Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
a somewhat better example,
more complex 'begging the question,' example.
suppose it is 1918, US, and the question of a women's vote has come up.
the opponent of the Amendment 19 argues:
women should NOT have the vote. here is why.
1. a republic, such as the US, is based on the full contributions of all its adult citizens.
2. this full contribution, among other things, entails serving in the the armed forces in any assigned roles (unless one is too young, too old, or disabled).
3. the voters, the persons directing the republic, should be just those who are making, (or are in a position to make), or have made such full contribution (except for the disabled who would otherwise be able to serve).
4. women adults do not make such a 'full contribution' as described above, for they do not serve, fully, in the armed forces, nor are they in a legal position to. (same as children.) and they are not disabled, by and large.
Conclusion: women should not have the vote.
more complex 'begging the question,' example.
suppose it is 1918, US, and the question of a women's vote has come up.
the opponent of the Amendment 19 argues:
women should NOT have the vote. here is why.
1. a republic, such as the US, is based on the full contributions of all its adult citizens.
2. this full contribution, among other things, entails serving in the the armed forces in any assigned roles (unless one is too young, too old, or disabled).
3. the voters, the persons directing the republic, should be just those who are making, (or are in a position to make), or have made such full contribution (except for the disabled who would otherwise be able to serve).
4. women adults do not make such a 'full contribution' as described above, for they do not serve, fully, in the armed forces, nor are they in a legal position to. (same as children.) and they are not disabled, by and large.
Conclusion: women should not have the vote.
Last edited:
