As anything and everything will be analyzed on the internet,
allow me to analyze your "non-position" positioning / "non-argue"
arguing. OOH, I can see the wisdom in such posting behavior.
OTOH, it's philosophically convenient, somewhat ill aligned with
"principlism", and a little tricky (unfair?) for others.
Let me explain the latter with a typical sequence profile. You
(or Tom) rebuts / challenges / confronts another's posted point,
appearing exactly like an argument / position. But when your
rebuttal is refuted by another's post (to an effective-enough
degree), your default response is to claim you are/were not
arguing the point/position. Such non-commitment allows you the
convenience to argue everything without fear of ever being
incorrect, akin to those who criticize everything with no
suggestion as to a solution or alternative - in other words: a
fancy way to say "although I don't know the answer, I am going to
tell you when you are wrong." Obviously you have the right to
this posting behavior, but I just thought I would register my
slight complaint against it.
Now allow me to segway that into the meatier part (and imply that
you are implying a position):
Am I to assume that your challenge to me to find how and why
universal libertarianism regards infants as persons is a passive
way of suggesting that it doesn't?
-Mark
************
{American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
"not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
unjust lawsuits.
See www.fija.org
[Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
---------------
Mark, I have NOT taken a cemented in position; I'm raising
questions
which need more than automatic presumptions as answers:
Personhood- At what point do rights and obligations accrue to a
developing human individual?
The spectrum of opinion is from the moment of conception
(spiritual,
before physical zygote) thru physical gestation to birth and a
few
years beyond (human infanticide is actually NOT regarded as
murder in
some societies)
MoreAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48519
*IF* you're taking the position that infanticide is also murder
(unjustifiable homicide) then present a rational case. Many
ass/u/me
that normal human infants are actual persons (not just declared
as
such by the US Constitution).
How and why is regarding infants as persons justified by a
universal
application of libertarianism?
-Terry Liberty Parker
LIMITED vs UNIVERSAL Libertarianism
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48521
--- In [email protected], "mark robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> TLP,
>
> Yes, I've read your criteria before. But I have to confess, I'm
> having trouble comprehending your/its position on infants,
> especially considering your other comments on infanticide.
Maybe
> you could explain a little further?
>
> -Mark
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
