Vegans and contraceptives/abortion.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Elrond

Why should anyone care about anything? Why should someone care about whether or not they are acting like adults? etc.



What isn't a made up term?



Pretty irrelevant in this context.



Depends on what you prioritize are, since the two have different concerns. Appeal to Accomplishment has to do with logical fallacies (the argument), and pot calling the kettle black has to do with hypocrisy (the person making the argument). If I say that someone isn't an adult, whether or not I am an adult has no bearing on the truthfulness of my statement. If I am not an adult, I will probably have less knowledge about being an adult, and thus less capable of judging the adult-ness of other persons. BUT, the fact that I am not an adult (hypothetical) has no bearing on the truthfulness of me saying that Jane isn't an adult. If I say that she isn't an adult because she is 16 (and the criteria for being an adult is being 18 or older), whether or not I am 18 or older has no bearing on the truthfulness of this statement. If I chastise someone for being purple, and I am purple myself, I'm a hypocrite. But that doesn't in itself detract from the truthfulness of me saying that someone is purple. Thus you asserting that someone can't speak on being a grown up because they do not act as one themselves, is in itself (i.e. without there being some collectively agreed upon rule that people who aren't X may not speak on being X) fallacious.

But if you don't want to be logically sound, this doesn't have to concern you, like anything (nothing HAS to concern anyone).

Tu quoque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

we aren't talking about facts or truthfulness of a statement. We are talking about an opinion about someone else. If I call you a purple female, does that make that statement truthful?

oh and, my priorities start with hypocrisy. Because usually making a negative statement towards a person, reflects highly on the person making the statement in the first place. And it's not about whether or not the person making the opinionated statement is right or not, but that there is no reason for that person to make the statement in the first place. Now, advice is a different thing all together, and can be given from a person not taking the advice themselves. A negative opinion, not in the same ball game.

[Weena]

Originally Posted by Elrond

More Americans ?Pro-Life? Than ?Pro-Choice? for First Time

49% of women "pro life", 54% of men "pro life".

44% of women "pro choice", 39% of men "pro choice".

One has to also consider that men are probably (I tried to find some statistic to support this, but I think it's accurate) more likely to vote republican/conservative etc. So even if one was to transform men into being able to incubate life, one cannot immediately assume that this would mean that the percentage of men being "pro choice" would become equal to the current amount of "pro choice" women, since having this opinion often correlates with republican or conservative values (so the opinion doesn't totally hinge on being the sex that doesn't incubates life, but also correlates with a "conservative paradigm" as a whole). And since the current difference between men and womens opinions (according to this research) isn't that big to begin with, and given that mens opinions wouldn't necessarily become equal to that of womens (given my "conservative paradigm" argument) and also assuming that you won't quantify this potential increase in "pro choice" men as "a lot", (tl;dr: ) it seems that your hypothesis is false.

(this argument ignores any larger historical arguments but assumes that this hypothetical metamorphosis and its impact on opinions is seen in a relatively short time span.)

Are you talking about the US only? I would just like to see the situation reversed and see how men would handle it. "well, uh, you shouldn't have had sex with your girlfriend in the first place, now take your responsibility (your punishment for having sinned...as Aelle put it so well) and go through pregnancy and raising a child on your own". That's what i really wonder about. But your argument about it being related to republican ethics is interesting, thanks for sharing!

[votoshka]

Originally Posted by Elrond

. If I say that she isn't an adult because she is 16 (and the criteria for being an adult is being 18 or older), whether or not I am 18 or older has no bearing on the truthfulness of this statement.

By whose criteria do you have to be 18 to be an adult? It's a purely artificial designation of adulthood!

In some societies, a person reaches adulthood when they reach puberty and thus are biologically able to reproduce.

Therefore the statement that a person isn't an adult at 16 is intrinsically false, because it's based on artificial criteria.

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by votoshka

By whose criteria do you have to be 18 to be an adult? It's a purely artificial designation of adulthood!

In some societies, a person reaches adulthood when they reach puberty and thus are biologically able to reproduce.

Therefore the statement that a person isn't an adult at 16 is intrinsically false, because it's based on artificial criteria.

Way to not see the forest for the trees... (tip: the example was to illustrate my point, the details of it are irrelevant)

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

we aren't talking about facts or truthfulness of a statement. We are talking about an opinion about someone else. If I call you a purple female, does that make that statement truthful?

oh and, my priorities start with hypocrisy. Because usually making a negative statement towards a person, reflects highly on the person making the statement in the first place. And it's not about whether or not the person making the opinionated statement is right or not, but that there is no reason for that person to make the statement in the first place. Now, advice is a different thing all together, and can be given from a person not taking the advice themselves. A negative opinion, not in the same ball game.

Like I said, assuming that you aren't refering to some construct in which someone can't critique someone on being a certain way if they aren't that same thing themselves, then it's a fallacy. But if it is using some common agreed upon rule (or something to that effect), then it is more valid, since its intent was not to draw a conclusion from logic alone (your reasoning for calling that person X is faulty because A doesn't follow from B... etc) but from a construct (you have no right to call that person X because of [paragraph 14 etc.])

Maybe I could say more about more specific stuff that you mentioned, but I'm already off-topic.

Originally Posted by votoshka

Therefore the statement that a person isn't an adult at 16 is intrinsically false, because it's based on artificial criteria.

Tell me one definition of anything that isn't based on artificial criteria.