-05T13:34:31.875-05:002012-01-05T13:34:31.875-05:00Dave Armstrong: "Since I have already concede...Dave Armstrong: <i>"Since I have already conceded that there are realpolitik considerations and that the sponsorship of a bill was a fairly weak argument, there is nothing new here."</i><br /><br />You continued to use the rape/incest argument <b>after</b> you had said it was a weak argument. So you both think it is weak, but good enough to publish. Not really so weak then? And even if it's "weak", it's still being applied in a biased way.<br /><br />Dave Armstrong: <i>"The heart of my objection remains the quotation from Ron Paul's book. Thus far, no one has even attempted to grapple with my arguments regarding that"</i><br /><br />The book is called "Liberty Defined" (not "Defining Liberty", as you've called it a couple of times). Going over just the comments here, myself and about three other people just don't read that passage the same way you do. A very limited amount of "grappling" is possible when there just isn't agreement on what the passage says.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06146312371165996392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-22251430618910077712012-01-05T11:35:28.910-05:002012-01-05T11:35:28.910-05:00Since I have already conceded that there are realp...Since I have already conceded that there are <i>realpolitik</i> considerations and that the sponsorship of a bill was a fairly weak argument, there is nothing new here. The heart of my objection remains the quotation from Ron Paul's book.<br /><br />Thus far, no one has even attempted to grapple with my arguments regarding that (and counter-arguments).<br /><br />Instead, we have harping over things that have already been dealt with more than once.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-58388436381554380282012-01-05T04:30:40.002-05:002012-01-05T04:30:40.002-05:00Dave Armstrong: "I stated more than once that...Dave Armstrong: <i>"I stated more than once that any politician who holds these views is wrong. E.g., in this very combox thread [..] 'Any politician who takes this position is doing the same thing. I utterly condemn the position across the board.' "</i><br /><br />The point of contention is not whether you hold that principle, but whether it is being applied equally to all. (I note that in the very next sentence after the quote you give, you said <i>"Bachmann and Santorum are the consistent ones on this issue."</i>)<br /><br />One thing you said about Ron Paul was: <i>"If he thinks there can be no law regarding certain things (rape and incest clause) then the result of that is absolutely identical to a pro-abort thinking that abortion should be legal"</i>.<br /><br />But the evidence supplied that Ron Paul thinks such a thing is simply that the rape and incest exception is part of a bill that he supported. If that is really the standard of evidence needed, then we should note that Bachmann also co-sponsored the same bill that the rape/incest exception was in. We should also note that the USCCB went on record as supporting the passing of that bill. And we should note that Santorum sponsored a bill that also has an exception (the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 -- that bill has an exception that allows a direct partial-birth abortion if the mother's health is in danger.)<br /><br />Then where is your consistency in treatment between Ron Paul, Santorum, and Bachmann?<br /><br />(In fact, I don't think that the fact that a bill has an exception allowing direct abortion in some circumstances necessarily proves anything about the supporters of such a bill. It may simply be that the exception is there because sufficient people would vote the bill down if it wasn't present, and the rest of the bill is sufficiently good that the exception has to be choked down.)Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06146312371165996392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-89435301096263689312012-01-04T23:37:29.580-05:002012-01-04T23:37:29.580-05:00I am also claiming that he is being criticized for...<i>I am also claiming that he is being criticized for doing things that are not criticized when other people do them.</i><br /><br />I stated more than once that any politician who holds these views is wrong. E.g., in this very combox thread (as well as elsewhere in my many recent political discussions):<br /><br />"Any politician who takes this position is doing the same thing. I utterly condemn the position across the board."<br /><br />"I continue to maintain that his position on the exceptions is a 'pro-choice' one (as it is also for Romney and Huntsman)."<br /><br />[these two are from this combox]<br /><br />Perhaps I discuss Paul more in this post because I have been catching the most flak from Paul supporters and he is lifted up as this figure supposedly way above the fray of other politicians. But I condemn the position no matter who holds it, including when Gingrich held it (until recently): and he is my favorite of all the candidates.<br /><br />Thus the criticism is without foundation and demonstrably untrue: insofar as you intended it as a criticism of me (which stands to reason, since my name was mentioned in the preceding sentence).Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-77929890451990123212012-01-04T23:28:11.768-05:002012-01-04T23:28:11.768-05:00Paul Hoffer: "Hello Paul, As far as hedge bui...Paul Hoffer: <i>"Hello Paul, As far as hedge building, all one needs to do is look at what Our Lord did at the Semon on the Mount (Mt. 5-7)"</i><br /><br />That seems to be about avoiding even small evils. It doesn't seem to me to be about hedge-building. So perhaps it would help me if you could give some more precise idea about what "hedge-building" is to you.<br /><br />Paul Hoffer: <i>"you are defending Ron Paul's position"</i><br /><br />No. I am claiming that his position is being misinterpreted -- or, at the least, that it is very easily capable of an interpretation other than the one that Dave Armstrong has picked out. I am also claiming that he is being criticized for doing things that are not criticized when other people do them.<br /><br />Paul Hoffer: <i>"My inquiry at the end of my last comment was to seek to remove the ambiguity so we all would know what Ron Paul's view actually is. It still needs answering if you are able to do so. [Referring back to: are you familiar with his views on some of the other aspects of Catholic social teaching that Dave touched upon in his article?]"</i><br /><br />Sorry, I am not a supporter or fan of Ron Paul, and know only a little about his beliefs.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06146312371165996392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-42394308765244013982012-01-04T18:22:28.499-05:002012-01-04T18:22:28.499-05:00I don't think that Paul's cosponsorship of...I don't think that Paul's cosponsorship of a bill means that he necessarily advocates an exception for rape. He might as so many do, he mightn't and only see this bill as the best attainable bill. <br /><br />Things are different in regard to the morning after pill. Though Paul argues that a law would be impractical (which is untrue - the state could outlaw abortifacient drugs and would only have to keep an eye on the manufacturers) he merely looks on what an individual woman might do with the drug. This all-too-easy outlook betrays a lack of concern for the issue.<br /><br />Some defend this behaviour as mere realpolitik - but how does such an defense square with the image publicized of Ron Paul, the man of unyielding principles?<br /><br />This is not to say that one cannot vote in good conscience for the man as the best option (and IMHO Dave did not argue this way either). But it shows that he is not the saint his fanatical followers advertise him as.Residenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04007210807000718712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-86533815277771602442012-01-04T17:03:27.146-05:002012-01-04T17:03:27.146-05:00I wrote on a Facebook thread on mark Shea's pa...I wrote on a Facebook thread on mark Shea's page, about Paul and abortion:<br /><br />***<br /><br />I don't think he is "pro-abortion"; he is partially inconsistent, since (I believe) he applies some reasoning that is identical to that which pro-aborts use. It's a logical point of disagreement. But the statement in his book is, I think, troublesome, and I explained why I think it is, from where I sit.<br /><br />Also, if the issue is that he (flat-out or in effect) supports intrinsic evil, then we are back to square one with that objection to any candidate.<br /><br />If he thinks there can be no law regarding certain things (rape and incest clause) then the result of that is absolutely identical to a pro-abort thinking that abortion should be legal because it'll happen anyway and the prohibition is not able to be enforced.<br /><br />Paul simply restricts that scenario to exception cases. The result is the same: babies die (partially as the result of the lack of a law). We shouldn't give up on enforcement when lives are at stake, but work to find a way to enforce!<br /><br />The law has a large moral component: to enshrine what is right and just as a legal matter. We outlaw abortion because it is murder and a matter of basic rights given by God; not based on whether it can be enforced or not. But of course that is part of the fundamental flaws of libertarianism.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-29649206569790760022012-01-04T13:44:40.574-05:002012-01-04T13:44:40.574-05:00Maroun,
Btw, how close is the Finnish system of ...Maroun, <br /><br />Btw, how close is the Finnish system of electing national leaders to what you have seen in the US?<br /><br />God bless!Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-80026340768011542502012-01-04T13:36:23.796-05:002012-01-04T13:36:23.796-05:00Hi Maroun, just to add to what Dave wrote, here is...Hi Maroun, just to add to what Dave wrote, here is a link to a brochure that Catholic Answers put out that spells things out a bit more:<br /> http://www.caaction.com/pdf/Voters-Guide-Catholic-English-1.pdf <br /><br />I have used it myself as a hnady checklist to remind myself what is acceptable as there have been many times where both candidates were pro-aborts. There have been many times in the 30+ years I have voted where my conscience did not allow me to vote for anyone.<br /><br />God bless!Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-60314448733658859992012-01-04T13:34:43.519-05:002012-01-04T13:34:43.519-05:00And Paul's libertarian view is also similar to...And Paul's libertarian view is also similar to states' rights / Southern or confederate / pro-slavery reasoning regarding slavery pre-1865: a position that virtually no one defends anymore.<br /><br />Some things are matters of federal law and rights. The right to life is one of them. But that is the ideal. If we can only do the states' thing for now, then (I agree) we do it to save lives, while not denying that a complete federal solution is the ideal that we must still strive to achieve. <br /><br />The ultimate goal can never be lost sight of. Like the battle against slavery, it may take generations, because entrenched sin is very difficult to "legally dislodge."Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-25886588179322798832012-01-04T13:30:01.646-05:002012-01-04T13:30:01.646-05:00I think the "co-sponsor" argument is by ...I think the "co-sponsor" argument is by far the weaker of the two that I made, per the criticisms of it made, that indeed have some validity.<br /><br />What Paul wrote in his book is the stronger argument. A Paul supporter tried to defend it as inarticulate, and I gave a counter-reply, reproduced above, that stands, as far as I am concerned, unless someone convinces me otherwise.<br /><br />If Paul would simply state outright what his OWN position was: his own belief, apart from politics and strategic / legal considerations, we wouldn't even be debating it. But he wanted to play games when asked about it in the debate, and nuance it to death, just like a typical politician. Now I think his supporters attempt to spin his remarks, too.<br /><br />Thus, from the data I know about, I can only draw my own conclusions, minus more definite pronouncements from Paul. Of course I might get it wrong (being a human being), but in the absence of <i>absolutely clear</i> statements yay or nay, whose fault is that? I never claimed to be infallible. I go by the available evidence, as I find and see it. Someone disagrees? Great. That's what discussion of ideas is about.<br /><br />The states vs. federal legislation thing is a separate issue, and I have argued that Paul's position in some key respects is logically similar or indistinguishable from so-called "pro-choice" reasoning.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-39994206810603344452012-01-04T13:16:19.063-05:002012-01-04T13:16:19.063-05:00Hi Maroun,
I think if you have no good choices, y...Hi Maroun,<br /><br />I think if you have no good choices, you are permitted to choose the "lesser of the evils" under Catholic principles: the one who is <i>relatively better</i> according to Catholic belief.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-79665562731603652352012-01-04T09:28:07.309-05:002012-01-04T09:28:07.309-05:00After reading Paul's position carefully, I don...After reading Paul's position carefully, I don't think he supports an exception for the day-after pill, but rather thinks it's impractical to create a law against it.<br /><br />Since all of the other candidates are "Democrat lite" inasmuch as they support big government (just not quite as much as the Dems) and mostly support the possibility of pre-emptive war, I'm still going to vote for Paul. Paul is also the only one that will do something about our debt problem, follow the Constitution, and follow more closely the Catholic principle of subsidiarity (at least more decisions would be made at the state level instead of the federal level) That said, he probably won't win.<br /><br />I'll vote for whoever the GOP nominates as an alternative to Obama, but I don't believe he'll be a lot better. Just a little better, and that probably won't be enough to rescue our country from its drift towards oblivion.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13955573460484576394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-4769762386236817132012-01-04T08:08:16.783-05:002012-01-04T08:08:16.783-05:00Hello Paul, As far as hedge building, all one nee...Hello Paul, As far as hedge building, all one needs to do is look at what Our Lord did at the Semon on the Mount (Mt. 5-7). <br /><br />As far as identical vs. sort, when one is on a slippery slope, one fails to see how the two can mean the same thing.<br /><br />You also claim that you are not advocating for Sen. Paul, but at least here in the context of debating, you claim that Dave got his position on abortion wrong and seek to present an alternate view of what he advocates. Thus, as Dave's antagonist (debating wise in this box) you are defending Ron Paul's position. Where I come from, that is advocating.<br /><br />For purposes of the discussion between us Pauls, I acknowledged the ambiguity in supporting legislation that allows for some abortions. One could argue that Sen Paul took an incremental approach consistent with Catholic teaching or one can make the argument that he believes that abortion is acceptable in the case of rape or very early pregnancies when noonr but God knows whether the woman is pregnant. My inquiry at the end of my last comment was to seek to remove the ambiguity so we all would know what Ron Paul's view actually is. It still needs answering if you are able to do so.<br /><br />God bless!Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-77743113804756176242012-01-04T04:29:53.711-05:002012-01-04T04:29:53.711-05:00Paul Hoffer: "Actually Paul, pro-aborts make ...Paul Hoffer: <i>"Actually Paul, pro-aborts make the same sort of argument all the time."</i><br /><br />I never denied that they make that <i>sort</i> of argument. I said that I hadn't heard them make <i>that</i> argument, i.e. that specific (supposedly "identical") argument that I referred to. I was replying to Dave Armstrong's claim that Ron Paul's argument was <b>identical</b> to that of pro-aborts. (I know what the word identical means.) You're making the very much less specific claim that it's the <i>sort</i> of argument that pro-aborts make.<br /><br />Paul Hoffer: <i>"Catholic moral teaching compels us as Catholics to advocate laws that build a hedge against laws that could be used as a stepping stone or precedent to advocate abortion."</i><br /><br />A hedge? If I am compelled to support such a hedge as a matter of Catholic moral teaching, could you please provide me some quotation from official teaching from which I can deduce such a thing? That will easily convince me.<br /><br />Paul Hoffer: <i>"Since you are advocating Ron Paul's view in regards to abortion"</i><br /><br />I haven't advocated Ron Paul's views in regards to abortion.<br /><br />Instead, I've essentially been defending the necessity of making reasoned, charitable and impartial arguments about someone's position, no matter who they are.<br /><br />Look, here's (an example of) what Dave Armstrong has been arguing:<br /><br />(DA's Claim-A) <i>"Catholics [..] are not allowed to advocate the position of allowable abortion in the cases of rape and incest..."</i><br /><br />I think that Claim-A is correct.<br /><br />(DA's Claim-B) <i>"...which Ron Paul <b>does</b>..."</i><br /><br />At which point I think to myself, "Hmm, that sounds a bit unlike Ron Paul. But perhaps it's true. I wonder how Ron Paul came to such a conclusion despite all the other very strong pro-life claims he has been making. I wonder what the evidence is."<br /><br />(DA's Claim-C) <i>"...as I documented in a Facebook discussion thread"</i><br /><br />So I follow the link to the Facebook thread, and I find this as (some of) the evidence Dave gives: <i>"[Ron] Paul co-sponsored the 'No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion' Act - It 'Provides that such prohibitions shall not apply to an abortion if: (1) the pregnancy is the result of forcible rape or, if the pregnant woman is a minor, incest; [..]'"</i><br /><br />There were 227 other sponsors or co-sponsors of that bill. All that one can reasonably deduce is that Ron Paul was definitely in favor of passing the bill.<br /><br />Putting these three claims together, Dave seems to be claiming that Ron Paul wanted to pass a bill that contains an exception for abortion in the case of rape or incest, and that means that he was advocating in favor of such an exception, and that is something that is forbidden to Catholics -- and hence Ron Paul's pro-life credentials are compromised.<br /><br />And the grave problem with that line of argument is that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops was <i>also</i> definitely in favor of passing that bill.<br /><br />Dave's line of argument aimed at condemning Ron Paul, taken impartially, also condemns the USCCB.<br /><br />So something has gone seriously wrong with the argument. The Dave Armstrong who in the past has carefully and patiently endeavored to expose every flawed argument of a Protestant against Catholic teaching is somehow not working the same way in the political arena.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06146312371165996392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-59315654669180774232012-01-04T02:43:23.999-05:002012-01-04T02:43:23.999-05:00With all due respect Dave my understanding is that...With all due respect Dave my understanding is that whiles Dr Paul is personally pro-life, a Paul White House wouldn't be reinstating the mexico city policy or using the powers of the federal government to advance the pro-life cause. <br /><br />As for Santourum, he is a little too hot-headed for my liking; he seems to be hell-bent (pardon my language) on waging yet another expensive war in the name of freedom. Perhaps there is some potential there, but I'd rather he sit out 4-8 years as VPOTUS before he becomes POTUS<br /><br />Whilst I disagree with Dr Paul on a wide variety of issues I would vote for him If I was an American, he seems to be the most authentic candidate of the lot and in my opinion the one who has the best chance of beating ObamaJust another mad Catholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10503510474554718305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-41508204869931608232012-01-04T01:34:24.687-05:002012-01-04T01:34:24.687-05:00Hi Dave .
I need to ask you a very important quest...Hi Dave .<br />I need to ask you a very important question please ?<br />I live in Finland and soon we are going to have the presidential elections . Among 8 candidates for the first round , only two are against abortion and one of them is catholic , so there is no doubt who is going to have my vote .<br />Now the question is this . If neither of the two candidates which are pro life will make it to the second round , and the two candidates which might make it are both pro choice (which is of course nothing else as pro death ) but one of the two candidates which might make it to the second round is also a homosexual and pro same sex marriages (you can immagine what kind of a bright future we have ahead of us ) . In the begining i thought not to vote if the candidates are pro choice , but on the other hand , if i dont vote , the next president could also be pro death and pro same sex marriages . So my question is , should i vote for the better person even if both are bad?<br />Thank you very much Dave and GBUMarounhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17891800446559973689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-15160361554944592972012-01-03T21:56:18.844-05:002012-01-03T21:56:18.844-05:00Hi Dave, with all of the Pauls around here, one wo...Hi Dave, with all of the Pauls around here, one would think you are hosting a convention of Pauls. Anyhow, Happy New Years to you and yours as well!!!<br /><br />Hi Paul, you wrote: "Ron Paul points to a case when it is literally impossible for anyone to know whether a pregnancy exists or not, and says that a civil law shouldn't be passed to cover such a circumstance. I don't know of any pro-abort who is making that argument."<br /><br />Me, Actually Paul, pro-aborts make the same sort of argument all the time. It is a variation of the old "aborton is ok because one can not when ensoulment actually occurs argument." One can not know when the fetus is viable...one can not know when the fetus feels pain...one can not know when the fetus' brain has activity...one can not know when the fetus' heart starts beating...etc. etc. The argument above is just a little further down on the same continuum of the pro-abort slippery slope. Catholic moral teaching compels us as Catholics to advocate laws that build a hedge against laws that could be used as a stepping stone or precedent to advocate abortion. <br /><br />That said, I do see where one could argue that Ron Paul is practicing an incremental policy to abolish abortion by getting laws passed to limit some abortions because the political climate would not allow more. I just have not heard Ron Paul himself make that argument justifying his support for such laws.<br /><br />Since you are advocating Ron Paul's view in regards to abortion, are you familiar with his views on some of the other aspects of Catholic social teaching that Dave touched upon in his article?<br /><br />God bless!Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-42918963741642984682012-01-03T19:53:13.134-05:002012-01-03T19:53:13.134-05:00And so we have heard from our second anonymous sou...And so we have heard from our second anonymous source today. Thanks for your input.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-44227893473042508972012-01-03T18:48:56.293-05:002012-01-03T18:48:56.293-05:00Dave Armstrong: "The reasoning is identical t...Dave Armstrong: <i>"The reasoning is identical to that of the pro-aborts for all abortion: it can't be policed, so make it legal."</i><br /><br />No, the reasoning not remotely identical. Ron Paul points to a case when it is <i>literally impossible</i> for anyone to know whether a pregnancy exists or not, and says that a civil law shouldn't be passed to cover such a circumstance. I don't know of any pro-abort who is making <i>that</i> argument.<br /><br />Dave Armstrong: <i>"I am saying this is the logical reduction or [moral] reductio ad absurdum of Paul's positions."</i><br /><br />Picking a less-favorable possible interpretation of some remarks that are not in themselves totally clear will never, ever, in the history of the universe, amount to a genuine <i>reductio ad absurdum</i>.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06146312371165996392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-45813199023446604292012-01-03T17:29:33.220-05:002012-01-03T17:29:33.220-05:00I allowed the possibility of realpolitik. I contin...I allowed the possibility of <i>realpolitik</i>. I continue to maintain that his position on the exceptions is a "pro-choice" one (as it is also for Romney and Huntsman). The reasoning is identical to that of the pro-aborts for all abortion: it can't be policed, so make it legal.<br /><br />You think I am misrepresenting. I am saying this is the logical reduction or [moral] <i>reductio ad absurdum</i> of Paul's positions. Reasonable analysis has to be applied to it. We disagree.<br /><br />He ain't gonna get the nomination anyway so it is much ado about nothing in the end.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-44639974801489507562012-01-03T17:24:59.906-05:002012-01-03T17:24:59.906-05:00Dave Armstrong: "I see no reason in your comm...Dave Armstrong: <i>"I see no reason in your comments to revise my opinion"</i><br /><br />Then I have no cause to change my conclusion that you have misrepresented Ron Paul. If you say "Ron Paul says X", and I reply that "No, Ron Paul is saying Y", I am not somehow passing over your rationale, I am directly and concretely opposing it.<br /><br />Ron Paul has never said that these early undetectable abortions are morally good -- he's said that they should not be a matter of civil law.<br /><br />Dave Armstrong: <i>"Since Paul co-sponsored the bills, I think it is reasonable to assume that these are his views"</i><br /><br />Why? It <i>could</i> be that they are his views, <i>or</i> it could be that he sees the bill as something that could actually pass, and he accordingly he supports it by putting his name on as a co-sponsor. Without some quote from Ron Paul directly addressing the issue, it's just guessing.<br /><br />Dave Armstrong: <i>"otherwise he would have written the bill differently."</i><br /><br />If you look at (e.g.) the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion" bill online, there are a <i>large</i> number of co-sponsors of the bill. They don't each get to write whatever they like into the bill. It's a joint effort.<br /><br />If one was to judge according to the standards you suggest, why shouldn't we conclude that Rick Santorum is equally to be condemned? After all, he has sponsored (not just co-sponsored) and passed into law a bill which explicitly permits some direct abortions.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06146312371165996392noreply@blogger.com