And yet both propositions listed in my argument are true. How is this possible?

Try another form, simply by shifting the time (rather than the patient):

1. Jeff Perren can do 100 sit-ups.
2. Jeff Perren can do only 10 sit-ups.

In proposition (1) Jeff is 16; in (2) he is 50.

We could play this game all night. (Except, I'm going to go do something worthwhile now.)

Administering penicillin is good (for doctors) treating those with Staphylococcus infections [it cures the patient; the doctor gets paid]; Administering penicillin is bad (for doctors) treating those who are allergic to β-lactam antibiotics [the doctor gets sued; the doctor loses money and his license].

1. Administering penicillin is good.
2. Administering penicillin is bad.

The two propositions are contradictory.

Setting aside that your proposition is not the proper way to frame the argument...

"[I]it leads to a contradiction viz., freedom (of bakers) is good (for bakers) and freedom (of bakers) is bad (for people with preventable spina bifida)."

How so? Do the following two propositions "lead to" a contradiction?

Administering penicillin is good (for doctors) treating those with Staphylococcus infections [it cures the patient; the doctor gets paid]; Administering penicillin is bad (for doctors) treating those who are allergic to β-lactam antibiotics [the doctor gets sued; the doctor loses money and his license].

Why don't you pitch in (i.e., tell Reed what's wrong with his argument) instead of giggling on the sidelines?

Here's a clue darling. Equivocation. Let me know if you require further assistance.

Why don't you pitch in (i.e., tell Reed what's wrong with his argument) instead of giggling on the sidelines?

1. The absence of bad is not "good".
2. The unjust use of force is bad.
[Therefore,] 3. The absence of the unjust use of force (i.e. freedom) is not good.

Good argument. It's one to go away and think about.

Classic rationalistic misuse of logic. No surprise to see it used and approved by our two resident intrinsicists.

The horse is a four-legged animal.

And if, in the absence of legislation requiring they fortify bread, bakers actually added more than they do now - resulting, let us suppose, in fewer spina bifida cases than would occur with the legislation in place - would you then argue that freedom is actually better?

Better for people with preventable spina bifida? Yes. But freedom (of bakers) actually isn't good for people with preventable spina bifida.

If so, then whether or not freedom is good would depend on what bakers choose to do.

Whether or not freedom is good for people with preventable spina bifida depends on what bakers choose to do.

This, of course, is contrary to your goal of proving that an agent relative morality is false.

No, this shows that agent-relative morality is false, since it leads to a contradiction, viz., freedom (of bakers) is good (for bakers) and freedom (of bakers) is bad (for people with preventable spina bifida).

1. The absence of bad is not "good".
2. The unjust use of force is bad.
[Therefore,] 3. The absence of the unjust use of force (i.e. freedom) is not good.

Good argument. It's one to go away and think about.

If there exists a three-legged horse somewhere at some time, does it follow that the proposition: "The horse is a four-legged animal" is therefore false?

If a decrease in filtering of their water source in certain locations increases the rate at which three-legged horses are born, is the proposition then false?

Jeff was just talking about you.
Indeed, and I'm going to try and make "Freedom isn't good" look reasonable.

1. The absence of bad is not "good".
2. The unjust use of force is bad.
3. The absence of the unjust use of force (i.e. freedom) is not good.

"You don't manage to disprove (A) because (C) is true. Freedom isn't good." [reed]

"The limitation with a reductio argument, of course, is that the opponent may choose to embrace the absurd conclusion and whimsically call it reasonable."

See what I mean?

[edit: Just noticed your post, Goode.]

(C) is true. Freedom isn't good.

Jeff was just talking about you.

The limitation with a reductio argument, of course, is that the opponent may choose to embrace the absurd conclusion and whimsically call it reasonable.

It isn't the freedom that is bad, but the bad action or bad result.

You might as well say

It isn't the freedom that is good, but the good action or good result.

You don't manage to disprove (A) because (C) is true. Freedom isn't good.

"Freedom of bakers results in more babies with spina bifida."

And if, in the absence of legislation requiring they fortify bread, bakers actually added more than they do now - resulting, let us suppose, in fewer spina bifida cases than would occur with the legislation in place - would you then argue that freedom is actually better? If so, then whether or not freedom is good would depend on what bakers choose to do. Ditto every other human and profession and every action. This, of course, is contrary to your goal of proving that an agent relative morality is false.

In any case, your argument proves more than, I presume, you want it to. Not only does your argument imply (falsely, but per hypothesis) that freedom is not good for everyone, if you think about it, it implies that - since all harm that comes to someone from a choice made by another is in part the result of the fact that the individual had the freedom to make that choice - freedom is bad for everyone so affected. That, in the trade, is known as a reductio ad absurdum.

The limitation with a reductio argument, of course, is that the opponent may choose to embrace the absurd conclusion and whimsically call it reasonable.

It isn't the freedom that is bad, but the bad action or bad result. That it results indirectly, if you want describe it that way, removes it from the proximal causal chain. Unless you want to argue that my freedom to blow my nose results in a hurricane in Brazil, making me liable for damages there...

"No, but freedom of bakers does indirectly result in more babies with spina bifida."

That statement is about as meaningful as this one:

Freedom of bakers to choose not to include Vitamin D in their bread does indirectly result in more people being short.

I'll say it again, you're a pretentious twat, Goode.

(A) The concept 'good' presupposes an answer to the question: good for whom? (A tenet of Objectivist ethics.)

(B) Freedom (of bakers) isn't good for people with preventable spina bifida. (A sad fact of reality.)

Therefore, (C) freedom isn't good.

I have stated that freedom of bakers does not directly result in more babies with spina bifida

No, but freedom of bakers does indirectly result in more babies with spina bifida.

Either way, freedom of bakers results in more babies with spina bifida.

The claim that mandatory folic acid fortification of flour reduces the number of babies born with neural tube defects is a scientific hypothesis. It's been put to the test in the usual way. Data on the incidence of NTDs and blood folate levels in the population were collected before and after the introduction of mandatory fortification. The results? "[A] dramatic increase in blood measurements of folate" and "a significant reduction (~15–50%) in NTDs". Hypothesis confirmed.

Mandatory folic acid fortification of flour reduces the number of babies born with neural tube defects. Freedom of bakers results in more more babies with spina bifida. Freedom (of bakers) isn't good for people with preventable spina bifida. It's a sad fact of reality.

I love it when the ends justify the means. Just makes things so easy.

What a fascist.

"But all the evidence shows that mandatory folic acid fortification of flour reduces the number of babies born with neural tube defects."

And random, unwarranted stoppages of motor vehicles results in more drunks being apprehended.

Obviously, random unwarranted searches of homes would result in more stolen goods being retrieved and thieves being apprehended.

I love it when the ends justify the means. Just makes things so easy.

'...it allows mothers to make the bad choice not to take folate supplements during pregnancy.'

As I understand it folate supplements need to be taken before conception if they are to be beneficial. Still, I agree with your argument, Duncan.

Tufts has a pretty good rep, Rosie - pretty sure they're not making it up:

Since the institution of nationwide folic acid fortification of enriched grains in the mid 1990s, the number of infants born in the United States and Canada with neural tube defects has declined by 20 percent to 50 percent. However, during the same period, the rate at which new cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed in men and women increased, report the researchers at the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging (USDA HNRCA) at Tufts.*

They claim that since the North American food supply began being fortified with folic acid, there have been four to six additional cases of colorectal cancer for every 100,000 individuals each year compared to previous trends.

* Mason JB, Dickstein A, Jacques PF, Haggarty P, Selhub J, Dallal G, Rosenberg IH. A temporal association between folic acid fortification and an increase in colorectal cancer rates may be illuminating important biological principles: a hypothesis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007 Jul;16(7):1325-9

........................................................................................................................

But as I say - it's beside the point: neither of you is advocating mandatory supplementation of folic acid in bread... so get a room and do your mutual Pomo-masturbation in private. The rest of us think liberty is a big deal. You idiot.

'The article cited has no scientific studies referenced and is from the Daily Mail online?! It is made up, you idiot!'

Rosie, even a tiny amount of research would have shown you that there are plenty of doctors and studies that back the claim that Jameson has presented.

Duncan, you just agreed with me, and contradicted yourself.

Richard, please re-examine the information you redacted from my post by repeating "results in ... more babies ...".

I have stated that freedom of bakers does not directly result in more babies with spina bifida; rather, it allows mothers to make the bad choice not to take folate supplements during pregnancy.

You are arguing that there is a causal relationship between baker freedom and rates of spina bifida; I am arguing that this can only be true if you disregard free will on the part of the mothers. It is their decision not to take folate supplements that causes their babies to be born with spina bifida.

1. Yet another of your "certain" (but incorrect) "insights". "Of course....aaah," Lindsay's finger rises as deep (but incorrect) thought rushes over him. He races to keyboard to share his ignorances before he can give them a second critical thought.
2. Richard can actually "think" for himself.
3. Whether he agreed with mff was not the point of his argument.
4. What a bunch of dummies.

Bah. Exasperated sigh.

Two jokes on the subject in the same thread, Gregster. Clearly on your mind. Or are you just being dull?

Maybe the subject has some connection with your new relaxed look? (Very nice photo btw. )

The article cited has no scientific studies referenced and is from the Daily Mail online?! It is made up, you idiot! (I sure won't be asking you for journals to support evidence next time I am in Court!) Mandatory folic fortification has not been going on long enough to be able to make such idiotic claims. Dummy.

Of course I am not in favour of losing my choice about things but this, like fluoride in the water, is only beneficial. Also, did you know that bread would usually contain folic acid except that it is stripped during the processing of flour. As I see it, the bakers are just putting it back in again!

Not a big deal.

If supporting Nanny Statism isn't a problem for you, Rosie, then there's no problem... however, some of us would like it to remain a choice:

Adding folic acid to all our diets is a recipe for disaster

By PROFESSOR DAVID SMITH

Fortifying all flour with folic acid is potentially a national health disaster. Folic acid is the synthetic version of the B vitamin folate. But although it's vital for health, it has a dark side.

Giving extra amounts to everyone in the country - whether they need it or not - could lead to more than 3,000 new cases of colon cancer, a rise in prostate cancer and put as many as 150,000 elderly people at risk of anaemia and memory problems...

According to a study just published, fortifying flour over there has been followed by an extra five people in 100,000 developing colon cancer annually. That may not sound a lot but the same rate of increase in the UK would mean an extra 3,000 cases....

Fortification sets up a grim equation. We have 800 new cases of spina bifida each year, but there are 30,000 new cases of colon cancer and 30,000 of prostate cancer.

... it's been PC Rosie's "thinking" here all along.

to swallow mandatory sildenafil.

... mandatory folic acid fortification is bad for people with preventable spina bifida. In the same way mandatory helmet-wearing is bad for people with preventable brain damage - it's an assault on liberty. The point is it doesn't have to be shoved down our throats - but then you already know that you pretentious twat.

You don't support mandatory folic acid fortification - so shut the fuck up and stop your pathetic emotionalism.

What is the problem with this? Richard is not in favour of mandatory folic acid fortification but I cannot see a problem with it. Many pregnancies are not anticipated and by the time a woman realises she is pregnant, she ought to have been taking folic acid for approximately three months. It can only be of benefit to men, women and babies and would be of minimal cost to bakers I would imagine (but do not know). Certainly in Canada and USA it is mandatory (even though Canada isn't a real country anyway!) and the rate of spina bifida is proven to have substantially decreased as a result.

Folate is also good for men in preventing chromosomal abnormalities in babies.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pr...

Do you object to fluoride in water?

And why you all can't understand the straightforward, simple logic in the argument reductio ad absurdum put to you by the esteemed Dr Goode is simply dumbfounding.

And you call him "dummy"?

Freedom (of bakers) is good for people with preventable spina bifida.

If true, it follows that mandatory folic acid fortification is bad for people with preventable spina bifida.

But all the evidence shows that mandatory folic acid fortification of flour reduces the number of babies born with neural tube defects.

(A) The concept 'good' presupposes an answer to the question: good for whom? (A tenet of Objectivist ethics.)
(B) Freedom (of bakers) is good for people with preventable spina bifida. (A fact of reality - freedom is more important than folic acid in bread.)
(C) Freedom is good.

Your argument boils down to this:

Freedom isn't good.

Freedom is good.

Objectivist ethics are wrong.

You haven't proved a thing, Goode.

... more folk were seeing this display of a contemporary anti-mind at work.

Enslavery of bakers and... the enslavery of all their customers... we'll force bakers to introduce folic acid to all who don't bake their own. Excellent

What a fascist.

B is a false statement.

No, B is a true statement.

Mandatory folic acid fortification of flour reduces the number of babies born with neural tube defects. In other words, freedom (of bakers) isn't good for people with preventable spina bifida.

You don't wish to see the forest for the trees.

Freedom of bakers, as you put it, may well be less beneficial for certain individuals, but the mandatory doping of everyone negates the concept of freedom, dummy.

Enslavery of bakers and therefore the enslavery of all their customers.

So, let's see, we'll force bakers to introduce folic acid to all who don't bake their own. Excellent, a possible 1 individual per 100,000 may benefit.

What's next, and I'm thinking of you here, how about compulsory sildenifal in chewing gum? You would benefit and so would your Goode lady. Great.

So what's next.. Great.

So what.. Great.

So . so..

For a live and let live drugs legalisation proponent you're a contradiction genius Goode.

B is a false statement.

Goode: "Freedom (of bakers) isn't good for people with preventable spina bifida. (A fact of reality.)"

What isn't good for people with spina bifida is Nanny State crushing freedoms - full stop. The onus of providing them with the necessary nutrients, as you've conceded, was NOT with the bakers.

To use your fucked-up logic:

Freedom (of fast food vendors to use fatty ingredients) isn't good for people with preventable coronaries.

Cock.

(A) The concept 'good' presupposes an answer to the question: good for whom? (A tenet of Objectivist ethics.)

(B) Freedom (of bakers) isn't good for people with preventable spina bifida. (A fact of reality.)

(C) Freedom isn't good.

A and B are premises. C is the conclusion. The argument is valid, meaning that the conclusion C follows from the premises A and B. If A and B are both true, C must be true also.

But C isn't true. So (at least) one of the premises must be false.

There's no arguing with B. It's a fact of reality that mandatory folic acid fortification of flour reduces the number of babies born with neural tube defects.

So A (one of the cornerstones of Objectivist ethics) is false.

A pregnant mother who wants to ensure her baby is born without defect has the freedom to buy the folic supplement

Agreed.

the onus is not on the baker

Agreed.

stop dragging him into this argument!!

Hard not to when we're talking about the mandatory fortification of flour!

What your argument boils down to is that, as some people choose poorly in the case of folate supplements, the right to choose should be denied everyone.

I don't argue that everyone should be denied the right to choose.

I do argue that freedom's not good for everyone. So does Jeff Perren.

What my argument boils down to is that Objectivist ethics is false.

Me: freedom of bakers results in more more babies with spina bifida

Duncan: No, it does not.

Duncan: Freedom of bakers results in... more babies... born with spina bifida

Duncan, you just agreed with me, and contradicted yourself.

Freedom permits some individuals to jump off a bridge. Therefore freedom isn't good for everyone.
Freedom permits some individuals to bash others on the head. Therefore freedom isn't good for everyone.
Freedom permits husbands to lie to wives about banging their sisters without the wife's permission. Therefore freedom isn't good for everyone.

Silly. Freshman level silly.

"The concept 'good' presupposes an answer to the question: good for whom? (A tenet of Objectivist ethics.)

Therefore, Objectivist ethics is false."

That's what you call a syllojism, Dick.

A pregnant mother who wants to ensure her baby is born without defect has the freedom to buy the folic supplement; the onus is not on the baker -- stop dragging him into this argument!!

Goode: "Freedom's not good for everyone."

NIOF off, Dick!!

(Great PR, Lindsay.)

No, the premise is true if freedom of bakers results in more more babies with spina bifida, which it does.

No, it does not. Freedom of bakers results in people having the freedom to choose to take folate supplements, or not. Some people do not, and more babies are born with spina bifida than would be the case if that freedom was removed. There is no direct causal link between voluntary folate fortification of bread, and spina bifida rates. The causality is indirect, and mediated by individual choice.

What your argument boils down to is that, as some people choose poorly in the case of folate supplements, the right to choose should be denied everyone.

My premise is true.

In the USA and Canada, mandatory folic acid fortification of flour since 1998 has successfully reduced the number of babies born with neural tube defects. Therefore, freedom (of bakers) isn't good for people with preventable spina bifida.

That premise is only true if freedom of bakers prevents people with preventable spina bifida from obtaining folate supplements.

No, the premise is true if freedom of bakers results in more more babies with spina bifida, which it does.

Do you mean to say that folate-supplemented bread will be unavailable if bakers are not compelled to provide it?

No.

Are you claiming that the only way to obtain supplemental folate is through bread?

No.

What part of "mandatory folic acid fortification of flour reduces the number of babies born with neural tube defects" don't you understand?

Your premise is false:

Freedom (of bakers) isn't good for people with preventable spina bifida. (A fact of reality.)

That premise is only true if freedom of bakers prevents people with preventable spina bifida from obtaining folate supplements.

Do you mean to say that folate-supplemented bread will be unavailable if bakers are not compelled to provide it? Are you claiming that the only way to obtain supplemental folate is through bread?

Prove it

"An overwhelming body of evidence for a protective effect of periconceptional folic acid supplementation against neural tube defects (NTDs) led to mandatory folic acid fortification in the United States. The effectiveness of folic acid fortification in improving folate status has already been shown to be quite striking, with a dramatic increase in blood measurements of folate in the United States. Preliminary reports also suggest a significant reduction (~15–50%) in NTDs in the United States. The success of folic acid fortification in improving folate status and in reducing NTD rates is truly a public health triumph and provides a paradigm of collaboration between science and public health policy."
- Young-In Kim, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

"Freedom (of bakers) isn't good for people with preventable spina bifida. (A fact of reality.)"

Sharon questions my seriousness.

Kasper questions my academic qualifications.

Linz questions my axial alignment.

It's business as usual on SOLO.

Does my refutation of Objectist ethics scare you?

You guys don't get it. It's contemporary philosophy that's the joke. As its exemplar, Goode says things commonsensical folk assume to be a joke, but which he sincerely means, just as he sincerely enjoys Slayer. Only a PhD in Philosophy could utter such codswallop.

I say again, SOLO has its own "axis of evil": Goode, Scherk, Orchard ... and no doubt some others I'm overlooking. Pay attention to what they say and learn from it. Their seeming outrages are not jokes; they mean them!! And, alas, they represent the state of the culture far more accurately than any decent, good-faith poster does.

Are you sure it is a PhD in philosophy you have?

You aren't serious with this argument, are you? This is a joke, right?

It's not a joke.

"The concept 'good' presupposes an answer to the question: good for whom? (A tenet of Objectivist ethics.)

Freedom (of bakers) isn't good for people with preventable spina bifida. (A fact of reality.)

Therefore, freedom isn't good.

But freedom is good.

Therefore, Objectivist ethics is false."

You aren't serious with this argument, are you? This is a joke, right?

The concept 'good' presupposes an answer to the question: good for whom? (A tenet of Objectivist ethics.)

Freedom (of bakers) isn't good for people with preventable spina bifida. (A fact of reality.)

Therefore, freedom isn't good.

But freedom is good.

Therefore, Objectivist ethics is false.

Why not start an awareness campaign or run off some flyers and send them to prenatal coaches?

Good ideas, Ross.

Eat yr greens

Good idea, Greg. Spinach is rich in folate.

"No. But I do think that women who are pregnant, planning to get pregnant, or liable to become pregnant are morally obligated to take folic acid supplements."

That's just great, and probably correct. Why not start an awareness campaign or run off some flyers and send them to prenatal coaches?

One outbreak of Political Correctness this week is enough.

And, in your case, smoke 'em.

...you're advocating mandatory folic acid levels in bread?

No. But I do think that women who are pregnant, planning to get pregnant, or liable to become pregnant are morally obligated to take folic acid supplements.

People who want the stuff should go visit their pharmacist

Trouble is, that's difficult to arrange when you're stuck inside a womb.

The fact remains, in the USA and Canada, mandatory folic acid fortification of flour since 1998 has successfully reduced the number of babies born with neural tube defects. I'm sure you've all got some good ideas about how to reduce the number of babies born with NTDs without mandating the fortification of bread with folic acid. Let's be hearing 'em.

...you're advocating mandatory folic acid levels in bread?

I think the babies born in the next three years with neural tube defects, whose NTDs would have been prevented had the government not forestalled the mandatory fortification of bread with folic acid, are going to be pretty miffed.

Freedom's not good for everyone.

yet are forced into using substances of the governments choice.

Another example of outright fascism courtesy of the Labour government.

The National Party does well to recognise it as such.

...compulsory fortification in the UK.

The argument was that there a lot of 'council house' trash who only eat burger and chips every day. As a consequence there is a high level of Spina bifida in babies, so they claimed.

I mean the injustice of it. Everyone has to be forced to eat Folate due some poor dumb teenagers who can look after themselves!

That's socialism at its best for you, equality of misery!

Good PR, Linz.

"The illiterate lefties in charge of last night's 6 o'clock bulletin touted the government's action as a 'ban' on folic acid. What morons!"

Jeeeeeeez!