On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 10:57 -0800, Frank Reichert wrote: > Good morning Robert! > > Robert Goodman wrote in part to Dave Laird... > > > Bill's saying that Frank has so disengaged his thinking from the facts that > > now all he's getting is his own echo, which he takes to be confirmation of > > facts. > > Nice try, but no cigar. > > Please check out what I wrote just earlier. Bill's arguments make > no distinction between an individual, and an entity, the State. > He lumps representation of the individual together in a > synergistic fashion, with that of the State itself.
No, I am not making the mistake of lumping the representation of one's beliefs with the political representation of a person. That would be, IIRC, a Fallacy of Composition. Ok, just looked it up, and yes it appears to be a Fallacy of Composition. If you are truly interested in why, I can detail it. Actually, it might be a Fallacy of Division. I'd be quite happy to discuss it with any fellow logicians. ;) But summarily speaking .... You are stating that because person X does not represent *your beliefs* (or particular qualities) they therefore do not represent *you* in the political representational government sense. Which is that was ever said by your interlocutors. At no time have I seen anyone state that your elected representative represented your beliefs. I know I have certainly said no such thing, despite your incorrect assertions to the contrary. Lemme put it in a personal vein for you. At one point you were the Libertarian party of Idaho's Region 1 Representative. I've personally seen you many times claim you represented N. Idaho as such. But did you represent each LP member's beliefs values and desires, or each libertarian's such attributes? No. Yet you were their Representative as a matter of fact. See? Simple. > This doesn't make any sense when you come upon something like a > revolution, in which case, individuals choose to fight and kill > representatives of the State, in Bill's parlance anyway that > implies that individuals kill those who represent them -- a > contradiction in fact. No, not really. If you shoot your Representative (who is such by your own definition) and kill him or her, he or she is in fact dead, though no longer your Representative. Now, if you are killing soldiers, you are not killing representatives of the state, you are killing weapons of the state. Not all revolutions involve killing elected officials. Mostly, revolutions involve killing soldiers. it is a stretch of insane proportions to claim that fighting on a revolutionary side in a revolution is killing your representatives, unless the very people you kill happen to in fact be your elected Representative. It is only a contradiction in your unnecessarily composite implications. > They are therefore fighting and killing > representatives of a state, or state entity, not their own > personal representatives -- that is, not representatives they > have chosen to represent them. > > Taking Bill's arguments to the extreme, Adolph Hitler represented > each German individually, Hitler represented Germany. Fact. Hitler did not represent the desires and beliefs of every German. Fact. The two are not mutually exclusive. If you quit trying to complicate things, you'd find it is actually quite simple. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
