From: utzoo!decvax!duke!mcnc!unc!tim Newsgroups: net.women Title: Re: Slippery Slope Article-I.D.: unc.4585 Posted: Mon Jan 31 17:49:31 1983 Received: Wed Feb 2 01:52:18 1983 References: ihnp1.164 Really, I'm sorry to post another anti-abortion-legislation article, but I can't help myself when I see blatant falsehoods and idiocies. In particular, I can't stand seeing people trying to use logic to fit their preconceptions, then deliberately ignoring the point of refutations. I am referring to the recent argument that a fetus must be human, because a baby is human, a baby 5 mins. before birth is human, etc. The point that was supposedly made was that since there is no clear dividing line, the fertilized egg must be human. The obvious refutation was given, phrased in terms of beards in one case and paint in the other: if you slowly add black paint to white, you eventually get black paint, and since there is no clear dividing line, black=white. A classic reduction to an absurdity, and utterly irrefutable. So what does the original poster do? He says that a baby isn't paint, and that that refutes the argument! Aaargghh! Can this person really have the sense to be a computer scientist? Specifically, he said this: Mr. Knight alludes to "adding" tiny bits of black pigment to white paint to gradually turn it black. I specifically state that the only things that the unborn child gets from its mother during the nine months of pregnancy are food, oxygen, waste removal, and physical security. Nothing else is added. If the addition of food or oxygen to a growing unborn child can "gradually turn it human", then at what point can we say that a born child achieves humanity? For that matter, how can we say that we ourselves have achieved humanity, for we all continue to eat and breathe. Gee, what a huge difference. I could write a program that understands analogies better than that. OK, guy, here's another one. A black graphics display is obviously black. The same display lightened by the smallest possible amount is also black. Another step leaves it still black. Etc. Therefore, when we have done 100,000 steps like this the screen must still be black, right? Clearly false; it is white, and black does not equal white. There is nothing added here. Now do you understand that the argument has nothing to do with the particular case for which it is stated? ["Printf doesn't apply here. I want to print something with a character that's not in their example."] Then he changes the subject so as to apply the old straw horse technique. "This is what you really meant to say, but you're obviously wrong." From Mr. Knight, I am sure you would get a hearty round of thanks for telling him what he really meant to say. Good thing that we have people like you around to tell us these things. Sorry for the flames, but few things infuriate me more than logic from conclusion to premise. The original poster has obviously made up his mind on emotional grounds, and promulgated this fallacious chain of reasoning in hopes of convincing others. (I would rather believe that than that anyone could really buy such a hokey line.) Tim Maroney duke!unc!tim