President Obama to receive honorary degree from Notre Dame

  • Thread starter Thread starter pennsylvan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Luis_Santiago said:
I can’t decide which of three logical fallacies to impose on you. I’ll go from most to least obvious.

Fallacy of Equivocation
It is extremely ambiguous what is meant or implied by “supports”.
Click to expand...
I defined support for you already. One does not need to perform an abortion to support it. Pontius Pilate once said for the people to do what they will, since he washed his hands of the matter. Even something such as “I am personally opposed to abortion, but cannot impose my beliefs on others” is a weasel phrase for support.
Fallacy of Accident
There are most certainly murders that Obama doesn’t support.
Click to expand...
Of course. He is only okay with people committing murder when it won’t affect his political position. Anyone else, he simply denies them personhood contrary to moral and biological truths.
Invalid Assumption
“All direct abortions are murder” is by no means indisputable.
Click to expand...
Yes it is.
 
From the above link:
There have been many things written about the honors to be extended to President Obama. I’d like to ask this of Fr. John Jenkins, the Notre Dame president: Who draws support from your decision to honor President Obama—the young, pregnant Notre Dame woman sitting in that graduating class who wants desperately to keep her baby, or the Notre Dame man who believes that the Catholic teaching on the intrinsic evil of abortion is just dining-room talk?
Click to expand...
This is just the sort of thing that makes it hit home. And that can be extended to all those who attended ND, or hold ND in esteem. There are countless women as well outside of ND how are emotionally distraught having found themselves pregnant and looking for support and encouragement. ND’s example is very counterproductive in these circumstances, to put it gently.
 
Luis_Santiago said:
It’s very unclear what is meant by “he supports abortion”. Does he support all abortions? Does he support China’s coerced abortion policy? Is he part of the support staff for abortion clinics? The statement is too vague to have any real meaning.

What does it matter? If he supported the termination of 1 pregnancy the syllogism would still hold true. Who else on this Thread thinks my statement was too vague.

But you were deliberately vague, hence the need for qualifications.

Again it doesn’t matter. Abortion is abortion; whether he supported all the abortions that have/will take place in the world or just fraction,** the man still supports abortion**. Besides, why are you trying to assume ignorance upon yourself? You know where and what abortions he supports. In order to argue logically there are certain truths you must agree on and acknowledge to get any where.

I’m approaching it as an argument accessible by anyone. If you mentioned that this is what the Church teaches, I would have had no problems with that. Plus, you don’t have to believe 100% of the Church’s teachings to be Catholic.

Here’s some more logical arguments for you, some of which have the same fallacies as yours!:

Duck is pro-life.
Premarital sex results in new life.
Therefore, Duck is pro-premarital sex.

Duck is pro-life.
Capital punishment ends life.
Therefore, Duck is opposed to capital punishment.

Cancer cells contain a unique set of human DNA.
All cancer is alive.
Therefore, a cancerous tumor is a unique human life.
Therefore, destroying a cancerous tumor is murder.

Duck supports World War II.
World War II is a war.
Therefore, Duck supports war.

The Catholic Church first said that all direct abortion is murder in 1869.
Therefore, only abortions after 1869 are murder.

While I am deeply flattered you use syllogisms with duck in them it is beside the point. It is known you can make logical syllogisms with incorrect factual information.
Click to expand...
Other CAF posters, was my information factually incorrect.
 
mapleoak said:
People tend to resort to ad hominem type arguments when they feel they are losing ground. It is a psychological anomaly.
Click to expand...
People also tend to give up when it feels like they’re arguing with a five year old. I assure you, this is the case here. I’m not here to try and convince you, I’m here to learn. And I feel there is absolutely nothing I can learn from you, other than maybe as a negative example.
mapleoak said:
In fact his own words were “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the FOCA bill, that’s the first thing I’d do”. How’s that for changing his position since 2007?
Click to expand...
He said that in 2007, and yes, he has backed away from that position since then. You’re not making a very good case for yourself.
stringbeanduck said:
Other CAF posters, was my information factually incorrect.
Click to expand...
Ah, appeal to authority! Another classic logical fallacy!
Again it doesn’t matter. Abortion is abortion; whether he supported all the abortions that have/will take place in the world or just fraction, the man still supports abortion. Besides, why are you trying to assume ignorance upon yourself? You know where and what abortions he supports. In order to argue logically there are certain truths you must agree on and acknowledge to get any where.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do, but my point wasn’t that I don’t know, my point was that it was a logical fallacy because of the vagueness of the word “supports”. For example:

Duck supports World War II.
World War II caused many human deaths.
Causing a human death is murder.
Therefore, Duck supports murder.
While I am deeply flattered you use syllogisms with duck in them it is beside the point. It is known you can make logical syllogisms with incorrect factual information.
Click to expand...
All my initial assumptions are correct, except possibly those involving “Duck”, who is really just an example of a person who has that set of traits.
 
Luis_Santiago said:
People also tend to give up when it feels like they’re arguing with a five year old. I assure you, this is the case here.
Click to expand...
Interesting conclusion. Do you make a habit of jumping to conclusions? 😉
I’m not here to try and convince you, I’m here to learn. And I feel there is absolutely nothing I can learn from you, other than maybe as a negative example.
Click to expand...
Of course you can’t learn, if you’re mind is already set.
He said that in 2007, and yes, he has backed away from that position since then. You’re not making a very good case for yourself.
Click to expand...
I think you questioned my memory a while back. Did you forget that I pointed out to you that one of Obama’s first courses of action was approve funding for out of country abortions? No need to try and justify that by saying he only wanted to see humanitarian aid get funding, but had to approve of abortions in order to do so, to get around international policy. Doesn’t that make him so benevolent?
Duck supports World War II.
World War II caused many human deaths.
Causing a human death is murder.
Therefore, Duck supports murder.
Click to expand...
All my initial assumptions are correct, except possibly those involving “Duck”, who is really just an example of a person who has that set of traits.
Click to expand...
Does the “duck” imply that everyone else here but Luis is a 5 year old?
 
Luis_Santiago said:
Ah, appeal to authority! Another classic logical fallacy!

No. Asking the opinions of fellow posters doesn’t constitute an ATA. For I know, MappleOak could have agreed with you. Now if I asked a person who studies logic for a living, that may constitute an ATA.
Yes, I do, but my point wasn’t that I don’t know, my point was that it was a logical fallacy because of the vagueness of the word “supports”. For example:

Duck supports World War II.
World War II caused many human deaths.
Causing a human death is murder.
Therefore, Duck supports murder.

It’s not vague though. Would you feel better if I had put several descriptive adjectives on it?
All my initial assumptions are correct, except possibly those involving “Duck”, who is really just an example of a person who has that set of traits.
Click to expand...
 
fix said:
Just curious. What percentage of Church teaching on faith and morals may we reject and still claim full communion with Christ?
Click to expand...
As I understand it, Jesuit philosophy, which is close to my own, says that questioning or disagreeing with the Church is not inherently wrong. After all, if no one ever disagreed with the teachings of the Church, we’d still be denying that the earth revolves around the sun. However, your motivation for the questioning is important. For instance, I may disagree with the Church’s teachings on homosexuality, and this isn’t inherently wrong. But if my disagreement is primarily because I like to go to gay bars and pick up dudes, then this is wrong. This is a pretty simplified case though. To stay on topic, I’ll post these articles on Notre Dame, from a Jesuit magazine:

americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11645
americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11564
 
Luis_Santiago said:
Plus, you don’t have to believe 100% of the Church’s teachings to be Catholic.
Click to expand...
fix said:
Just curious. What percentage of Church teaching on faith and morals may we reject and still claim full communion with Christ?
Click to expand...
Interestingly you claim a Catholic does not need to profess and believe all that the Catholic Church teaches (which of course itself is contrary to Church teaching), you then refuse to answer a legitimate question asked by someone about how much Church teaching you can reject and remain a faithful Catholic.
As I understand it, Jesuit philosophy, which is close to my own, says that questioning or disagreeing with the Church is not inherently wrong.
Click to expand...
In all matters regarding faith and morals, a Catholic must be 100% faithful to the teachings of the Church. Questioning is not equivalent to rejection. Seeking the truth isn’t either. Knowing the truth and refusing it is.
After all, if no one ever disagreed with the teachings of the Church, we’d still be denying that the earth revolves around the sun. However, your motivation for the questioning is important. For instance, I may disagree with the Church’s teachings on homosexuality, and this isn’t inherently wrong.
Click to expand...
No you may not, and yes it is.
 
I don’t think any of us can disagree with scripture, and the teaching of the church is base on scripture a,s well as tradition…St Paul was very clear on his teachings about gay sex

You don’t have to like the teachings but you must obey them
 
Luis_Santiago said:
As I understand it, Jesuit philosophy, which is close to my own, says that questioning or disagreeing with the Church is not inherently wrong. After all, if no one ever disagreed with the teachings of the Church, we’d still be denying that the earth revolves around the sun. However, your motivation for the questioning is important. For instance, I may disagree with the Church’s teachings on homosexuality, and this isn’t inherently wrong. But if my disagreement is primarily because I like to go to gay bars and pick up dudes, then this is wrong. This is a pretty simplified case though. To stay on topic, I’ll post these articles on Notre Dame, from a Jesuit magazine:

americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11645
americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11564
Click to expand...
Questioning to grow in deeper understanding is great. Is that what we speak of here?

The Galileo reference is incorrect and mostly misunderstood.

The moral teaching on direct abortion and homosexual acts are well defined and easily understood. The question is one of assent. When are we free to reject these moral teachings and still claim faithfulness to Christ?

The magisterium is the authority in these matters. Christ said he who hears you hears Me.
 
mapleoak said:
No, deliberately taking the life of an innocent human being is murder.
Click to expand...
Hmm, another fallacy of accident. A drug dealer who shoots another drug dealer for stealing his money would not be murder according to you.
 
WARNING

Please limit the discussion to the topic of the thread. Discussion of other posters is not allowed. If you posted here and can’t find your post, that’s why. Thank you for your cooperation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top