Logical inconsistencies in personal beliefs

[Zebo]

I love to fish but hate fish.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: 1prophet
Rational people with critical thinking skills don't make good consumers and are not easily manipulated.

I think both that you are right - and wrong, that such people are far better able to resist, but still very vulnerable in ways.

It's like trying to be a fish and not get wet. We're *saturated*, in the US more than anywhere else, in marketing.

Who among us (thank you John Kerry) doesn't sometimes find yourself sometimes with a commercial tune stuck in your head, doesn't have artifically stimulated desires for product?

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: XMan
By that rationale, cows, chickens, and fish, aren't people either . . . I know that for some veg/vegs, it's a health decision, but there are quite a few, "Aww, I can't eat a widdle bunny!" girls out there.

So you're pro eating fetuses and full-term humans too, right? 'Cause otherwise it wouldn't be consistent, would it?

 

[JSt0rm]

the fetuses would produce the tenderest meat.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: XMan
By that rationale, cows, chickens, and fish, aren't people either . . . I know that for some veg/vegs, it's a health decision, but there are quite a few, "Aww, I can't eat a widdle bunny!" girls out there.

So you're pro eating fetuses and full-term humans too, right? 'Cause otherwise it wouldn't be consistent, would it?

No, of course not. Human life is precious. Whether it be a fetus or a full-grown person, humans have a capacity for things that animals do not.

The next time a chicken paints a masterpiece I'll feel guilty about eating omelets.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't think I have any say in what women do about their own pregnancies. I think I have a say in whether we execute people as a collective. I don't see any contradiction in my beliefs.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't think I have any say in what women do about their own pregnancies. I think I have a say in whether we execute people as a collective. I don't see any contradiction in my beliefs.

Your personal beliefs don't matter to me. I see them as inconsistent, and that's that!

 

[thirtythree]

Partly people don't think about it and partly ethics are pretty difficult even when you do think about them.

I'm vegetarian and pro-choice, but I don't see this as a contradiction. I feel the mother should have the choice if the fetus isn't yet a sentient being... isn't capable of experiencing pleasure or pain, etc. The fact that the mass of cells could turn into a fully functioning human being doesn't mean much. Sperm and eggs can turn into human beings, but I don't think it's unethical to use birth control or abstain from sex. Later-term pregnancies may also be appropriate in some situations.

Animals are also capable of experiencing pleasure and pain, so I think they warrant some consideration. Pretty much everyone agrees I think. People don't believe it's cool to torture animals for fun, right? Yet few put any thought into where their animal products come from. Now there's an inconsistency.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't think I have any say in what women do about their own pregnancies. I think I have a say in whether we execute people as a collective. I don't see any contradiction in my beliefs.

Your personal beliefs don't matter to me. I see them as inconsistent, and that's that!

I like your attitude. I especially appreciate the lack of any intellectual argument defining and supporting your reasoning. Nobody can accuse the vacuous of being inconsistent.

 

[Dissipate]

Belief in politics itself is a serious contradiction. In my life, after coming in contact with thousands of people, I have only witnessed a few times in which violence or threats of violence were needed to correct a situation. After having many debates and discussions with many people online & offline, violence was never initiated. Yet, in the realm of politics, extortion, violence, and threats of violence are not only commonplace but are considered to be commendable. It is a radical contradiction that cannot stand simple tests of logical consistency.

For instance, a shop owner will practically let anyone in their shop to buy something and leave peacefully, even if that person has radically different political beliefs. But then, at the ballot box that shop owner will give their vote to a politician who will send out agents of the state to put that customer in jail if they disobey the politician's orders or laws. This is an irreconcilable contradiction of actions. If the shop owner is willing to give the go ahead to a politician to commit threats of violence or violence against the customer, then the shop owner should also not engage in economic transactions with them. This is just one example, there are thousands or even millions of others. We reserve violence at the ballot box, but refrain from it in everyday interactions with people we disagree with.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Belief in politics itself is a serious contradiction. In my life, after coming in contact with thousands of people, I have only witnessed a few times in which violence or threats of violence were needed to correct a situation. After having many debates and discussions with many people online & offline, violence was never initiated. Yet, in the realm of politics, extortion, violence, and threats of violence are not only commonplace but are considered to be commendable. It is a radical contradiction that cannot stand simple tests of logical consistency.

For instance, a shop owner will practically let anyone in their shop to buy something and leave peacefully, even if that person has radically different political beliefs. But then, at the ballot box that shop owner will give their vote to a politician who will send out agents of the state to put that customer in jail if they disobey the politician's orders or laws. This is an irreconcilable contradiction of actions. If the shop owner is willing to give the go ahead to a politician to commit threats of violence or violence against the customer, then the shop owner should also not engage in economic transactions with them. This is just one example, there are thousands or even millions of others. We reserve violence at the ballot box, but refrain from it in everyday interactions with people we disagree with.

I suggest you might want to try to be clearer. For example, example laws you are talking about?

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
I am pro-choice because pregnacy can negately affect a woman's morbidity and mortality. If I were a woman I would want to decide if I am to risk my life or not.

I am against the death penalty because I do think the government should be killing people.

On the other hand there is the school of thought that there is no difference between a baby being on one side of an orifice or the other. The instant "it" exits the vagina, it becomes a baby instead of a fetus. That's as artificial construct as any, yet there are some that claim before birth a woman has unlimited rights. It's not always easy to determine where the greater good lies.

What does "unlimited rights" mean? Are there any instances where "the greater good" has been imposed on you where it threatens your health and life?

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I like your attitude. I especially appreciate the lack of any intellectual argument defining and supporting your reasoning. Nobody can accuse the vacuous of being inconsistent.

Now you're getting it -- when you like my attitude, you're consistent with me, which is just right, and makes my vacuous state much easier to maintain.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Belief in politics itself is a serious contradiction. In my life, after coming in contact with thousands of people, I have only witnessed a few times in which violence or threats of violence were needed to correct a situation. After having many debates and discussions with many people online & offline, violence was never initiated. Yet, in the realm of politics, extortion, violence, and threats of violence are not only commonplace but are considered to be commendable. It is a radical contradiction that cannot stand simple tests of logical consistency.

For instance, a shop owner will practically let anyone in their shop to buy something and leave peacefully, even if that person has radically different political beliefs. But then, at the ballot box that shop owner will give their vote to a politician who will send out agents of the state to put that customer in jail if they disobey the politician's orders or laws. This is an irreconcilable contradiction of actions. If the shop owner is willing to give the go ahead to a politician to commit threats of violence or violence against the customer, then the shop owner should also not engage in economic transactions with them. This is just one example, there are thousands or even millions of others. We reserve violence at the ballot box, but refrain from it in everyday interactions with people we disagree with.

I agree with Craig:

Huh? I let people in my shop knowing that if they act violently to me the state I voted in will come to aid me. Also I keep the state in mind when I vouch for the authenticity and quality of my goods. I also noted with some sadness that the the local bank has a big safe with alarms everywhere.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Belief in politics itself is a serious contradiction. In my life, after coming in contact with thousands of people, I have only witnessed a few times in which violence or threats of violence were needed to correct a situation. After having many debates and discussions with many people online & offline, violence was never initiated. Yet, in the realm of politics, extortion, violence, and threats of violence are not only commonplace but are considered to be commendable. It is a radical contradiction that cannot stand simple tests of logical consistency.

For instance, a shop owner will practically let anyone in their shop to buy something and leave peacefully, even if that person has radically different political beliefs. But then, at the ballot box that shop owner will give their vote to a politician who will send out agents of the state to put that customer in jail if they disobey the politician's orders or laws. This is an irreconcilable contradiction of actions. If the shop owner is willing to give the go ahead to a politician to commit threats of violence or violence against the customer, then the shop owner should also not engage in economic transactions with them. This is just one example, there are thousands or even millions of others. We reserve violence at the ballot box, but refrain from it in everyday interactions with people we disagree with.

I agree with Craig:

Huh? I let people in my shop knowing that if they act violently to me the state I voted in will come to aid me. Also I keep the state in mind when I vouch for the authenticity and quality of my goods. I also noted with some sadness that the the local bank has a big safe with alarms everywhere.

And would you let someone into your shop if you knew that they voted to increase the taxes your shop pays?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Belief in politics itself is a serious contradiction. In my life, after coming in contact with thousands of people, I have only witnessed a few times in which violence or threats of violence were needed to correct a situation. After having many debates and discussions with many people online & offline, violence was never initiated. Yet, in the realm of politics, extortion, violence, and threats of violence are not only commonplace but are considered to be commendable. It is a radical contradiction that cannot stand simple tests of logical consistency.

For instance, a shop owner will practically let anyone in their shop to buy something and leave peacefully, even if that person has radically different political beliefs. But then, at the ballot box that shop owner will give their vote to a politician who will send out agents of the state to put that customer in jail if they disobey the politician's orders or laws. This is an irreconcilable contradiction of actions. If the shop owner is willing to give the go ahead to a politician to commit threats of violence or violence against the customer, then the shop owner should also not engage in economic transactions with them. This is just one example, there are thousands or even millions of others. We reserve violence at the ballot box, but refrain from it in everyday interactions with people we disagree with.

I suggest you might want to try to be clearer. For example, example laws you are talking about?

In your case we can pick the income tax.

 

[LumbergTech]

I think that you are full of crap.

Im a pro-choice vegan.

I think that the idea of the government controlling pregnancy and being able to lock women up because they don't want to have a child is *gasp* barbaric and wrong.

I think that in the past when women weren't able/allowed to have abortions that they did suicidal things.

and...this might surprise you

i dont really like abortion..it makes me sick to think that some people sink to a level where their compassion is drained to that extent (assuming it isnt for medical reasons )

unfortunately life is too complex to make idiotic laws about such a thing

I just don't see why you think that just because I don't believe in eating animals that I should somehow have to believe in the government mandating what women do with their bodies in relation to pregnancy.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
I am pro-choice because pregnacy can negately affect a woman's morbidity and mortality. If I were a woman I would want to decide if I am to risk my life or not.

I am against the death penalty because I do think the government should be killing people.

On the other hand there is the school of thought that there is no difference between a baby being on one side of an orifice or the other. The instant "it" exits the vagina, it becomes a baby instead of a fetus. That's as artificial construct as any, yet there are some that claim before birth a woman has unlimited rights. It's not always easy to determine where the greater good lies.

Well, the supreme court agrees which is why only the first trimester gets real pro choice protection whereas in the third trimester only the health of the mother is a valid consideration.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Belief in politics itself is a serious contradiction. In my life, after coming in contact with thousands of people, I have only witnessed a few times in which violence or threats of violence were needed to correct a situation. After having many debates and discussions with many people online & offline, violence was never initiated. Yet, in the realm of politics, extortion, violence, and threats of violence are not only commonplace but are considered to be commendable. It is a radical contradiction that cannot stand simple tests of logical consistency.

For instance, a shop owner will practically let anyone in their shop to buy something and leave peacefully, even if that person has radically different political beliefs. But then, at the ballot box that shop owner will give their vote to a politician who will send out agents of the state to put that customer in jail if they disobey the politician's orders or laws. This is an irreconcilable contradiction of actions. If the shop owner is willing to give the go ahead to a politician to commit threats of violence or violence against the customer, then the shop owner should also not engage in economic transactions with them. This is just one example, there are thousands or even millions of others. We reserve violence at the ballot box, but refrain from it in everyday interactions with people we disagree with.

I suggest you might want to try to be clearer. For example, example laws you are talking about?

In your case we can pick the income tax.

I wondered if you were making the tired old hyperbolic point about the nazis are taking my money at the point of a gun' speech. I guess you are.

I don't see any contradiction in the issue. We all decide that having civilization and government is better than not, when a warlord would organize people into a group of thugs who would then rule over you. To have that, it has to be paid for. Rather than have a king who tells us what to pay, for his little wars and such, we have a president we elect who... er, wait a sec, bad example, but you get the idea. And we find that if people can not pay their taxes, they won't, and so we need the threat of prison to make it work.

How is all that inconsistent with sellingan item to the same person, who might vote differently?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
I am pro-choice because pregnacy can negately affect a woman's morbidity and mortality. If I were a woman I would want to decide if I am to risk my life or not.

I am against the death penalty because I do think the government should be killing people.

On the other hand there is the school of thought that there is no difference between a baby being on one side of an orifice or the other. The instant "it" exits the vagina, it becomes a baby instead of a fetus. That's as artificial construct as any, yet there are some that claim before birth a woman has unlimited rights. It's not always easy to determine where the greater good lies.

Well, the supreme court agrees which is why only the first trimester gets real pro choice protection whereas in the third trimester only the health of the mother is a valid consideration.

Which shifts the question a little but still leave is, regarding the change between the last minute of one trimester and the first minute of the next (not that you can be so exact).

While this is partly just the old 'arbitrary but necessary line' issue, there is a larger question about the whole artifical nature of trimester changes for important distinctions.

The Supreme Court has a pretty tricky role, determining how the broad constitutional rules apply to specific issues... especially the 9th and 10th amendments.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: XMan

People who are aggressively pro-life . . . but have no problem with the death penalty.

Inversely, people who are pro-choice . . . .but very much against the death penalty.

I've know vegans/vegetarians who couldn't stomach (heh) the thought of eating meat because it would hurt a cute little animal . . . but are very pro-choice. I've met some of the Mary Kay Kommandos, too (classic reference) - against animal testing, yet pro-choice.

This isn't a partisan issue, I've seen it from people of all political stripes. Why is it, you think, that people can't be consistent in their personal philosophies? Lack of introspection? Or something else?

None of those are logically inconsistent. Pro-choice does not mean pro-death. To someone who is pro-choice, the death of a living human being and the termination of a fetus are not equivalent. Pro-lifers see the obvious difference between an innocent (potential) child and an adult who has committed crimes worthy of the death penalty.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Craig234

I wondered if you were making the tired old hyperbolic point about the nazis are taking my money at the point of a gun' speech. I guess you are.

No, my point is that you have probably not seized anyone's assets, raided anyone's bank account, garnished anyone's wages, or thrown anyone in prison.

Yet in this sphere of 'politics,' you support men who do this on a regular basis. Bonified logical contradiction.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Craig234

I wondered if you were making the tired old hyperbolic point about the nazis are taking my money at the point of a gun' speech. I guess you are.

No, my point is that you have probably not seized anyone's assets, raided anyone's bank account, garnished anyone's wages, or thrown anyone in prison.

Yet in this sphere of 'politics,' you support men who do this on a regular basis. Bonified logical contradiction.

Maybe they don't seize assets, raid bank accounts, or throw people in prison because they specifically choose to leave that sort of thing to those they vote for. I don't put out fires for a living, I pay for a firefighter to do that for me.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Craig234

I wondered if you were making the tired old hyperbolic point about the nazis are taking my money at the point of a gun' speech. I guess you are.

No, my point is that you have probably not seized anyone's assets, raided anyone's bank account, garnished anyone's wages, or thrown anyone in prison.

Yet in this sphere of 'politics,' you support men who do this on a regular basis. Bonified logical contradiction.

Maybe they don't seize assets, raid bank accounts, or throw people in prison because they specifically choose to leave that sort of thing to those they vote for. I don't put out fires for a living, I pay for a firefighter to do that for me.

But you would put out a fire if you needed to.

Would/have you shut down the business and raided the bank accounts of a man with a wife and kids?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

But you would put out a fire if you needed to.

Would/have you shut down the business and raided the bank accounts of a man with a wife and kids?

No I haven't, but I want these things done. This is why we elect/pay people to do them for us. It's not a contradiction to pay other people to do things I don't want to do. This is the same reason why I don't pump my own sewage out of a septic tank.