Posted on 07/05/2004 12:58:47 AM PDT by miltonim
DYERSVILLE, Iowa — As Sen. John Kerry campaigned across Iowa yesterday with Gov. Tom Vilsack, widely reported to be on Kerry's vice-presidential short list, both men dodged repeated questions about whether their joint appearance might be a preview of the Democratic ticket.
But even as he tried to avoid making news, Kerry broke ground in an interview that ran in the Dubuque, Iowa, daily, the Telegraph Herald. A Catholic who supports abortion rights and has taken heat recently from some in the church hierarchy for his stance, Kerry told the paper: "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception.
"I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist," he continued. "We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."
The comments came on the final day of a three-state Midwest swing, during which Kerry has repeatedly sought to dispel stereotypes that could play negatively among voters in the Midwest.
President Bush's campaign said these instances are further evidence of what it says is Kerry's propensity for misleading flip-flops.
"John Kerry's ridiculous claim to hold conservative values and his willingness to change his beliefs to fit his audience betrays a startling lack of conviction on important issues like abortion that will make it difficult for voters to give him their trust," said Steve Schmidt, a Bush campaign spokesman.
Sounds like we'll just have to disagree about its "general use", I've already made my point on that. We'll also have to disagree on whether you understood my definition. You clearly misused my words (quoted as "default position") in your prior post. But it is rather dull to go on about it.
Interesting: when I repeated the Google search on the term "default position"
This wasn't interesting the first time you posted it, and it isn't interesting this time. At any rate, I already responded to it if you ever care to pursue it. Or, you can just continue repeating it as though I never responded.
I found a discussion of the point I believe that appears similar to yours:
In the general case, the only way to prove non-existence of something is to perform an exhaustive search of the Universe — no matter how much we look, as long as we have not looked everywhere, it is always possible that the entity in question exists in the part where we have not looked. Of course, logically-impossible entities are a different matter — those can be disproven, in which case there is no need to resort to the rule outlined above. (excerpt)
I thank you for this. It does very much relate to my argument. Of course justification and valuing are different, but similar in the fact that they are acts of consciousness. It doesn't make sense to justify a non-claim, or to value an entity you have no thought for. Since we all form from unconscious unthinking entities, our ultimate default position on values (how we initially value a thing) is always that of no opinion for anything--i.e. no values at all.
As values develop over time, they will always remain a finite subset of the infinite possible values a person may have, and so it is always to be expected that there will be many things a person does not and will never value. In particular, he will never value those things he never considered.
We can't agree to disagree on the definition, as the definition in general use is important, since a common language is the basis for any discussion. The evidence - whether it is "interesting" to you or not - is obvious as to the definition of default, from the preponderence of the evidence.
The rule for a default to the negative is not a default to no values, it is a default to the denial of a given value unless the postive can be proven. In this case, you have agreed that humans are thinking and that thinking creatures have values.
The statement, "By default we are unthinking creatures who do not value or justify things.." is untrue, for it's obvious that we are thinking creatures who value or we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.
Then don't agree to disagree. If you have some convincing evidence that my command of the language has left me ignorant of some "definition in general use" of "default position", then let me know. Maybe I'll just take a little poll of people around me since I'm sure they will all automatically parrot your specific definition.
"A common language" allows us to give context and meaning to concepts, which I have done ad nauseum for my use of "default position". Of course, it would require that you actually read my posts, which, under the circumstances, is extremely doubtful.
As to the definition of "default", I wonder if my years as a computer programmer, not to mention my grade school education, not to mention my use of an English dictionary, has helped with that. I am still mystified as to your wierd and pointless Google search. Somehow it is meant to defend your position that zygotes are thinking creatures with complex value systems? Don't cut back on your Haldol. Here's a Google search for you.
The rule for a default to the negative is not a default to no values, it is a default to the denial of a given value unless the postive can be proven. In this case, you have agreed that humans are thinking and that thinking creatures have values.
It's not just rule, it's a biological fact. I had no value for the concept of windowed transforms with I was 2 months old. And despite your insistence, I did not "deny" that value either. I was as incapable of denials as I was of values.
However, the ability to recognize that one lacks a value, does allow one to openly deny the value. E.g., I deny a value for trofligate counterpenance. I.e., I realize that I don't even know what the he!! it is.
In this case, you have agreed that humans are thinking and that thinking creatures have values.
Absolutely. Humans are also unthinking creatures that lack values.
The statement, "By default we are unthinking creatures who do not value or justify things.." is untrue, for it's obvious that we are thinking creatures who value or we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.
Crippled logic. Here's why. Zygotes are human. Zygotes are unthinking creatures who do not value or justify things. All humans who ever reach a state of thinking and valuing were once zygotes. All the changes during developement that stimulate thoughts or values are changes upon the tabula rasa of the zygote. The position of the tabula rasa is therefore the default position of *all* humans (of absolutely all ages), upon which some values may develop.
It undoubtedly will shock you to learn that there are some humans who are not (and will never be capable of) "having this discussion".
As I have said before, it's not necessary for a member of the species to display all of the characteristics of the species. The characteristic of the species Homo sapiens - the default - is one of a thinking being, although there will be a variance in the expression among members and across time. Individuals as well as social groups have common values: don't kill, don't steal, do be fair, etc.
Google searches, as you've demonstrated, are excellent tools to look up words and their usage. The common usage of "default" (actually, 'default position') was proven by the search link, which also yielded a discussion of argument to the negative. Default is not the lowest common denominator, it's the neutral or fall back position when no active change is made by the operator.
Your repetition inspires me to mine, but as you are unlikely to suddenly take interest in my comments, I'll resist further temptation. Your insistence upon the world obeying your semantics even in the face of immaculately clear exposition, besides being peculiarly self-centered, is a dull and pointless diversion from the concepts.
Or maybe avoiding certain concepts is your intention.
I confess frustration at the irrational, but don't take it as malignant. Reason is not to be confused with happiness of which I wish you only the greatest. Bye.
We've covered at least a day or two of Philosophy 101 in this thread. I can't imagine being bored, ad hominum fallacies notwithstanding.
The research and synthesis of it alone were worth the conversation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.