jimlongley wrote: frankie_the_yankee wrote:My examples were purely deductive.
Only in your own opinion.
Decuctive logic is simply a verbal form of mathematical proof. It is either valid, and deductive, or it isn't. Opinion doesn't enter into it.
If the deductive logic I employed is incorrect, or is not deductive, it should be possible to show that that is the case by employing a similar deductive process. I invite anyone who may feel this way to do so.
jimlongley wrote: frankie_the_yankee wrote:The hypothesis (no restrictions on anything, including WMD) was tested by stipulating certain situations that could arise under that hypothesis. Sure, bombs from vending machines in front of the UN Building was just my way of injecting a little humor into the whole thing. But the hypothesis would allow for it, so it was a valid example. And yes, the result would be absurd. Showing where a given hypothesis can produce an absurd result is the essence of reductio ad absurdum. "Frankie's Bomb Superstore" would produce the same result.
No, producing an absurd result is NOT the same as reductio ad absurdam, you crossed the line into formal fallacy and invalidated your own example, and the vehemence with which you defended your absurdity sure didn't indicate any humerous intent.
I recall learning about something called a "logical fallacy" in PHL101. I do not recall learning about anything called a "formal fallacy." Maybe someone could further explain just what is meant by that concept.
I know that a logical fallacy is when an argument contradicts either itself or another part of an agrument of which it is a part. If I am mistaken, please cite references to an appropriate text in introductory philosophy. As far as I can tell, my argument is fully self consistent. It does happen to contradict, and invalidate, arguments made by others. That does not make it a "fallacy". though is may well render some other the other arguments as "false."
Also, FWIW, the idea of selling WMD's outside of the UN HQ in NYC seemed pretty funny to me. Can't you just imagine the cast of characters who would line up looking to buy them?
Then, there's "Frankie's Boomer Superstore", where one could buy their very own Ohio Class boomer, with a full complement of MIRV'd ICBMs.
jimlongley wrote: Once again we get into a thing about where lines should be drawn though - my line for where formal fallacy begins is obviously way away from yours, since you don't even acknowledge that formal fallacy exists, so who gets to be the final arbiter? Chas, since he will lock the thread?
I'm not saying that a "formal fallacy" doesn't exist. I am saying that a "logical fallacy" doesn't exist
in my argument, though I invite others to point out any that I may have missed. Further, I am saying that I am very familiar with exactly what a logical fallacy is, having learned it well in school. And finally, I am saying that I have never heard the term "formal fallacy" in any class I have attended dealing with either logic or philosophy, and I cannot discerne the intended meaning from the context. So I am asking exactly what is meant by the term.
jimlongley wrote: frankie_the_yankee wrote:The problem is that two different people could well have two different opinions as to what the law means, where one's rights leave off and another's begin, etc. This in fact happens all the time. The result is usually a civil lawsuit.
But people can also have different opinions as to the proper reach, scope or balance of criminal laws vs. rights. If people act on these opinions, they will sometimes find themselves in criminal court.
Exactly what I have been saying since the start of this thread, and
it follows that there can be no line, no infringement, no "reasonable restriction."
Now there's a giant leap of "inductive logic", if it even qualifies as logic at all. In no way has anyone demonstrated
via logic that there can be no line or infringement, etc.
Many have opined that there
shouldn't be any line, or that
any line constitutes an infringement, but that is not the same thing as saying that there cannot be such a line.
In fact, the statement above embodies a classic "does not follow" error, and is more properly catagorized as a simple assertion.
Please note also that the courts have repeatedly drawn such lines, whether we would agree with them or not. One example is when the city of Morton Grove, IL banned all handguns sometime back in the 80's. Some party filed suit to have the ban overturned. To my surprise at the time, the ban was upheld at the federal circuit court level and the SCOTUS denied cert. That ban is still in place today.
I believe that decision to be wrong, unreasonable, and unconstitutional.
But that is just my opinion. The opinion of the majority of the circuit court is what matters in real life. And their
collective opinion, expressed
as a ruling, was that the ban was permissable.
I am hopeful that Heller may lead to a subsequent ruling that will overturn this law someday, and am fairly confident that it will. But that doesn't change the fact that the circuit court "drew a line" and that that line defines the law in Morton Grove and a few other cities and towns in that area to this very day.
