Terrorist incident in Colorado Springs

[ChillyPolly]

TP presented an argument. That argument had an embedded or hidden premise. The embedded or hidden premise was clear based on the actual argument presented, and based upon TP's prior post in which he was specifically referring to "Pro Life" individuals. The hidden premise was clear based upon the actual statement that TP made.

What you are seemingly asking for is for me to speculate on some extension of TP's argument, that it looks like you are trying (ineptly? dishonestly?) to draw out. I'm simply not addressing that all, and the embedded premise of TP's actual argument, that he presented, does not depend upon the extension that you are trying to draw out / disingenuously create. 

TP made an observation.  That observation was basically:  If you thinks abortion is equivalent to infanticide, you think PP does great violence.

If I were to guess at a hidden premise, and turn that into an "argument" about Pro-Lifers, that argument might run as follows:

 

Premise 1 [stated]:  If you thinks abortion is equivalent to infanticide, you think PP does great violence

Premise 2[hidden]:  Pro-Lifers think abortion is equivalent to infanticide.

Conclusion:  THEREFORE, Pro Lifers think PP does Great Violence.

 

I suppose there may be more to the argument, but I don't know what it is.

 

Someone came along and observed that Peter Singer also thinks abortion is more or less equivalent to infanticide.  I suppose his point probably was that, by the same logic, you could prove that Peter Singer thinks PP does Great Violence.

To which TP responded and said basically:  that does not invalidate my observation.

Which I pretty much agree with.  It does not really invalidate his observation, as far as it goes.  Maybe Peter Singer supports Great violence.

 

If you are trying to suggest there is a different argument with a different hidden premise, then I think you should formally lay out that argument, and stop telling me I am dishonest.

I really have no idea what you are talking about.  I'm not asking you to extend anything.  It's just that you're accusing me of missing something (dishonestly and ineptly, no less) and I don't know what you mean.

Honestly!  I swear!

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

TP made an observation.  That observation was basically:  If you thinks abortion is equivalent to infanticide, you think PP does great violence.

If I were to guess at a hidden premise, and turn that into an "argument" about Pro-Lifers, that argument might run as follows:

 

Premise 1 [stated]:  If you thinks abortion is equivalent to infanticide, you think PP does great violence

Premise 2[hidden]:  Pro-Lifers think abortion is equivalent to infanticide.

Conclusion:  THEREFORE, Pro Lifers think PP does Great Violence.

 

I suppose there may be more to the argument, but I don't know what it is.

 

Someone came along and observed that Peter Singer also thinks abortion is more or less equivalent to infanticide.  I suppose his point probably was that, by the same logic, you could prove that Peter Singer thinks PP does Great Violence.

To which TP responded and said basically:  that does not invalidate my observation.

Which I pretty much agree with.  It does not really invalidate his observation, as far as it goes.  Maybe Peter Singer supports Great violence.

 

If you are trying to suggest there is a different argument with a different hidden premise, then I think you should formally lay out that argument, and stop telling me I am dishonest.

I really have no idea what you are talking about.

Honestly!  I swear!

You don't have to guess at what the embedded premise was - I already told you. Additionally, and as I've already said, the "Pro-Life" argument from abortion doesn't rely on the kind of inferential moral chain that you seem to be trying to stake out. It's true that many Pro-Lifers believe that abortion is the moral equivalent to infanticide, but that's a moral conclusion that's been drawn from other premises. 

Scott's observations regarding Peter Singer have nothing to do with trying to prove that Peter Singer thinks Planned Parenthood does "great violence" - whatever that means. Scott knows perfectly well that Peter Singer is opposed to neither abortion nor infanticide in certain cases (and the reasons for which he is opposed to infanticide in certain other cases have nothing to do with the intrinsic moral value of a neonate, which according to Singer is near zero anyway). 

[ChillyPolly]

You don't have to guess at what the embedded premise was - I already told you. Additionally, and as I've already said, the "Pro-Life" argument from abortion doesn't rely on the kind of inferential moral chain that you seem to be trying to stake out. It's true that many Pro-Lifers believe that abortion is the moral equivalent to infanticide, but that's a moral conclusion that's been drawn from other premises. 

Scott's observations regarding Peter Singer have nothing to do with trying to prove that Peter Singer thinks Planned Parenthood does "great violence" - whatever that means. Scott knows perfectly well that Peter Singer is opposed to neither abortion nor infanticide in certain cases (and the reasons for which he is opposed to infanticide in certain other cases have nothing to do with the intrinsic moral value of a neonate, which according to Singer is near zero anyway). 

You identified no premise, only a proposition.  For it to be a premise, it needs to play a role in an argument of some kind, a role which you fail to identify.  An argument must have premises and a conclusion, or it is not an argument.

I acknowledged this proposition and placed it in the context of an implied argument, not as a premise, but as a conclusion.  This is my interpretation of what TP was trying to say, and could be wrong.  However TP has not clarified and you offer me no alternative.

I never made any statements about how Pro-Lifers think.  I merely explored the implications of an argument, or an implied argument, seemingly presented by TP.

I realize TP was not trying to prove that Peter Singer thinks PP does great violence.  However, as another correctly pointed out, the implied argument leads to this conclusion, if its premises are accepted as true.

Which is not necessarily a problem, as I have said, unless .......

Unless the phrase "great violence" is meant to imply moral condemnation.  If it does, then the conclusion must be false, as we know Peter Singer does not morally condemn PP.  In this case, something must be wrong with the argument.  Specifically, something must be wrong with one of the premises, since the argument itself is structurally valid.

However, if you want to avoid reaching the conclusion, you need to revise the implied argument.

You have not done so.  Neither has TP.  

Which is fine.  I'm not challenging or taunting you or anything.  It's just that you're accusing me of missing something that I do not see.