LOL, you are so amusingly hypocritical and misleading. I will now proceed to shred you arguments again.
I guess I'll have to be the bigger man...I don't plan on reading it.
Based on the timing of your seventh edit, you clearly read my previous reply. As I stated before, your standards, promises, and morals are quite malleable, changeable, and relative. I guess you must be an atheist (by your own twisted definition).
You should also remember Colossians 3:9: "Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices." Lying, much like your pride, is a sin which makes you a poor example for other Christians.
This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premise of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.
Sorry, this actually is your problem not mine. Once again, you looked up a Wiki article and misunderstood it (much like you misunderstanding about nature of legislative history and legal analysis).
Here is why this is your problem:
What is the basis for Christian morality?
Christian morality is based upon the Bible or the teachings of Jesus or the word of God.
What are the Bible or the teachings of Jesus Christ or the word of God about?
The Bible or the teachings of Jesus Christ or the word of God are about morality.
Thus, Christians base their morality on morality.
You are the one with the circular reasoning problem.
Your entire argument is begging the question.
You may be asking why circular reasoning does not apply to Sections 1636.6(b) and 1636.6(c). There are there four simple reasons.
►►► First, to quote your previous post: "Simply because you choose to interpret what is written...in your own way, doesn't mean that it's correct." Oh wait, I had to read your previous post to remember that quote. Are you going to accuse me of stalking you again? (This is part of your standard "argumentum ad hominem.")
►►► Second,** since you established the standard that opinion alone does not count, where is your proof? If you are the only person in all of the federal government to realize that entirety of American law is circular, you should immediately quit Fresno State and transfer to Stanford where you hyper-intelligence can be appreciated.
►►► Third, as you already conceded, moral convictions may be based on ethical principles. But this does not beg the question, "What are those ethic principles?" There is a difference between "begs the question" and "raises the question" according to your favorite Wiki:
Many people use the expression "begs the question" to mean "raises the question" - in the sense that they believe an important point is being overlooked in the argument given. For example; "If God created the universe, this begs the question of who created God." In this case, "raises the question" is the correct term. There are countless examples of this misuse, meaning it is not incorrect because people know what it means.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
I am surprised you missed that point when you read the Wiki, but we both know that you are quite slipshod when it comes to reading things all the way through (e.g. John Rawls). If that website is too long for you, here is another one:
To beg the question does not mean "to raise the question." This is a common error of usage made by those who mistake the word "question" in the phrase to refer to a literal question.
The New York Times also explains the difference. (I am sure you get The New York Times in a metroplis like Fresno, so it is odd you missed this article.)
As our stylebook, various references and many readers are quick to point out, the phrase does not mean “to raise the question” or “to beg that the question be asked” or even “to evade the question.”
http://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/25/a-question-of-begging/
If moral convictions are based on ethical principle it
begsraises the question of "what are those ethic principles?"
FTFY. Do you see why you are so very wrong? Or do you have an article from The Fresno Bee that trumps The New York Times?
If you were at a school like Stanford, you might have access to a few Latin classes where you would learn that the "original meaning of begging the question comes from a bad translation of petitio principia, literally a request (or beg) for the premise, which explains this problem."
So to say that moral convictions are based on ethical principles could raise the question, "What are those ethical principles?" but that question is a separate question entirely. Once more, you are engaging in a Gish Gallop.
►►► Fourth, according to your own words, "fairness, morality and justice dictate American law." What form that American law takes, it is dictated by those eternal principles - like a pot molded by the potter. Therefore, in recognizing that "moral convictions" and "religious convictions" can be separate concepts, then they have been molded by other eternal principles. This argument is due your own statements. You should be proud of beating yourself in a debate.
TL;DR: Please take a Latin class at Fresno State so you can actually learn what petitio principia (i.e. "begs the questions") actually means. Hint: it does not mean "raises the question."
http://i.imgur.com/zVfyR6S.jpg
I stopped taking you seriously a long time ago, but to make the pedestrian mistake about the faux meaning of "begs the question" is so classically amateurish.
If you need help finding a Latin tutor in Fresno, let me know. I might have a few contacts if you can afford a private tutor. If you still fail to understand why "begs the question" is not equivalent to "raises the question," you can always blame the tutor for failing to teach you.
http://i.imgur.com/jAMkbar.jpg
Remember, you freely chose to walk away from your claim that saying moral convictions could be based on non-religious beliefs is "a bold statement and a faulty one." Your non-response and refusal to defend your arguments is an unconditional admission that you are completely wrong. Here are your words, so I will hold you to your own standards:
No one has forced you to defend your statements.... If you want to back down and not defend your arguments that's your decision. Know, though, that if you do, then what you said was meaningless.
