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