# I pit Gov. Scott Walker for mandating the unnecessary inserting of objects into women **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 5, 2013, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746 "2013-07-05T20:19:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 57
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1121 "2013-08-08T16:09:17Z")
I would add to **Bricker** ’s comments that I for one would need something more than NARAL’s word for it that this actually happened or is at all widespread. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1122 "2013-08-08T16:26:44Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > But let’s grant axiomatically the premise of “killing innocent humans is bad.” I gather if innocent humans are indeed killed, some “bad” results would be evident - a religious or quasi-religious premise would describe the results in ethereal terms, i.e. “God will be angry” / “We as a society will be judged” / “Human life is important” / “Our society will be less moral”, etc. > > Can you describe non-ethereal results? I hope this doesn’t seem like a stupid question asked as a way to stall for time - my goal is ultimately to suss out actual societal effects of abortion laws. Will this Wisconcin law, for example, improve the lives of Wisconsin citizens? Will negative effects (if any) be offset by the intended increase in population (a population, I should point out, will be at greater risk of resentful or economically disadvantaged parents). It was in attempting to answer this that I raised the spectre of the hungry nephew. I wanted to illustrate that even if immediate measurable results don’t show a net harm, we could still agree that an action was bad because of our innate sense that it was bad. So can you please answer the question about the nephew, directly? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1123 "2013-08-08T16:59:33Z")
I don’t even know what the question about the nephew _is_. So he could murder his aunt in such a way that he couldn’t possibly get caught, presumably because it would never occur to anyone that she had _been_ murdered, right? Well, I accept the concept that this sort of thing has occured and is occuring and will continue to occur, despite the societal interest in preventing or punishing it and (for most of us) an innate lack of desire to commit murder. I get that you have an “innate sense” that abortion is bad… well, I have an “innate sense” (and some supporting evidence) that taking away an individual’s control of the timing and number of her children is also bad, so where does that leave us? ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1124 "2013-08-08T17:02:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s the kind of statement that Bryan Ekers has suggested is quasi-religious. He seems to argue that your bedrock argument cannot be that killing innocent humans is bad. I would find you and your ilk slightly less disgusting if you would stop trying to turn this issue into sweet, innocent fetuses and the evil guilty women who are trying to murder them. Bleh. Two weeks in Florida and I had the joy of forgetting about this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1125 "2013-08-08T17:09:57Z")
Do _you_ know what the nephew question is, Lavender? As best I can tell it’s along the lines of “is it morally okay to murder people who won’t be missed”, or something, but I may be way off. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1126 "2013-08-08T17:28:01Z")
Because I am honest (despite Bricker’s implication otherwise) and because I obviously have way too much time on my hands today, I decided to review the “nephew” posts to try to figure out exactly what the question was. The earliest reference I found was post 1042: > [@Bricker](#): > > Would an atheist murder his well-to-do and otherwise heirless auntie if he knew he had an excellent chance of getting away undetected? > > Or would he stay his hand because he regards murder as a wrong, wholly apart from the personal legal consequences he can likely avoid? > > And if he does stay his hand for that reason, is it also a " vaguely-defined and unproven premise?" I don’t get why the atheism matters (and said so at the time), but whatever… Attempts to get the matter clarified were culminated, I _think_, in post 1058: > [@Bricker](#): > > It’s not any argument, yet. It’s an effort to nail down what types of beliefs qualify as “vaguely-defined and unproven premise[s].” I responded with mockery, since I’m basically being asked to provide a “nailed down” definition of the term “vaguely-defined”, which strikes me as comical on its face. At best, I could say “something is vaguely-defined when it lacks clear definition”. So… am I honest yet? Getting warmer? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1127 "2013-08-08T17:48:11Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Because I am honest (despite Bricker’s implication otherwise) and because I obviously have way too much time on my hands today, I decided to review the “nephew” posts to try to figure out exactly what the question was. The earliest reference I found was post 1042: > > I don’t get why the atheism matters (and said so at the time), but whatever… Attempts to get the matter clarified were culminated, I _think_, in post 1058: He’s an atheist because I wanted to be sure that we all agreed that no fear of supernatural consequences would motivate him: he’s a here-and-now guy. > [@](#): > > I responded with mockery, since I’m basically being asked to provide a “nailed down” definition of the term “vaguely-defined”, which strikes me as comical on its face. At best, I could say “something is vaguely-defined when it lacks clear definition”. > > So… am I honest yet? Getting warmer? You’re getting warmer to the extent that you appear to be trying to answer rather than dodging, for which I thank you. but I’m not asking you to define “vaguely defined.” I’m asking you to see if the term applies to the nephew’s moral barrier with respect to killing his aunt. In other words, the sequence as i saw it was: - I say we shouldn’t kill humans, because humans are special - You object to that rule because “humans are special” is vaguely defined - I offer another example involving killing humans, and ask you to articulate the rule in operation there - FULL STOP What I think is happening is that you sense that you’ll have to either concede that the nephew has no moral barrier to killing the aunt, or you’ll have to adopt some sort of reason that’s also “vaguely defined,” which I hope you do, since then I can ask you why it’s OK to have vaguely defined rules in one case but not the other. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1128 "2013-08-08T18:20:12Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Do _you_ know what the nephew question is, Lavender? As best I can tell it’s along the lines of “is it morally okay to murder people who won’t be missed”, or something, but I may be way off. I think **Bricker’s** trying to get you to the point where you either give a concrete well defined reason why the nephew should either kill or not kill the aunt. I maintain that the error in this reasoning is that the specific case may not have a well defined rationale while, at the same time, the general does. The nephew may be relying on a vaguely defined quasi religious feeling to prevent himself from taking the knife to his aunt for the cash payoff but that in no way implies that the general societal rule is based on a vaguely defined, quasi religious rationale. Society can certainly point to the overall disorder and instability that could result if killing was allowed as a matter of course and that can serve as a concrete rational reason for society to enforce rules to say what kind of killing is allowed. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1129 "2013-08-08T18:33:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > He’s an atheist because I wanted to be sure that we all agreed that no fear of supernatural consequences would motivate him: he’s a here-and-now guy. Fine, if you say so. Seems like a pointless distinction, since there are many religious people who commit murders and many atheists who don’t. > [@](#): > > You’re getting warmer to the extent that you appear to be trying to answer rather than dodging, for which I thank you. I never dodged your question. I couldn’t figure out what your question _was_, and asked several times for clarification. Your thanks mean nothing because they absolve me of something I wasn’t doing in the first place. > [@](#): > > but I’m not asking you to define “vaguely defined.” [sigh] Really? Then what was the point of "It’s an effort to nail down what types of beliefs qualify as “vaguely-defined and unproven premise[s].” ? Okay, we’ll let that go, I guess. > [@](#): > > I’m asking you to see if the term applies to the nephew’s moral barrier with respect to killing his aunt. In other words, the sequence as i saw it was: > > - I say we shouldn’t kill humans, because humans are special > - You object to that rule because “humans are special” is vaguely defined > - I offer another example involving killing humans, and ask you to articulate the rule in operation there > - FULL STOP So THIS is the question, right? THIS is your distilled final form of the question. This is EXACTLY the question I’m being asked… because I’m going to answer THIS question and the end of this post, and anyone who says later that I didn’t answer THIS question will be demonstrably wrong. > [@](#): > > What I think is happening is that you sense that you’ll have to either concede that the nephew has no moral barrier to killing the aunt, or you’ll have to adopt some sort of reason that’s also “vaguely defined,” which I hope you do, since then I can ask you why it’s OK to have vaguely defined rules in one case but not the other. Before I get to my answer, I have no problem admitting that the nephew (as you’ve described him) has no moral barrier to killing the aunt, assuming he actually does kill his aunt, or if he sincerely tries to kill her but gets stopped by some unexpected outside agent. Some people don’t have moral barriers on their behaviour and some other people get murdered as a result. This is news? If he’s just _thinking_ about killing his aunt but doesn’t actually do so (or try to do so), then we don’t have enough information to talk about his moral barriers (if any). I’m not sure what value you see in such a concession (to me, it’s just stating the obvious), but that’s up to you. In any case, I’m not trying to create a set of rules where it’s “OK” for someone to murder his aunt, in case that’s what you were suggesting. Now, my ANSWER: My answer is that your question doesn’t make any sense. You’re free to say “humans are special” as much as you like, but evidently there’s a hypothetical nephew out there who disagrees, or doesn’t think his human aunt is special _enough_ to not be murdered (again assuming that he actually goes on to murder her). From this, I derive that “humans are special” is not a universal barrier, or even a useful barrier, against killing humans - either the nephew doesn’t _know_ that humans are special, or he doesn’t _care_ that humans are special, or he doesn’t _agree_ that humans are special, or he thinks his aunt isn’t human… or any number of possible escape clauses. Simply saying “humans are special” _doesn’t accomplish anything_, and what does “special” mean, anyway? “Special” means “you shouldn’t kill this” ? So how is… - You shouldn’t kill humans, because humans are special. …distinct from… - You shouldn’t kill humans, because you shouldn’t kill humans. I will gladly concede that a pure tautology (as this seems to be) might not be accurately described as “vaguely-defined”. I guess it _is_ defined, by itself, for what that’s worth (to _me_… nothing). If instead the premise was “killing is wrong”… sure, I can support that. It’s a simple phrase, but it invites explanations of _why_ it is wrong, at which point one could discuss the effects on society and how it makes widows and orphans feel bad and how if you kill a man today, his relatives could kill _you_ tomorrow, and so forth. But “humans are special”? Special in what way? Is there a Universal Specialness Chart on which humans are the only life-form that registers? If you want to call that evasive or dishonest, then the politest comment I could make is that you and I have very different definitions of the terms. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1130 "2013-08-08T18:46:43Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > I think **Bricker’s** trying to get you to the point where you either give a concrete well defined reason why the nephew should either kill or not kill the aunt. I maintain that the error in this reasoning is that the specific case may not have a well defined rationale while, at the same time, the general does. Sure. The individual murderer could be feeling any number of motivations for his act (he wants her money; she “disrespected” him; he hates her; she’s beating her daughter/his cousin and he sees himself as protector; he believes she’s an alien lizard come to eat his brain; etc.) but the overall society has a compelling interest to discourage/prevent/investigate/punish murders, regardless of motivation. > [@](#): > > The nephew may be relying on a vaguely defined quasi religious feeling to prevent himself from taking the knife to his aunt for the cash payoff but that in no way implies that the general societal rule is based on a vaguely defined, quasi religious rationale. Society can certainly point to the overall disorder and instability that could result if killing was allowed as a matter of course and that can serve as a concrete rational reason for society to enforce rules to say what kind of killing is allowed. I asked at one point why we should care why the nephew _doesn’t_ kill his aunt. I didn’t get an answer. Surely every day people think about or say out loud “I’d like to kill that person!”, maybe for something as inconsequential as an expected sense of satisfaction at removing from existence the person who cut us off in traffic, or is talking too loud in the theater. I don’t know why the exact nature of the preventative mechanism matters (i.e. “I’d go to jail” or “That would be wrong, though” or “It would just create more problems” or “God will smite me”). Of course, the overall connection to the issue of Wisconsin’s abortion law… well… beats me. By Bricker’s own admission, aunt-killing is not being used as an analogue to fetus-killing (post 1049), and as a general discussion on morality, it’s a big fat fail, so… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1131 "2013-08-08T18:50:21Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > I think **Bricker’s** trying to get you to the point where you either give a concrete well defined reason why the nephew should either kill or not kill the aunt. I maintain that the error in this reasoning is that the specific case may not have a well defined rationale while, at the same time, the general does. > > The nephew may be relying on a vaguely defined quasi religious feeling to prevent himself from taking the knife to his aunt for the cash payoff but that in no way implies that the general societal rule is based on a vaguely defined, quasi religious rationale. Society can certainly point to the overall disorder and instability that could result if killing was allowed as a matter of course and that can serve as a concrete rational reason for society to enforce rules to say what kind of killing is allowed. It’s good this is being spelled out, because i think this gets to a key point of disagreement. In my view, _it is proper for society to base rules on their collective innate sense of right and wrong._ ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1132 "2013-08-08T18:51:39Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Of course, the overall connection to the issue of Wisconsin’s abortion law… well… beats me. By Bricker’s own admission, aunt-killing is not being used as an analogue to fetus-killing (post 1049), and as a general discussion on morality, it’s a big fat fail, so… How about as a general discussion on the proper basis for law? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1133 "2013-08-08T18:55:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s good this is being spelled out, because i think this gets to a key point of disagreement. > > In my view, _it is proper for society to base rules on their collective innate sense of right and wrong._ Sure. It turns out that there isn’t a collective consensus on the rightness/wrongness of abortion, though. I’ll gladly concede there is one on aunt-murdering. Of course, even if that’s how we “base” our laws, that doesn’t mean we can’t also apply reasoning. If “innate sense” was all we had, we might as well settle all disputes the way animals do, and so much for specialness _then_. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1134 "2013-08-08T19:00:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How about as a general discussion on the proper basis for law? Maybe, but before I put in that kind of effort, I expect your response to post 1129. If I’m going to put in the mental effort to discuss what I consider a proper basis for law (actually, I think my views are already on record, anyway), I want to know if it’s likely I’ll just be incorrectly accused, again, of evasion or dishonesty. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1135 "2013-08-08T19:00:56Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > Society can certainly point to the overall disorder and instability that could result if killing was allowed as a matter of course and that can serve as a concrete rational reason for society to enforce rules to say what kind of killing is allowed. Sure, society CAN do that… but DOES society do that? That is, if you go around and ask lots of people “hey, murder is illegal. You agree that it should be, right? Well, why?”, you’ll get a lot more responses that are basically “killing people is wrong” or something about the golden rule; than responses that discuss the large scale instability and breakdown of social structures that would result from legal murder. Some of those in the first category will mention religion or religious motivation, but some of them won’t. I’m totally non-religious, and if you came up with a carefully-constructed subset of murders which you and I both agreed could be legalized without any large scale societal breakdown, I would still not support that legalization because KILLING PEOPLE IS WRONG. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1136 "2013-08-08T19:16:51Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I’m totally non-religious, and if you came up with a carefully-constructed subset of murders which you and I both agreed could be legalized without any large scale societal breakdown, I would still not support that legalization because KILLING PEOPLE IS WRONG. But society already has constructed a subset of killing which is permissible. Killing in self defense is permissible. It is permissible even if you kill an innocent person as long as you had the rational belief that they were a danger to you. Take the case of a drunk who comes home, can’t get the key to work so he opens a window and stumbles in. The drunk believes that his is in his home and has no ill intent. The drunk is, unfortunately, wrong. He is in a house 3 streets down and the owner is armed. The owner hears the intruder, confronts and shoots him. Innocent person dead, no laws broken. (As **Bricker** is in this thread, let me state that the example may not comport exactly to law but I am sure that if given the appropriate statues one could construct a similar example which would show an innocent killed with no law broken). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1137 "2013-08-08T20:08:55Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > So THIS is the question, right? THIS is your distilled final form of the question. This is EXACTLY the question I’m being asked… because I’m going to answer THIS question and the end of this post, and anyone who says later that I didn’t answer THIS question will be demonstrably wrong. This is the question. > [@](#): > > Before I get to my answer, I have no problem admitting that the nephew (as you’ve described him) has no moral barrier to killing the aunt, assuming he actually does kill his aunt, or if he sincerely tries to kill her but gets stopped by some unexpected outside agent. Some people don’t have moral barriers on their behaviour and some other people get murdered as a result. This is news? If he’s just _thinking_ about killing his aunt but doesn’t actually do so (or try to do so), then we don’t have enough information to talk about his moral barriers (if any). I’m not sure what value you see in such a concession (to me, it’s just stating the obvious), but that’s up to you. In any case, I’m not trying to create a set of rules where it’s “OK” for someone to murder his aunt, in case that’s what you were suggesting. > > Now, my ANSWER: > > My answer is that your question doesn’t make any sense. You’re free to say “humans are special” as much as you like, but evidently there’s a hypothetical nephew out there who disagrees, or doesn’t think his human aunt is special _enough_ to not be murdered (again assuming that he actually goes on to murder her). From this, I derive that “humans are special” is not a universal barrier, or even a useful barrier, against killing humans - either the nephew doesn’t _know_ that humans are special, or he doesn’t _care_ that humans are special, or he doesn’t _agree_ that humans are special, or he thinks his aunt isn’t human… or any number of possible escape clauses. > > Simply saying “humans are special” _doesn’t accomplish anything_, and what does “special” mean, anyway? “Special” means “you shouldn’t kill this” ? So how is… > > - You shouldn’t kill humans, because humans are special. > > …distinct from… > > - You shouldn’t kill humans, because you shouldn’t kill humans. > I will gladly concede that a pure tautology (as this seems to be) might not be accurately described as “vaguely-defined”. I guess it _is_ defined, by itself, for what that’s worth (to _me_… nothing). If instead the premise was “killing is wrong”… sure, I can support that. It’s a simple phrase, but it invites explanations of _why_ it is wrong, at which point one could discuss the effects on society and how it makes widows and orphans feel bad and how if you kill a man today, his relatives could kill _you_ tomorrow, and so forth. But “humans are special”? Special in what way? Is there a Universal Specialness Chart on which humans are the only life-form that registers? > > If you want to call that evasive or dishonest, then the politest comment I could make is that you and I have very different definitions of the terms. I think your answer is incredibly hard to understand. “You shouldn’t kill humans, because you shouldn’t kill humans.” And this survives being called vaguely-defined, because it’s a tautology? I can only conclude I don’t understand what the hell you’re saying, and I can’t tell if it’s because I have been unclear about what I’m asking or not. I hate to repeat it, but I really thought this was as clear as it gets: - You said the atheist pro-lifers’ arguments were quasi-religious, that they were vague and ill-defined - I asked about the murderous nephew: why shouldn’t he kill his aunt? - You say the best way you can describe it is: he shouldn’t kill his aunt because killing people is wrong - But since that’s a tautology, it’s immune from the criticism of being quasi-religious I must be missing something. Help me understand what it is. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1138 "2013-08-08T20:16:30Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > But society already has constructed a subset of killing which is permissible. Killing in self defense is permissible. It is permissible even if you kill an innocent person as long as you had the rational belief that they were a danger to you. I had another entire paragraph in my previous post about this, which I decided was unnecessary. Yes, there are exceptions where killing is legal. But are they legal because, unlike “real” murder", they won’t lead to chaos and societal breakdown? Or are they legal because there is some other circumstance involved which outweighs or balances out the wrongness of killing a person? Let’s put it this way: suppose we were debating a proposed law making it legal for parents to kill children with down’s syndrome. Now, you might be able to make a compelling (if morbid) case that that actually would make society BETTER, because those parents would be freed from the time and money it takes to raise a child with such difficult needs. In fact, you might be right. But I guarantee you that the response most people have to your proposal would not be something like “hang on, I disagree with your analysis about the overall effect on societal stability, and here are my reasons why…”. Instead, the response would be some version of “won’t someone think about the children”. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1139 "2013-08-08T20:56:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But I am very glad you did – because it defanged the ad hominem responses having to do with establishing a Catholic theocracy. > [@Bricker](#): > > That’s the kind of statement that Bryan Ekers has suggested is quasi-religious. He seems to argue that your bedrock argument cannot be that killing innocent humans is bad. The irony burns. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1140 "2013-08-08T21:10:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think your answer is incredibly hard to understand. I think it was pretty clear, myself - if not belaboringly obvious, but I’ll clarify as requested. > [@](#): > > “You shouldn’t kill humans, because you shouldn’t kill humans.” And this survives being called vaguely-defined, because it’s a tautology? I said in my reply, quite clearly, _and you quoted me saying it_: > [@me](#): > > I will gladly concede that a pure tautology (as this seems to be) might not be accurately described as “vaguely-defined”. I guess it is defined, by itself, for what that’s worth (to me… nothing). I’m recognizing that the useless argument you advanced is perhaps not exactly useless in the manner I described, but it is _still_ completely useless. I guess it’s a matter of definition, as in: A: The concept of “grue” is vaguely defined. B: No, grue is defined as the state of being grue. B’s tautology is not in itself vague, but it also doesn’t usefully clarify what “grue” is. > [@](#): > > I can only conclude I don’t understand what the hell you’re saying, and I can’t tell if it’s because I have been unclear about what I’m asking or not. I answered your “FULL STOP” question to the best of my ability, including recognizing its inherent flaws. Perhaps if you told us what result you were _expecting_, we might work backward to try to rewrite the question to fit, though it would be a mere semi-intellectual exercise at this point. > [@](#): > > I hate to repeat it, but I really thought this was as clear as it gets: > > - You said the atheist pro-lifers’ arguments were quasi-religious, that they were vague and ill-defined Well, that their arguments _relied_ on vague and ill-defined premises. > [@](#): > > - I asked about the murderous nephew: why shouldn’t he kill his aunt? I don’t care why he doesn’t kill his aunt (to be accurate, why he doesn’t _try_ to kill his aunt - if he tries and the attempt is thwarted because she routinely wears Kevlar, then this is something I would find of interest). Whatever over-rides his financial desire for her money, be it innate morality or fear of going to jail or being distracted by something shiny… I don’t see why it matters. As long as he keeps his aunt-killing thoughts to himself, it’s none of my concern. > [@](#): > > - You say the best way you can describe it is: he shouldn’t kill his aunt because killing people is wrong > - But since that’s a tautology, it’s immune from the criticism of being quasi-religious > > I must be missing something. > > Help me understand what it is. What it is, is described in a later section of the same paragraph that contained the “tautology” reference _and you quoted me saying it_: > [@me](#): > > If instead the premise was “killing is wrong”… sure, I can support that. It’s a simple phrase, but it invites explanations of _why_ it is wrong, at which point one could discuss the effects on society and how it makes widows and orphans feel bad and how if you kill a man today, his relatives could kill you tomorrow, and so forth. “Killing is wrong” is not a tautology because I can show supporting evidence. “Humans are special” is a tautology because you can’t. Everything is laid out. If you don’t want to read it, that’s your call. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746.md?page=56) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746.md?page=58)