Derek wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 12:13:58 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote
> >
> >>You wish.
> >
> >Heh.. not really. I knew you couldn't admit to me that you ****ed up,
>
> We'll see.
>
> >you have too much ego involved. You may study the terminology
> >somewhat more than I, but you just don't grasp the basic principles
> >behind this stuff.
>
> We'll see.
>
> >You're
> >trying to use them to defend your arguments, and they never work. This
> >latest debacle is just the most recent example of something you've been
> >doing for years.
> >
> >If you would use your head you would have never used this as a a valid
> >form..
> >
> > A is like B.
> > B has property P.
> > Therefore, A has property P.
> >
> >It is an obvious fallacy
>
> No, it is NOT a fallacy. It's the correct form when using
> analogies. Go to any page concerning them and you will
> find that the form I've presented is perfectly correct.
>
> [Arguments from Analogy:
> Form:
> 1. A is similar to B in certain relevant respects.
> 2. B has property P.
> So, A has property P.]
> http://tinyurl.com/7req4
>
> Now look again at the form I used and which you reckon
> is a fallacy;
>
> A is like B.
> B has property P.
> Therefore, A has property P.

That's fine, but the burden of proof is on YOU to show that property P
is *one of the ways* A is like B. You can't simply assert it.

More accurately, if you're going to assert that A is like B in having
properties P1 through Pn, then you really need to show that property
Px, which you wish to impute to A by analogy, is somehow functionally
related to properties P1 through Pn.

Good luck. You wouldn't have a clue where to start.

On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 14:17:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote
>> On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 12:13:58 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>
>>>>You wish.
>>>
>>>Heh.. not really. I knew you couldn't admit to me that you ****ed up,
>>
>> We'll see.
>
>That'll be the day.

Every day.

>>>you have too much ego involved. You may study the terminology
>>>somewhat more than I, but you just don't grasp the basic principles
>>>behind this stuff.
>>
>> We'll see.
>
>You're a glutton for punishment.

You really ARE deluded.

"I did find deluding myself quite comfortable,
after all who was it hurting?"
Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 17 2002 http://tinyurl.com/cmhpo

"Deluding myself felt good"
Dutch Jun 4 2005 http://tinyurl.com/94eq3

>>>You're
>>>trying to use them to defend your arguments, and they never work. This
>>>latest debacle is just the most recent example of something you've been
>>>doing for years.
>>>
>>>If you would use your head you would have never used this as a a valid
>>>form..
>>>
>>> A is like B.
>>> B has property P.
>>> Therefore, A has property P.
>>>
>>>It is an obvious fallacy
>>
>> No, it is NOT a fallacy. It's the correct form when using
>> analogies. Go to any page concerning them and you will
>> find that the form I've presented is perfectly correct.
>>
>> [Arguments from Analogy:
>> Form:
>> 1. A is similar to B in certain relevant respects.
>> 2. B has property P.
>> So, A has property P.]
>> http://tinyurl.com/7req4
>
>The following quote from that page describes the above set of statements,
>"An invalid has this essential featu it is not necessary that if the
>premises are true, then the conclusion is true."

That passage is part of the Review of Terminology describing
valid arguments, not the form of the analogy it presents more
than half way down the page, you stupid imbecile.

>> Now look again at the form I used and which you reckon
>> is a fallacy;
>>
>> A is like B.
>> B has property P.
>> Therefore, A has property P.
>>
>> They're exactly the same. You're an imbecile. Here's
>> another (below).
>
>Yes, they are the same

Then it's patently clear that I was right to use that form.

> a fallacy.

No, an analogy is NOT necessarily a fallacy, so get that
through your thick head.

[Analogical Reasoning
The simplest variety of inductive reasoning is argument
by analogy, which takes note of the fact that two or more
things are similar in some respects and concludes that they
are probably also similar in some further respect.]
http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e13.htm

It's "The simplest variety of inductive reasoning."

>> [Argument from analogy
>>
>> An argument from analogy is an argument that has the form:
>> All P are like Q
>> Q has such-and-such characteristic.
>> Thus P has such-and-such characteristic.]
>> http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleld.../logiglos.html
>
>From that page.. "One evaluates such an argument by examining the analogy.
>It is a weak analogy, and thus fallacious..."

You intentionally missed out the remainder of that sentence
which explains why such an analogy can be called fallacious;

"One evaluates such an argument by examining the analogy. It
is a weak analogy, and thus fallacious,

** if there are not many similarities.**"

It says nothing about the form I've presented which you keep
insisting is wrong, false and fallacious. The analogy I presented
does have similarities between the analogs, and thus is NOT
fallacious. Why did you try to conceal the rest of that sentence
if not to try and mislead the reader, liar Ditch?

>>> as I clearly demonstrated.
>>
>> All you've demonstrated is that you don't understand the
>> proper form to use when arguing from analogy, and that
>> you're ignorance has made you arrogantly incompetent.
>
>Never mind the form

Says you after being shown that the form I used was in FACT
the correct form all along.

>Stop hunting through the internet for support

That's what it's for, dummy: to support or defeat arguments.

>for your mistakes and use your own logic.

I do use my own and have great fun with it. Try this for size;

Every potential victim of abuse holds a right against moral agents.
Every animal is a potential victim of abuse.
Therefore;
Every animal holds a right against moral agents.

In this syllogism, the middle term 'potential victim of
abuse' in both premises is excluded in the conclusion,
thus joining the other terms of the premises, namely
the subject term (the part of the proposition about
which something is being affirmed or denied) of the
second premise, and the predicate term (the part that is
being affirmed or denied about the subject) of the first
premise, leaving us with;

"Every animal holds a right against moral agents."

To avoid accepting this conclusion the arguer must
demonstrate that at least one of the premises is false,
because the argument as presented is valid in that the
conclusion is logically drawn from them.

A second demonstration following the same rule might
be helpful.

Every *animal* is a living body.
Every dog is an *animal*.
Therefore;
Every dog is a living body.

Again, in this syllogism the middle term *animal* to both
premises is excluded in the conclusion, thus joining the
other terms of the premises, namely, the subject term of
the second premise and the predicate term of the first
premise leaving us with;

"Every dog ... is a living body."

Pah. You wouldn't know where to start.

>>>And "We hold rights against moral agents on the basis
>>>that we can be wronged by them" is a hollow, self-evident,
>>>circular statement. By circular I mean that the second part
>>>restates the first
>>
>> If it did, then the premise would be written;
>>
>> "We hold rights against moral agents on the
>> basis that we hold rights against moral agents."
>
>That's not circular

IT IS CIRCULAR

> > My premise doesn't do that. It proposes that we hold rights
>> against moral agents on the basis that we can be wronged
>> by them, not on the basis that we hold rights against moral
>> agents.
>
>That's not a basis, or a conclusion of any kind

You haven't a clue. Trying to discuss things with you is
a complete waste of time.

On 4 Oct 2005 14:56:30 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 12:13:58 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >"Derek" > wrote
>> >
[..]
>> >If you would use your head you would have never used this as a a valid
>> >form..
>> >
>> > A is like B.
>> > B has property P.
>> > Therefore, A has property P.
>> >
>> >It is an obvious fallacy
>>
>> No, it is NOT a fallacy. It's the correct form when using
>> analogies. Go to any page concerning them and you will
>> find that the form I've presented is perfectly correct.
>>
>> [Arguments from Analogy:
>> Form:
>> 1. A is similar to B in certain relevant respects.
>> 2. B has property P.
>> So, A has property P.]
>> http://tinyurl.com/7req4
>>
>> Now look again at the form I used and which you reckon
>> is a fallacy;
>>
>> A is like B.
>> B has property P.
>> Therefore, A has property P.
>
>That's fine

Of course!

>, but the burden of proof is on YOU to show that property P
>is *one of the ways* A is like B. You can't simply assert it.

Animal rights as proposed has by definition the same
property as human rights: rights, and both propositions
rest on the same basis: an ability to be wronged by moral
agents.

Just a reminder of the analogy in question;

(A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the
proposition of human rights.
(B) has property (P) a basis which rests on the
ability to be wronged by moral agents.
Therefore, (A) the proposition of animal rights, has
the property (P) a basis which rests on the ability to
be wronged by moral agents.

>More accurately, if you're going to assert that A is like B in having
>properties P1 through Pn,

No, just (P).

>then you really need to show that property
>Px, which you wish to impute to A by analogy, is somehow functionally
>related to properties P1 through Pn.

Property (Px) would remain the same as (P). There's
no reason to believe that (P), a basis which rests on
the ability to be wronged, would change.

Derek lied:
> On 4 Oct 2005 14:56:30 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >Derek lied:
> >> On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 12:13:58 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >"Derek" > lied:
> >> >
> [..]
> >> >If you would use your head you would have never used this as a a valid
> >> >form..
> >> >
> >> > A is like B.
> >> > B has property P.
> >> > Therefore, A has property P.
> >> >
> >> >It is an obvious fallacy
> >>
> >> No, it is NOT a fallacy. It's the correct form when using
> >> analogies. Go to any page concerning them and you will
> >> find that the form I've presented is perfectly correct.
> >>
> >> [Arguments from Analogy:
> >> Form:
> >> 1. A is similar to B in certain relevant respects.
> >> 2. B has property P.
> >> So, A has property P.]
> >> http://tinyurl.com/7req4
> >>
> >> Now look again at the form I used and which you reckon
> >> is a fallacy;
> >>
> >> A is like B.
> >> B has property P.
> >> Therefore, A has property P.
> >
> >That's fine
>
> Of course!
>
> >, but the burden of proof is on YOU to show that property P
> >is *one of the ways* A is like B. You can't simply assert it.
>
> Animal rights as proposed has by definition the same
> property as human rights: rights, and both propositions
> rest on the same basis: an ability to be wronged by moral
> agents.
>
> Just a reminder of the analogy in question;
>
> [snip gibberish]

You're making empty assertions.


>
> >More accurately, if you're going to assert that A is like B in having
> >properties P1 through Pn,
>
> No, just (P).

You have to PROVE P, not assert it.

Be a good little boy and leave the posts dates alone, Jon.

On 4 Oct 2005 16:06:11 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek lied:

(how tiresome)

>> On 4 Oct 2005 14:56:30 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>> >Derek lied:
>> >> On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 12:13:58 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >"Derek" > lied:
>> [..]
>> >> >If you would use your head you would have never used this as a a valid
>> >> >form..
>> >> >
>> >> > A is like B.
>> >> > B has property P.
>> >> > Therefore, A has property P.
>> >> >
>> >> >It is an obvious fallacy
>> >>
>> >> No, it is NOT a fallacy. It's the correct form when using
>> >> analogies. Go to any page concerning them and you will
>> >> find that the form I've presented is perfectly correct.
>> >>
>> >> [Arguments from Analogy:
>> >> Form:
>> >> 1. A is similar to B in certain relevant respects.
>> >> 2. B has property P.
>> >> So, A has property P.]
>> >> http://tinyurl.com/7req4
>> >>
>> >> Now look again at the form I used and which you reckon
>> >> is a fallacy;
>> >>
>> >> A is like B.
>> >> B has property P.
>> >> Therefore, A has property P.
>> >
>> >That's fine
>>
>> Of course!
>>
>> >, but the burden of proof is on YOU to show that property P
>> >is *one of the ways* A is like B. You can't simply assert it.
>>
>> Animal rights as proposed has by definition the same
>> property as human rights: rights, and both propositions
>> rest on the same basis: an ability to be wronged by moral
>> agents.
>>
>> Just a reminder of the analogy in question;
>>
>> [snip gibberish]

<restore argument - the subject of this debate>

(A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the
proposition of human rights.
(B) has property (P) a basis which rests on the
ability to be wronged by moral agents.
Therefore, (A) the proposition of animal rights, has
the property (P) a basis which rests on the ability to
be wronged by moral agents.
<end restore>

Grow up sonny, and at least the argument in.

>You're making empty assertions.

I've drawn an analogy between human rights and animal
rights by referring to the properties each hold. That's a far
cry from making an empty assertion.

>> >More accurately, if you're going to assert that A is like B in having
>> >properties P1 through Pn,
>>
>> No, just (P).
>
>You have to PROVE P, not assert it.

It's a fact, among many, that we hold rights against moral
agents on the basis that we can be wronged by them. Of
course, if you can show that we don't hold rights against
them on that basis, then be my guest and prove my
assertion false.

Derek lied:

> On 4 Oct 2005 16:06:11 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >Derek lied:
>
> >> On 4 Oct 2005 14:56:30 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >> >Derek lied:
> >> >> On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 12:13:58 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> >"Derek" > lied:
> >> [..]
> >> >> >If you would use your head you would have never used this as a a valid
> >> >> >form..
> >> >> >
> >> >> > A is like B.
> >> >> > B has property P.
> >> >> > Therefore, A has property P.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It is an obvious fallacy
> >> >>
> >> >> No, it is NOT a fallacy. It's the correct form when using
> >> >> analogies. Go to any page concerning them and you will
> >> >> find that the form I've presented is perfectly correct.
> >> >>
> >> >> [Arguments from Analogy:
> >> >> Form:
> >> >> 1. A is similar to B in certain relevant respects.
> >> >> 2. B has property P.
> >> >> So, A has property P.]
> >> >> http://tinyurl.com/7req4
> >> >>
> >> >> Now look again at the form I used and which you reckon
> >> >> is a fallacy;
> >> >>
> >> >> A is like B.
> >> >> B has property P.
> >> >> Therefore, A has property P.
> >> >
> >> >That's fine
> >>
> >> Of course!
> >>
> >> >, but the burden of proof is on YOU to show that property P
> >> >is *one of the ways* A is like B. You can't simply assert it.
> >>
> >> Animal rights as proposed has by definition the same
> >> property as human rights: rights, and both propositions
> >> rest on the same basis: an ability to be wronged by moral
> >> agents.
> >>
> >> Just a reminder of the analogy in question;
> >>
> >> [snip gibberish]
>
> <restore argument - the subject of this debate>
>
> (A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the
> proposition of human rights.

This is the central assertion you have to prove, and you're not even
trying; you're merely repeatedly asserting it.


> >You're making empty assertions.
>
> I've drawn an analogy between human rights and animal
> rights by referring to the properties each hold.

No, you have drawn NO analogy at all. You have merely asserted the
thing you must demonstrate.


> >> >More accurately, if you're going to assert that A is like B in having
> >> >properties P1 through Pn,
> >>
> >> No, just (P).
> >
> >You have to PROVE P, not assert it.
>
> It's a fact, among many, that we hold rights against moral
> agents on the basis that we can be wronged by them.

No. That's completely circular. You don't hold rights *because* you
can be wronged, and in fact, your capacity for being wronged, or
harmed, in NO WAY implies that you hold rights. If I blast my car
stereo at 150 dB outside your house in the middle of the night, you
have been harmed, but it is not established from the fact of your harm
that you have any rights concerning the matter.

"Derek" > snipped and ran...

I see you carefully snipped away every one of my arguments. Thanks for
confirming that *you* know you're beaten.

Let's a have a little more sport shall we...

"Derek" > wrote

> It says nothing about the form I've presented which you keep
> insisting is wrong, false and fallacious. The analogy I presented
> does have similarities between the analogs, and thus is NOT
> fallacious. Why did you try to conceal the rest of that sentence
> if not to try and mislead the reader, liar Ditch?

It's not relevant, I have clearly demonstrated that your use of the form is
invalid.

A is like B
B possesses the property P
therefore
A possesses the property P

Is a fallacy.

A is like B is insufficiently definitive to conclude that A posesses every
property of B.


>>>> as I clearly demonstrated.
>>>
>>> All you've demonstrated is that you don't understand the
>>> proper form to use when arguing from analogy, and that
>>> you're ignorance has made you arrogantly incompetent.
>>
>>Never mind the form
>
> Says you after being shown that the form I used was in FACT
> the correct form all along.

You used the form to produce a fallacy. I showed you how to use it to
produce a valid conclusion. You snipped it.

>>Stop hunting through the internet for support
>
> That's what it's for, dummy: to support or defeat arguments.
>
>>for your mistakes and use your own logic.
>
> I do use my own and have great fun with it.

Correct logic is more fun.

> Try this for size;

You mean and forget about the one you just butchered?

No, first let's finish what *you* started, meaning you need to concede that
your..

A is like B
B possesses the property P
therefore
A possesses the property P

Is fallacious as I clearly demonstrated.

> Every potential victim of abuse holds a right against moral agents.
> Every animal is a potential victim of abuse.
> Therefore;
> Every animal holds a right against moral agents.

The premise begs the question, it's debatable, not a truism on the face of
it.

Other than that, I find the syllogism valid.

> In this syllogism, the middle term 'potential victim of
> abuse' in both premises is excluded in the conclusion,
> thus joining the other terms of the premises, namely
> the subject term (the part of the proposition about
> which something is being affirmed or denied) of the
> second premise, and the predicate term (the part that is
> being affirmed or denied about the subject) of the first
> premise, leaving us with;
>
> "Every animal holds a right against moral agents."
>
> To avoid accepting this conclusion the arguer must
> demonstrate that at least one of the premises is false,
> because the argument as presented is valid in that the
> conclusion is logically drawn from them.
>
> A second demonstration following the same rule might
> be helpful.
>
> Every *animal* is a living body.
> Every dog is an *animal*.
> Therefore;
> Every dog is a living body.

That one is correct.

> Again, in this syllogism the middle term *animal* to both
> premises is excluded in the conclusion, thus joining the
> other terms of the premises, namely, the subject term of
> the second premise and the predicate term of the first
> premise leaving us with;
>
> "Every dog ... is a living body."
>
> Pah. You wouldn't know where to start.

Start what? Let's first finish the mess you left with the fallacy
A is like B
B possesses the property P
therefore
A possesses the property P

>>>>And "We hold rights against moral agents on the basis
>>>>that we can be wronged by them" is a hollow, self-evident,
>>>>circular statement. By circular I mean that the second part
>>>>restates the first
>>>
>>> If it did, then the premise would be written;
>>>
>>> "We hold rights against moral agents on the
>>> basis that we hold rights against moral agents."
>>
>>That's not circular
>
> IT IS CIRCULAR

It doesn't rate assessment for logic, it's gibberish.

>> > My premise doesn't do that. It proposes that we hold rights
>>> against moral agents on the basis that we can be wronged
>>> by them, not on the basis that we hold rights against moral
>>> agents.
>>
>>That's not a basis, or a conclusion of any kind
>
> You haven't a clue. Trying to discuss things with you is
> a complete waste of time.

Trying to pull the wool over my eyes as you are doing is hopeless, that's
what's happening here.

You're flailing like a fish in the bottom of a boat.

"Derek" > wrote

>
> On 4 Oct 2005 16:06:11 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

>>> >> A is like B.
>>> >> B has property P.
>>> >> Therefore, A has property P.
>>> >
>>> >That's fine
>>>
>>> Of course!

It's a fallacy.
A is like B => B has property P, does not necessarily mean that A has
property P. "is like" is not definitive enough, you require at least A is
*exactly like* B in the premise to make it valid.

>>> >, but the burden of proof is on YOU to show that property P
>>> >is *one of the ways* A is like B. You can't simply assert it.
>>>
>>> Animal rights as proposed has by definition the same
>>> property as human rights: rights, and both propositions
>>> rest on the same basis: an ability to be wronged by moral
>>> agents.

To be "wronged" implies that they already have rights, which is what you are
trying to establish. The word "harmed" would not have that problem.

>>>
>>> Just a reminder of the analogy in question;
>>>
>>> [snip gibberish]
>
> <restore argument - the subject of this debate>
>
> (A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the
> proposition of human rights.

Debatable

> (B) has property (P) a basis which rests on the
> ability to be wronged by moral agents.

Circular, the possession of rights *is* protection from being wronged, it's
not the basis of it. The basis of rights hinges on the ability to suffer
*harm*, not wrong.

> Therefore, (A) the proposition of animal rights, has
> the property (P) a basis which rests on the ability to
> be wronged by moral agents.
> <end restore>
>
> Grow up sonny, and at least the argument in.
>
>>You're making empty assertions.
>
> I've drawn an analogy between human rights and animal
> rights by referring to the properties each hold. That's a far
> cry from making an empty assertion.

Your premise is an assertion.

>
>>> >More accurately, if you're going to assert that A is like B in having
>>> >properties P1 through Pn,
>>>
>>> No, just (P).
>>
>>You have to PROVE P, not assert it.
>
> It's a fact, among many, that we hold rights against moral
> agents on the basis that we can be wronged by them.

Incorrect, that's a circular statement, being wronged implies the existence
of the rights, so it can't form a basis for them.

We hold rights against moral agents on the basis that we can be *harmed* by
them.

> Of
> course, if you can show that we don't hold rights against
> them on that basis, then be my guest and prove my
> assertion false.

I just did.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote
> Derek lied:

>> It's a fact, among many, that we hold rights against moral
>> agents on the basis that we can be wronged by them.
>
> No. That's completely circular.

I keep telling him that.

wrote:


> I have no time at all for people who abuse animals, however I have even
> less time for ****wits who advocate and support laws that would place a
> human being, who has not threaten nor used force against another *human
> being*, in the same place as a child molester, child abuser, rapist,
> robber, murderer fraudster.

Seems like you have quite a bit of time, actually.

"Other guy" > wrote
>
> Circular, the possession of rights *is* protection from being wronged,
> it's not the basis of it. The basis of rights hinges on the ability to
> suffer *harm*, not wrong.

A point of clarification on this point made by my esteemed alter ego, before
you go off on a tangent...

Although the basis of rights hinges on the ability to suffer *harm*, not
wrong, however harm is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to imply
the existence of a right. IOW a harm can occur where there is no right to
cover it, but where there is a right it is always is a defense against some
harm.

Be a good little boy and leave the post's dates etc. alone, Jon.

On 4 Oct 2005 17:03:56 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek lied:

You're so clever and very funny. When are you going
to show where I've lied, Jon?

>> On 4 Oct 2005 16:06:11 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>> >Derek lied:
>> >> On 4 Oct 2005 14:56:30 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>> >> >Derek lied:
>> >> >> On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 12:13:58 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >> >"Derek" > lied:
>> >> [..]
>> >> >> >If you would use your head you would have never used this as a a valid
>> >> >> >form..
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > A is like B.
>> >> >> > B has property P.
>> >> >> > Therefore, A has property P.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >It is an obvious fallacy
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, it is NOT a fallacy. It's the correct form when using
>> >> >> analogies. Go to any page concerning them and you will
>> >> >> find that the form I've presented is perfectly correct.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> [Arguments from Analogy:
>> >> >> Form:
>> >> >> 1. A is similar to B in certain relevant respects.
>> >> >> 2. B has property P.
>> >> >> So, A has property P.]
>> >> >> http://tinyurl.com/7req4
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Now look again at the form I used and which you reckon
>> >> >> is a fallacy;
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A is like B.
>> >> >> B has property P.
>> >> >> Therefore, A has property P.
>> >> >
>> >> >That's fine
>> >>
>> >> Of course!
>> >>
>> >> >, but the burden of proof is on YOU to show that property P
>> >> >is *one of the ways* A is like B. You can't simply assert it.
>> >>
>> >> Animal rights as proposed has by definition the same
>> >> property as human rights: rights, and both propositions
>> >> rest on the same basis: an ability to be wronged by moral
>> >> agents.
>> >>
>> >> Just a reminder of the analogy in question;
>> >>
>> >> [snip gibberish]
>>
>> <restore argument - the subject of this debate>
>>
>> (A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the
>> proposition of human rights.
>
>This is the central assertion you have to prove, and you're not even
>trying; you're merely repeatedly asserting it.

They are analogous by definition, and I will continue
asserting it until you show that they are not.

>> >You're making empty assertions.
>>
>> I've drawn an analogy between human rights and animal
>> rights by referring to the properties each hold.
>
>No, you have drawn NO analogy at all.

Yes, I have. You can't seriously deny that, even
though your efforts to get rid of the argument in
every post here shows that you'll try your best
to ignore it.

<restore>
(A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the
proposition of human rights.
(B) has property (P) a basis which rests on the
ability to be wronged by moral agents.
Therefore, (A) the proposition of animal rights, has
the property (P) a basis which rests on the ability to
be wronged by moral agents.
<end restore>

Removing the argument by snipping it away only
shows your inability to deal with it. I think you
knew that anyway.

>> >> >More accurately, if you're going to assert that A is like B in having
>> >> >properties P1 through Pn,
>> >>
>> >> No, just (P).
>> >
>> >You have to PROVE P, not assert it.
>>
>> It's a fact, among many, that we hold rights against moral
>> agents on the basis that we can be wronged by them.
>
>No. That's completely circular.

If it was circular, then the premise would be repeated
as the conclusion rather than drawn from it. I might
just as easily write;

(A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the
proposition of human rights.
(B) has property (P) a basis which rests on the
ability to be abused by moral agents.
Therefore, (A) the proposition of animal rights, has
the property (P) a basis which rests on the ability to
be abused by moral agents.

Its as simple as that.

>You don't hold rights *because* you
>can be wronged,

Certainly I do. I don't hold them on the basis that I
can't be wronged, or abused as the case may be.

>If I blast my car
>stereo at 150 dB outside your house in the middle of the night, you
>have been harmed, but it is not established from the fact of your harm
>that you have any rights concerning the matter.

You have it all backward. I already have the ability to
be wronged, which means that if you do me wrong
you will have violated my right not to be wronged.

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 03:13:15 GMT, "Other guy" > wrote:
>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote
>> Derek lied:
>
>>> It's a fact, among many, that we hold rights against moral
>>> agents on the basis that we can be wronged by them.
>>
>> No. That's completely circular.
>
>I keep telling him that.

So, using to nyms to try and swarm me. You're
quite pathetic, Dutch, and clearly dishonest.

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 03:11:49 GMT, "Other guy" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote
>> On 4 Oct 2005 16:06:11 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
>>>> >> A is like B.
>>>> >> B has property P.
>>>> >> Therefore, A has property P.
>>>> >
>>>> >That's fine
>>>>
>>>> Of course!
>
>It's a fallacy.

No, it's fine, just like Jon and the articles I've brought
here says.

[Analogical Reasoning
The simplest variety of inductive reasoning is argument
by analogy, which takes note of the fact that two or more
things are similar in some respects and concludes that they
are probably also similar in some further respect.]
http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e13.htm

It's "The simplest variety of inductive reasoning.", not a
fallacy. You'll never learn, and using two nyms in this
thread wont help you either, liar Dutch.

On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 22:50:11 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>Dutch aka "Other guy" > wrote
>>
>> Circular, the possession of rights *is* protection from being wronged,
>> it's not the basis of it. The basis of rights hinges on the ability to
>> suffer *harm*, not wrong.
>
>A point of clarification on this point made by my esteemed alter ego

Your sock puppet, you mean. Thanks for demonstrating
your desperation here, and the level to which you'll go
while trying to debate issues, Dutch. You really ARE
quite pathetic.

Derek lied:

> On 4 Oct 2005 17:03:56 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
>>Derek lied:
>>
>>>On 4 Oct 2005 16:06:11 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Derek lied:
>>>>
>>>>>On 4 Oct 2005 14:56:30 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Derek lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 12:13:58 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Derek" > lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>[..]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If you would use your head you would have never used this as a a valid
>>>>>>>>form..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>A is like B.
>>>>>>>>B has property P.
>>>>>>>>Therefore, A has property P.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It is an obvious fallacy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, it is NOT a fallacy. It's the correct form when using
>>>>>>>analogies. Go to any page concerning them and you will
>>>>>>>find that the form I've presented is perfectly correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>[Arguments from Analogy:
>>>>>>> Form:
>>>>>>>1. A is similar to B in certain relevant respects.
>>>>>>>2. B has property P.
>>>>>>>So, A has property P.]
>>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/7req4
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Now look again at the form I used and which you reckon
>>>>>>>is a fallacy;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A is like B.
>>>>>>> B has property P.
>>>>>>> Therefore, A has property P.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's fine
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>, but the burden of proof is on YOU to show that property P
>>>>>>is *one of the ways* A is like B. You can't simply assert it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Animal rights as proposed has by definition the same
>>>>>property as human rights: rights, and both propositions
>>>>>rest on the same basis: an ability to be wronged by moral
>>>>>agents.
>>>>>
>>>>>Just a reminder of the analogy in question;
>>>>>
>>>>>[snip gibberish]
>>>
>>> <restore argument - the subject of this debate>
>>>
>>>(A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the
>>> proposition of human rights.
>>
>>This is the central assertion you have to prove, and you're not even
>>trying; you're merely repeatedly asserting it.
>
>
> They are analogous by definition,

No, they're not. You are asserting they're analogous,
you idiot, and you're doing it on the very property you
have to PROVE they have in common.

You typically get it wrong. You're saying they're
analogous *because* they share some alleged rights
property. But what you have to show is they share
*other* properties, and therefore you would (if you had
shown the other properties in common, which you
haven't) analogize that they must also share the rights
property, because it is a function of the other properties.

You don't know what you're talking about.


>>>>You're making empty assertions.
>>>
>>>I've drawn an analogy between human rights and animal
>>>rights by referring to the properties each hold.
>>
>>No, you have drawn NO analogy at all.
>
>
> Yes, I have.

No, you haven't. You have argued backwards. You're an
idiot.

Derek tliede:

> On 4 Oct 2005 17:03:56 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
>>Derek lied:
>>
>>>On 4 Oct 2005 16:06:11 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Derek lied:
>>>>
>>>>>On 4 Oct 2005 14:56:30 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Derek lied:
>>>>>>

>>You don't hold rights *because* you
>>can be wronged,
>
>
> Certainly I do. I don't hold them on the basis that I
> can't be wronged, or abused as the case may be.

You don't hold them on *any* basis of your ability to
be wrong, you idiot. You ONLY could have the ability
to be wronged IF you hold rights. You have it
completely backwards, as usual. You always **** it up.


>
>
>>If I blast my car
>>stereo at 150 dB outside your house in the middle of the night, you
>>have been harmed, but it is not established from the fact of your harm
>>that you have any rights concerning the matter.
>
>
> You have it all backward.

YOU have it backward. You derive the "ability" to be
wronged *because* you (may) have rights, not the other
way around. No rights, no ability to be wronged.

You are so awesomely stupid. And stubborn.

Rudy Canoza wrote:

> Derek tliede:
>
>> On 4 Oct 2005 17:03:56 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>
>>> Derek lied:
>>>
>>>> On 4 Oct 2005 16:06:11 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Derek lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4 Oct 2005 14:56:30 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Derek lied:
>>>>>>>
>
>>> You don't hold rights *because* you
>>> can be wronged,
>>
>>
>>
>> Certainly I do. I don't hold them on the basis that I can't be
>> wronged, or abused as the case may be.
>
>
> You don't hold them on *any* basis of your ability to be wrong,

wronged


> you idiot. You ONLY could have the ability to be wronged IF you hold
> rights. You have it completely backwards, as usual. You always **** it
> up.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> If I blast my car
>>> stereo at 150 dB outside your house in the middle of the night, you
>>> have been harmed, but it is not established from the fact of your harm
>>> that you have any rights concerning the matter.
>>
>>
>>
>> You have it all backward.
>
>
> YOU have it backward. You derive the "ability" to be wronged *because*
> you (may) have rights, not the other way around. No rights, no ability
> to be wronged.
>
> You are so awesomely stupid. And stubborn.

On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 19:52:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote

<restore>
>>>From that page.. "One evaluates such an argument by examining the analogy.
>>>It is a weak analogy, and thus fallacious..."
>>
>>You intentionally missed out the remainder of that sentence
>>which explains why such an analogy can be called fallacious;
>>
>> "One evaluates such an argument by examining the analogy. It
>> is a weak analogy, and thus fallacious,
>>
>> ** if there are not many similarities.**"
>>
>> It says nothing about the form I've presented which you keep
>> insisting is wrong, false and fallacious. The analogy I presented
>> does have similarities between the analogs, and thus is NOT
>> fallacious. Why did you try to conceal the rest of that sentence
>> if not to try and mislead the reader, liar Ditch?
>
>It's not relevant

Your lies are very relevant, so explain why you tried
to mislead the reader by concealing the rest of that
sentence you quoted which explains why only some
rather than all analogies can be said to be fallacious.

> I have clearly demonstrated that your use of the form is
>invalid.

Rather, I've shown that the form I used is perfectly
valid.

>A is like B
>B possesses the property P
>therefore
>A possesses the property P
>
>Is a fallacy.

No, analogies are not necessarily fallacious, and
the form I've used above is anything but fallacious.

>>>>> as I clearly demonstrated.
>>>>
>>>> All you've demonstrated is that you don't understand the
>>>> proper form to use when arguing from analogy, and that
>>>> you're ignorance has made you arrogantly incompetent.
>>>
>>>Never mind the form
>>
>> Says you after being shown that the form I used was in FACT
>> the correct form all along.
>
>You used the form to produce a fallacy.

And that form is the correct form, not a fallacy.

>>>Stop hunting through the internet for support
>>
>> That's what it's for, dummy: to support or defeat arguments.
>>
>>>for your mistakes and use your own logic.
>>
>> I do use my own and have great fun with it. Try this for size;
>>
>> Every potential victim of abuse holds a right against moral agents.
>> Every animal is a potential victim of abuse.
>> Therefore;
>> Every animal holds a right against moral agents.
>
>The premise begs the question

Once again, instead of explaining why you think "The
premise begs the question" you simply blurt it out
without doing so, and you've not even identified which
one allegedly begs the question either. Simply blurting
out, "That's a fallacy" or "Your proposition presumes
that which it attempts to prove" or "That's circular"
without offering any explanation for why you blurted it
out might seem like the best way for you to counter an
argument, but let me tell you that it certainly is not.
Heckling instead of offering proper reasoning is NOT
good enough, so pick up a book and try to learn what
a fallacy is, then what a circular argument is defined as,
and then how to put all you've learned into practice
before attempting to butt in where you obviously aren't
equipped to hold your own.

>Other than that, I find the syllogism valid.

Then you have no option but to accept the conclusion
drawn. Nice one!

>> In this syllogism, the middle term 'potential victim of
>> abuse' in both premises is excluded in the conclusion,
>> thus joining the other terms of the premises, namely
>> the subject term (the part of the proposition about
>> which something is being affirmed or denied) of the
>> second premise, and the predicate term (the part that is
>> being affirmed or denied about the subject) of the first
>> premise, leaving us with;
>>
>> "Every animal holds a right against moral agents."
>>
>> To avoid accepting this conclusion the arguer must
>> demonstrate that at least one of the premises is false,
>> because the argument as presented is valid in that the
>> conclusion is logically drawn from them.
>>
>> A second demonstration following the same rule might
>> be helpful.
>>
>> Every *animal* is a living body.
>> Every dog is an *animal*.
>> Therefore;
>> Every dog is a living body.
>
>That one is correct.

Both demonstrations stand or fall together

>> Again, in this syllogism the middle term *animal* to both
>> premises is excluded in the conclusion, thus joining the
>> other terms of the premises, namely, the subject term of
>> the second premise and the predicate term of the first
>> premise leaving us with;
>>
>> "Every dog ... is a living body."
>>
>> Pah. You wouldn't know where to start.
>
>Start what?

I see you're always willing to show your ignorance
and arrogance on Usenet, but now isn't the right time.

>>>>>And "We hold rights against moral agents on the basis
>>>>>that we can be wronged by them" is a hollow, self-evident,
>>>>>circular statement. By circular I mean that the second part
>>>>>restates the first
>>>>
>>>> If it did, then the premise would be written;
>>>>
>>>> "We hold rights against moral agents on the
>>>> basis that we hold rights against moral agents."
>>>
>>>That's not circular
>>
>> IT IS CIRCULAR
>
>It doesn't rate assessment for logic, it's gibberish.

Exactly, because it's circular, even though you've
hitherto insisted, "That's not circular". You clearly
don't understand what is and what is not a circular,
but that little fact doesn't stop you blurting out these
terms in an effort to appear as if you do. You're a
stupid joke, Dutch.

>>> > My premise doesn't do that. It proposes that we hold rights
>>>> against moral agents on the basis that we can be wronged
>>>> by them, not on the basis that we hold rights against moral
>>>> agents.
>>>
>>>That's not a basis, or a conclusion of any kind
>>
>> You haven't a clue. Trying to discuss things with you is
>> a complete waste of time.
>
>Trying to pull the wool over my eyes as you are doing is hopeless

You've pulled the wool over your own eyes and refuse
to accept you're wrong, even when all the evidence
shows that you are wrong. That's what I call arrogant
ignorance; something you have in spades.

"Derek" > wrote
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 03:11:49 GMT, "Other guy" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote
>>> On 4 Oct 2005 16:06:11 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>
>>>>> >> A is like B.
>>>>> >> B has property P.
>>>>> >> Therefore, A has property P.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >That's fine
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course!
>>
>>It's a fallacy.
>
> No, it's fine, just like Jon and the articles I've brought
> here says.

Jon said "fine" meaning he didn't care, the argument was irrelevant.

> [Analogical Reasoning
> The simplest variety of inductive reasoning is argument
> by analogy, which takes note of the fact that two or more
> things are similar in some respects and concludes that they
> are probably also similar in some further respect.]
> http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e13.htm

Analogies *in general* are just fine, you just happened to stumble onto an
invalid one.

> It's "The simplest variety of inductive reasoning.", not a
> fallacy. You'll never learn, and using two nyms in this
> thread wont help you either, liar Dutch.

http://www.angelfire.com/ks2/fallacies/fallgen.htm#P
False Analogy Fallacy
A False Analogy draws from the observation that A has a property C the
conclusion that B must also have that same property, when a relevant
difference exists between A and B which is being ignored. For example, this
is a False Analogy: "God is good. Therefore, Satan must also be good."...

In your analogy no assurance is given that relevant differences between A
and B do not exist, therefore we must assume that they may.

A is like B.
B has property P.
Therefore, A has property P

...is a blatantly obvious false analogy fallacy. I have already explained
exactly why and given several conclusive examples.

"A is like B" is too indeterminate a premise to build an argument on. Like
all "animal rights" extremists, building a house of cards.

"Derek" > wrote
>>> It's a fact, among many, that we hold rights against moral
>>> agents on the basis that we can be wronged by them.
>>
>>No. That's completely circular.
>
> If it was circular, then the premise would be repeated
> as the conclusion rather than drawn from it. I might
> just as easily write;

The premise *is* repeated, using different terminology.

> (A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the
> proposition of human rights.

You can't just assert that, it requires a great deal of argument.

> (B) has property (P) a basis which rests on the
> ability to be abused by moral agents.

Having a right *is* the ability to have a wrong commited against you. They
mean the same thing

> Therefore, (A) the proposition of animal rights, has
> the property (P) a basis which rests on the ability to
> be abused by moral agents.
>
> Its as simple as that.

ALL rights mean that moral agents are prohibited from commiting a
corresponding wrong. You have not taken a single step towards establishing
that animals have rights.


[..]

"Derek" > wrote
> On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 22:50:11 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>Dutch aka "Other guy" > wrote
>>>
>>> Circular, the possession of rights *is* protection from being wronged,
>>> it's not the basis of it. The basis of rights hinges on the ability to
>>> suffer *harm*, not wrong.
>>
>>A point of clarification on this point made by my esteemed alter ego
>
> Your sock puppet, you mean. Thanks for demonstrating
> your desperation here, and the level to which you'll go
> while trying to debate issues, Dutch. You really ARE
> quite pathetic.

I don't need aliases to defeat you. It's pathetic that you would grasp on
such a meaningless point, it shows how desperate you are. I announced it
immediately once I realized I had posted from the other server.

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 09:06:49 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>Derek lied:

You're like a little child, Jon. Show where I've lied or
at least have the decency to apologise.

>> On 4 Oct 2005 17:03:56 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>
>>>Derek lied:
>>>
>>>>On 4 Oct 2005 16:06:11 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Derek lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 4 Oct 2005 14:56:30 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Derek lied:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 12:13:58 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Derek" > lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[..]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If you would use your head you would have never used this as a a valid
>>>>>>>>>form..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>A is like B.
>>>>>>>>>B has property P.
>>>>>>>>>Therefore, A has property P.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It is an obvious fallacy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, it is NOT a fallacy. It's the correct form when using
>>>>>>>>analogies. Go to any page concerning them and you will
>>>>>>>>find that the form I've presented is perfectly correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>[Arguments from Analogy:
>>>>>>>> Form:
>>>>>>>>1. A is similar to B in certain relevant respects.
>>>>>>>>2. B has property P.
>>>>>>>>So, A has property P.]
>>>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/7req4
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Now look again at the form I used and which you reckon
>>>>>>>>is a fallacy;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A is like B.
>>>>>>>> B has property P.
>>>>>>>> Therefore, A has property P.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's fine
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>, but the burden of proof is on YOU to show that property P
>>>>>>>is *one of the ways* A is like B. You can't simply assert it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Animal rights as proposed has by definition the same
>>>>>>property as human rights: rights, and both propositions
>>>>>>rest on the same basis: an ability to be wronged by moral
>>>>>>agents.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Just a reminder of the analogy in question;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[snip gibberish]
>>>>
>>>> <restore argument - the subject of this debate>
>>>>
>>>>(A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the
>>>> proposition of human rights.
>>>
>>>This is the central assertion you have to prove, and you're not even
>>>trying; you're merely repeatedly asserting it.
>>
>> They are analogous by definition,
>
>No, they're not.

Both propositions are analogous on the basis that
either rights holder can be wronged by moral agents,
or failing that, can be abused by moral agents.

<restore>
(A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the
proposition of human rights.
(B) has property (P) a basis which rests on the
ability to be wronged by moral agents.
Therefore, (A) the proposition of animal rights, has
the property (P) a basis which rests on the ability to
be wronged by moral agents.
<end restore>

and

<restore>
(A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the
proposition of human rights.
(B) has property (P) a basis which rests on the
ability to be abused by moral agents.
Therefore, (A) the proposition of animal rights, has
the property (P) a basis which rests on the ability to
be abused by moral agents.

Its as simple as that.
<end restore>

Snipping the actual arguments away in every reply
isn't going to help you defeat them.

>You are asserting they're analogous

And they are, for the clear reasons I've already
given, so deal with them and stop repeating
yourself.

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 09:09:56 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>Derek tliede:

I did what?

>> On 4 Oct 2005 17:03:56 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>
>>>Derek lied:
>>>
>>>>On 4 Oct 2005 16:06:11 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Derek lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 4 Oct 2005 14:56:30 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Derek lied:
>>>>>>>
>
>>>You don't hold rights *because* you
>>>can be wronged,
>>
>> Certainly I do. I don't hold them on the basis that I
>> can't be wronged, or abused as the case may be.
>
>You don't hold them on *any* basis of your ability to
>be wrong,

wronged

> You ONLY could have the ability
>to be wronged IF you hold rights.

And there we have it, Thank you.

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:31:59 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"Derek" > wrote
>>>> It's a fact, among many, that we hold rights against moral
>>>> agents on the basis that we can be wronged by them.
>>>
>>>No. That's completely circular.
>>
>> If it was circular, then the premise would be repeated
>> as the conclusion rather than drawn from it. I might
>> just as easily write;
>
>> (A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the
>> proposition of human rights.
>
>You can't just assert that

I can and I have, so deal with it.

>> (B) has property (P) a basis which rests on the
>> ability to be abused by moral agents.
>
>Having a right *is* the ability to have a wrong commited against you.

That's correct, but the analogy above now uses the
term "abused". Both terms work just as well though.

>> Therefore, (A) the proposition of animal rights, has
>> the property (P) a basis which rests on the ability to
>> be abused by moral agents.
>>
>> Its as simple as that.
>
>ALL rights mean that moral agents are prohibited from commiting a
>corresponding wrong. You have not taken a single step towards establishing
>that animals have rights.

I have inferred by analogy that they do, so deal with it.

"Derek" >
> On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 19:52:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote

>> I have clearly demonstrated that your use of the form is
>>invalid.
>
> Rather, I've shown that the form I used is perfectly
> valid.
>
>>A is like B
>>B possesses the property P
>>therefore
>>A possesses the property P
>>
>>Is a fallacy.
>
> No, analogies are not necessarily fallacious,

true

> and
> the form I've used above is anything but fallacious.

It's a fallacy, I've explained it several times.

"A possesses the property P" CANNOT be concluded unless B and A are
*identical*, not only *like*.

>>>>>> as I clearly demonstrated.
>>>>>
>>>>> All you've demonstrated is that you don't understand the
>>>>> proper form to use when arguing from analogy, and that
>>>>> you're ignorance has made you arrogantly incompetent.
>>>>
>>>>Never mind the form
>>>
>>> Says you after being shown that the form I used was in FACT
>>> the correct form all along.
>>
>>You used the form to produce a fallacy.
>
> And that form is the correct form, not a fallacy.
>
>>>>Stop hunting through the internet for support
>>>
>>> That's what it's for, dummy: to support or defeat arguments.
>>>
>>>>for your mistakes and use your own logic.
>>>
>>> I do use my own and have great fun with it. Try this for size;
>>>
>>> Every potential victim of abuse holds a right against moral agents.
>>> Every animal is a potential victim of abuse.
>>> Therefore;
>>> Every animal holds a right against moral agents.
>>
>>The premise begs the question

That means it asserts that which you wish to prove. I figured you'd know
that.

>>Other than that, I find the syllogism valid.
>
> Then you have no option but to accept the conclusion
> drawn. Nice one!

No, the premise has not been established theore the whole thing fails..

>>> In this syllogism, the middle term 'potential victim of
>>> abuse' in both premises is excluded in the conclusion,
>>> thus joining the other terms of the premises, namely
>>> the subject term (the part of the proposition about
>>> which something is being affirmed or denied) of the
>>> second premise, and the predicate term (the part that is
>>> being affirmed or denied about the subject) of the first
>>> premise, leaving us with;
>>>
>>> "Every animal holds a right against moral agents."
>>>
>>> To avoid accepting this conclusion the arguer must
>>> demonstrate that at least one of the premises is false,
>>> because the argument as presented is valid in that the
>>> conclusion is logically drawn from them.
>>>
>>> A second demonstration following the same rule might
>>> be helpful.
>>>
>>> Every *animal* is a living body.
>>> Every dog is an *animal*.
>>> Therefore;
>>> Every dog is a living body.
>>
>>That one is correct.
>
> Both demonstrations stand or fall together.

No, that one is valid. You only need to read it see that it's logical. But
you can't tell the difference by looking at them can you?

>>> Again, in this syllogism the middle term *animal* to both
>>> premises is excluded in the conclusion, thus joining the
>>> other terms of the premises, namely, the subject term of
>>> the second premise and the predicate term of the first
>>> premise leaving us with;
>>>
>>> "Every dog ... is a living body."
>>>
>>> Pah. You wouldn't know where to start.
>>
>>Start what?
>
> I see you're always willing to show your ignorance
> and arrogance on Usenet, but now isn't the right time.

Yea, this your show.

>>>>>>And "We hold rights against moral agents on the basis
>>>>>>that we can be wronged by them" is a hollow, self-evident,
>>>>>>circular statement. By circular I mean that the second part
>>>>>>restates the first
>>>>>
>>>>> If it did, then the premise would be written;
>>>>>
>>>>> "We hold rights against moral agents on the
>>>>> basis that we hold rights against moral agents."
>>>>
>>>>That's not circular
>>>
>>> IT IS CIRCULAR
>>
>>It doesn't rate assessment for logic, it's gibberish.
>
> Exactly, because it's circular,

It's lower than circular, it's simple repetition.

>>>> > My premise doesn't do that. It proposes that we hold rights
>>>>> against moral agents on the basis that we can be wronged
>>>>> by them, not on the basis that we hold rights against moral
>>>>> agents.
>>>>
>>>>That's not a basis, or a conclusion of any kind
>>>
>>> You haven't a clue. Trying to discuss things with you is
>>> a complete waste of time.
>>
>>Trying to pull the wool over my eyes as you are doing is hopeless

> That's what I call arrogant
> ignorance; something you have in spades.

It's your show this week Derek, you're in fine form.

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 09:09:56 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>>>>You don't hold rights *because* you
>>>>can be wronged,
>>>
>>> Certainly I do. I don't hold them on the basis that I
>>> can't be wronged, or abused as the case may be.
>>
>>You don't hold them on *any* basis of your ability to
>>be wrong,
>
> wronged
>
>> You ONLY could have the ability
>>to be wronged IF you hold rights.
>
> And there we have it, Thank you.

We have what? You're back at square one.

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:31:59 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>>> It's a fact, among many, that we hold rights against moral
>>>>> agents on the basis that we can be wronged by them.
>>>>
>>>>No. That's completely circular.
>>>
>>> If it was circular, then the premise would be repeated
>>> as the conclusion rather than drawn from it. I might
>>> just as easily write;
>>
>>> (A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the
>>> proposition of human rights.
>>
>>You can't just assert that
>
> I can and I have, so deal with it.

I did, I rejected it. I informed you that your premise is a bald assertion
which begs the question about the nature of human rights vs 'animal rights'.
That is an invalid way to begin an argument.

>>> (B) has property (P) a basis which rests on the
>>> ability to be abused by moral agents.
>>
>>Having a right *is* the ability to have a wrong commited against you.
>
> That's correct,

So your statement is circular, and it follows from an unsupported premise,
so far so good.

> but the analogy above now uses the
> term "abused". Both terms work just as well though.

Both fail for the reasons I stated above.

>>> Therefore, (A) the proposition of animal rights, has
>>> the property (P) a basis which rests on the ability to
>>> be abused by moral agents.
>>>
>>> Its as simple as that.
>>
>>ALL rights mean that moral agents are prohibited from commiting a
>>corresponding wrong. You have not taken a single step towards establishing
>>that animals have rights.
>
> I have inferred by analogy that they do, so deal with it.

Your analogy is a flop on several levels. It does not even deserve the
slightest consideration.

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:18:05 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote
>> On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 03:11:49 GMT, "Other guy" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>> On 4 Oct 2005 16:06:11 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> >> A is like B.
>>>>>> >> B has property P.
>>>>>> >> Therefore, A has property P.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >That's fine
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course!
>>>
>>>It's a fallacy.
>>
>> No, it's fine, just like Jon and the articles I've brought
>> here says.
>
>Jon said "fine" meaning he didn't care

He said it was fine because he has no option but
to concede that the form I used is in fact correct
and NOT a fallacy, as you keep stupidly insisting.

> the argument was irrelevant.

Says you after being shown that it IS.

>> [Analogical Reasoning
>> The simplest variety of inductive reasoning is argument
>> by analogy, which takes note of the fact that two or more
>> things are similar in some respects and concludes that they
>> are probably also similar in some further respect.]
>> http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e13.htm
>
>Analogies *in general* are just fine

Yet the general form I presented is a fallacy according
to you. Trying to back pedal at this stage only shows
that I have indeed been correct all along, and that you
simply can't face the task in admitting you were wrong.

>you just happened to stumble onto an
>invalid one.

The only way to show that the analogy is weak is
to demonstrate it, not just declare it and run away.

>> It's "The simplest variety of inductive reasoning.", not a
>> fallacy. You'll never learn, and using two nyms in this
>> thread wont help you either, liar Dutch.

When are you going to explain why you're using
two nyms in this thread, Dutch?

>> http://www.angelfire.com/ks2/fallacies/fallgen.htm#P
>
>False Analogy Fallacy
>A False Analogy draws from the observation that A has a property C the
>conclusion that B must also have that same property

And mine does, as shown, but which you keep snipping
away unable to cope with it.

<restore>
(A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the
proposition of human rights.
(B) has property (P) a basis which rests on the
ability to be wronged by moral agents.
Therefore, (A) the proposition of animal rights, has
the property (P) a basis which rests on the ability to
be wronged by moral agents.
<end restore>

and

<restore>
(A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the
proposition of human rights.
(B) has property (P) a basis which rests on the
ability to be abused by moral agents.
Therefore, (A) the proposition of animal rights, has
the property (P) a basis which rests on the ability to
be abused by moral agents.

Its as simple as that.
<end restore>

>A is like B.
>B has property P.
>Therefore, A has property P
>
>..is a blatantly obvious false analogy fallacy.

No, it's the proper form used when arguing from
analogy, as shown by the evidence I've brought
here.

[Arguments from Analogy:
Form:
1. A is similar to B in certain relevant respects.
2. B has property P.
So, A has property P.]
http://tinyurl.com/7req4

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:47:07 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>It's your show this week Derek, you're in fine form.

I always am, liar Ditch. When are you going to explain
why you tried using a sock puppet during this discussion,
and what does the use of this sock puppet say about
your general deceitful participation here on Usenet?

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:56:05 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:31:59 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>
>>>>>> It's a fact, among many, that we hold rights against moral
>>>>>> agents on the basis that we can be wronged by them.
>>>>>
>>>>>No. That's completely circular.
>>>>
>>>> If it was circular, then the premise would be repeated
>>>> as the conclusion rather than drawn from it. I might
>>>> just as easily write;
>>>
>>>> (A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the
>>>> proposition of human rights.
>>>
>>>You can't just assert that
>>
>> I can and I have, so deal with it.
>
>I did, I rejected it.

You haven't rejected it in any valid way. Show exactly
why human rights are not analogous to animal rights
while bearing in mind that both humans and animals
can be wronged or abused by moral agents. The
analogy stands until you do, but we both know you
have no way of doing that.

>>>> (B) has property (P) a basis which rests on the
>>>> ability to be abused by moral agents.
>>>
>>>Having a right *is* the ability to have a wrong commited against you.
>>
>> That's correct,
>
>So your statement is circular

No, it isn't. If it was circular it would read;

"Having a right is the ability to have a right."

>> but the analogy above now uses the
>> term "abused". Both terms work just as well though.
>
>Both fail

No, they both stand, and the fact that you keep snipping
them away shows you know that they both stand.

<restore>
(A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the
proposition of human rights.
(B) has property (P) a basis which rests on the
ability to be wronged by moral agents.
Therefore, (A) the proposition of animal rights, has
the property (P) a basis which rests on the ability to
be wronged by moral agents.

and

(A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the
proposition of human rights.
(B) has property (P) a basis which rests on the
ability to be abused by moral agents.
Therefore, (A) the proposition of animal rights, has
the property (P) a basis which rests on the ability to
be abused by moral agents.

Its as simple as that.
<end restore>

"Derek" > wrote
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:18:05 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>>>>>>> >> A is like B.
>>>>>>> >> B has property P.
>>>>>>> >> Therefore, A has property P.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >That's fine
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course!
>>>>
>>>>It's a fallacy.
>>>
>>> No, it's fine, just like Jon and the articles I've brought
>>> here says.
>>
>>Jon said "fine" meaning he didn't care
>
> He said it was fine because he has no option but
> to concede that the form I used is in fact correct
> and NOT a fallacy, as you keep stupidly insisting.

It's a fallacy.

>> the argument was irrelevant.
>
> Says you after being shown that it IS.

It's irrelevant.

>>> [Analogical Reasoning
>>> The simplest variety of inductive reasoning is argument
>>> by analogy, which takes note of the fact that two or more
>>> things are similar in some respects and concludes that they
>>> are probably also similar in some further respect.]
>>> http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e13.htm
>>
>>Analogies *in general* are just fine
>
> Yet the general form I presented is a fallacy according
> to you.

Yes, that form presents a false analogy fallacy.

> Trying to back pedal at this stage only shows
> that I have indeed been correct all along, and that you
> simply can't face the task in admitting you were wrong.

I'm not wrong.

>>you just happened to stumble onto an
>>invalid one.
>
> The only way to show that the analogy is weak is
> to demonstrate it, not just declare it and run away.

I DID demonstrate it NITWIT, several times.

>>> It's "The simplest variety of inductive reasoning.", not a
>>> fallacy. You'll never learn, and using two nyms in this
>>> thread wont help you either, liar Dutch.
>
> When are you going to explain why you're using
> two nyms in this thread, Dutch?

Your arguments are so overwhelming I thought I'd bring in reinforcements ;^/

>>> http://www.angelfire.com/ks2/fallacies/fallgen.htm#P
>>
>>False Analogy Fallacy
>>A False Analogy draws from the observation that A has a property C the
>>conclusion that B must also have that same property
>
> And mine does, as shown, but which you keep snipping
> away unable to cope with it.

Why did you snip away the end of the definition?

*when a relevant difference exists between A and B which is being ignored.*

A is like B.
B has property P.
Therefore, A has property P.

In that form it is fallacious because it leaves open the possibility of
relevant differences between A and B.

> <restore>
> (A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the
> proposition of human rights.

You can't go any further, you're begging the question. You can't conclude
anything about animal rights by asserting that it's like human rights. This
is even worse than "A is like B".

> (B) has property (P) a basis which rests on the
> ability to be wronged by moral agents.

It does NOT rest on that ability, having rights *IS* the property of being
able to be wronged.

> Therefore, (A) the proposition of animal rights, has
> the property (P) a basis which rests on the ability to
> be wronged by moral agents.

You're back to the false analogy fallacy. You have not ruled out at all
"that a relevant difference exists between A and B which is being ignored".

> <end restore>
>
> and
>
> <restore>
> (A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the
> proposition of human rights.
> (B) has property (P) a basis which rests on the
> ability to be abused by moral agents.
> Therefore, (A) the proposition of animal rights, has
> the property (P) a basis which rests on the ability to
> be abused by moral agents.
>
> Its as simple as that.
> <end restore>

Also rubbish.

>>A is like B.
>>B has property P.
>>Therefore, A has property P
>>
>>..is a blatantly obvious false analogy fallacy.
>
> No, it's the proper form used when arguing from
> analogy, as shown by the evidence I've brought
> here.
>
> [Arguments from Analogy:
> Form:
> 1. A is similar to B in certain relevant respects.

You have not ruled out the probability "that a relevant difference exists
between A and B which is being ignored" therefore this is a False Analogy
Fallacy..

> 2. B has property P.
> So, A has property P.]
> http://tinyurl.com/7req4

phhht

"Derek" > wrote
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:47:07 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>It's your show this week Derek, you're in fine form.
>
> I always am, liar Ditch. When are you going to explain
> why you tried using a sock puppet during this discussion,
> and what does the use of this sock puppet say about
> your general deceitful participation here on Usenet?

LOL

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:34:59 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote
>> On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 22:50:11 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>Dutch aka "Other guy" > wrote
>>>>
>>>> Circular, the possession of rights *is* protection from being wronged,
>>>> it's not the basis of it. The basis of rights hinges on the ability to
>>>> suffer *harm*, not wrong.
>>>
>>>A point of clarification on this point made by my esteemed alter ego
>>
>> Your sock puppet, you mean. Thanks for demonstrating
>> your desperation here, and the level to which you'll go
>> while trying to debate issues, Dutch. You really ARE
>> quite pathetic.
>
>I don't need aliases to defeat you.

It's clear that you used one while trying to. Explain why
you needed the help of your sock puppet during this
discussion if not as an aide to help you defeat me? It's
small wonder why you can never be trusted to discuss
these issues seriously; you're just a heckling troll, Dutch.

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 03:18:29 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote
>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:47:07 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>It's your show this week Derek, you're in fine form.
>>
>> I always am, liar Ditch. When are you going to explain
>> why you tried using a sock puppet during this discussion,
>> and what does the use of this sock puppet say about
>> your general deceitful participation here on Usenet?
>
>LOL

You're not laughing; you've been caught red-handed
while trying to use a sock puppet during this discussion,
and that alone shows your desperation and deceit.
What made you think you could get away with trying
to pull a stunt like that, and what does it say about your
general participation in debates if you need the aide of
a sock puppet to get you through? You're a joke.

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:56:05 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:31:59 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a fact, among many, that we hold rights against moral
>>>>>>> agents on the basis that we can be wronged by them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No. That's completely circular.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it was circular, then the premise would be repeated
>>>>> as the conclusion rather than drawn from it. I might
>>>>> just as easily write;
>>>>
>>>>> (A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the
>>>>> proposition of human rights.
>>>>
>>>>You can't just assert that
>>>
>>> I can and I have, so deal with it.
>>
>>I did, I rejected it.
>
> You haven't rejected it in any valid way.

Yes I did, I showed conclusively with reasoning and examples that the whole
analogy was a fallacy, containing an unsupported premise and circular
conditions.

> Show exactly
> why human rights are not analogous to animal rights

Not my job, your claim, your job to support it with a valid argument. Start
by strictly defining "analagous" in this context.

> while bearing in mind that both humans and animals
> can be wronged or abused by moral agents.

That doesn't prove that human rights and animal rights are "analagous",
whatever you intend by that.

> The
> analogy stands until you do, but we both know you
> have no way of doing that.

The analogy is founded from a fallacious form, starts with a highly
contentious premise and is followed by a circular condition.

Oh yeah... where's "Other Guy" when I need him???

>
>>>>> (B) has property (P) a basis which rests on the
>>>>> ability to be abused by moral agents.
>>>>
>>>>Having a right *is* the ability to have a wrong commited against you.
>>>
>>> That's correct,
>>
>>So your statement is circular
>
> No, it isn't. If it was circular it would read;
>
> "Having a right is the ability to have a right."

That's essentially what it does read, "being able to be wronged" is the same
as having rights.

>>> but the analogy above now uses the
>>> term "abused". Both terms work just as well though.
>>
>>Both fail
>
> No, they both stand, and the fact that you keep snipping
> them away shows you know that they both stand.

I already explained why they don't. I've lost count how many times.

> <restore>
> (A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the
> proposition of human rights.
> (B) has property (P) a basis which rests on the
> ability to be wronged by moral agents.
> Therefore, (A) the proposition of animal rights, has
> the property (P) a basis which rests on the ability to
> be wronged by moral agents.
>
> and
>
> (A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the
> proposition of human rights.
> (B) has property (P) a basis which rests on the
> ability to be abused by moral agents.
> Therefore, (A) the proposition of animal rights, has
> the property (P) a basis which rests on the ability to
> be abused by moral agents.
>
> Its as simple as that.
> <end restore>

"Derek" > wrote
> you're just a heckling troll, Dutch.

I attack your arguments, that's fair play. I don't follow you to other
groups and demean you to other people with ad hominem tirades full of
misconstrued bullshit cut&pasted from Google.

You're just ****ed because I've got the better of you, well cry me a ****ing
river, who's fault is that?

"Derek" > wrote
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 03:18:29 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote
>>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:47:07 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>It's your show this week Derek, you're in fine form.
>>>
>>> I always am, liar Ditch. When are you going to explain
>>> why you tried using a sock puppet during this discussion,
>>> and what does the use of this sock puppet say about
>>> your general deceitful participation here on Usenet?
>>
>>LOL
>
> You're not laughing; you've been caught red-handed
> while trying to use a sock puppet during this discussion,
> and that alone shows your desperation and deceit.

You're looking a little red in the face there fatso. Maybe you should
concentrate on getting better arguments instead of getting mad at me when
they fall apart.

> What made you think you could get away with trying
> to pull a stunt like that, and what does it say about your
> general participation in debates if you need the aide of
> a sock puppet to get you through? You're a joke.

Always happy to provide some light comic relief.

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 03:15:16 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote
>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:18:05 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> >> A is like B.
>>>>>>>> >> B has property P.
>>>>>>>> >> Therefore, A has property P.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >That's fine
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course!
>>>>>
>>>>>It's a fallacy.
>>>>
>>>> No, it's fine, just like Jon and the articles I've brought
>>>> here says.
>>>
>>>Jon said "fine" meaning he didn't care
>>
>> He said it was fine because he has no option but
>> to concede that the form I used is in fact correct
>> and NOT a fallacy, as you keep stupidly insisting.
>
>It's a fallacy.

There you go again, insisting that the correct form for
arguing from analogy is a fallacy without even attempting
to show how and ignoring the evidence which proves you
wrong. When are you going to learn these basic terms
and stop making a fool of yourself?

>>> the argument was irrelevant.
>>
>> Says you after being shown that it IS.
>
>It's irrelevant.

Again, says you AFTER being shown that it IS relevant.

>>>> [Analogical Reasoning
>>>> The simplest variety of inductive reasoning is argument
>>>> by analogy, which takes note of the fact that two or more
>>>> things are similar in some respects and concludes that they
>>>> are probably also similar in some further respect.]
>>>> http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e13.htm
>>>
>>>Analogies *in general* are just fine
>>
>> Yet the general form I presented is a fallacy according
>> to you.
>
>Yes, that form presents a false analogy fallacy.

No, it's the proper form used when arguing from
analogy, as shown by the evidence I've brought
here.

[Arguments from Analogy:
Form:
1. A is similar to B in certain relevant respects.
2. B has property P.
So, A has property P.]
http://tinyurl.com/7req4

Simply insisting that the proper form presents a false
analogy when all evidence shows otherwise is a
complete waste of time, and it also shows that you
really haven't a clue here, as well as an inability to
admit you're wrong.

>> Trying to back pedal at this stage only shows
>> that I have indeed been correct all along, and that you
>> simply can't face the task in admitting you were wrong.
>
>I'm not wrong.

Evidence shows that you are.

>>>you just happened to stumble onto an
>>>invalid one.
>>
>> The only way to show that the analogy is weak is
>> to demonstrate it, not just declare it and run away.
>
>I DID demonstrate it NITWIT, several times.

No, you didn't.

>>>> It's "The simplest variety of inductive reasoning.", not a
>>>> fallacy. You'll never learn, and using two nyms in this
>>>> thread wont help you either, liar Dutch.
>>
>> When are you going to explain why you're using
>> two nyms in this thread, Dutch?
>
>Your arguments are so overwhelming I thought I'd bring in reinforcements

Exactly! You're a common troll and a heckler without
any desire to discuss these issues honestly. Thanks
for admitting it, but it's too late to try and save your
integrity now that you've been caught red-handed.