[imported_luckyme]

Madnak, I wasn't trying to probe the nature of statements, interesting as that is. I was pointing to where to look for logical consistancy. It's not in the derived positions/opinion because they are just static endings. The only place we can check for logical inconsistancy is in the structure used to get to those statements.

examples such as being 'for the death penalty' and 'against euthanasia' and 'against most abortion' and 'for civilian bombing at times' cannot be known if they are logically inconsistant until we hear the logic for each derived position.

Positions arise from premise-premise-premise some shuffling of variables and out pops our position on a situation. So until we see the validity and consistancy of the logic being applied in each case there is no way to state when simply hearing the derived positions that they are logically inconsistant.

Yet, we read comments to that effect. "how can you be for X and against Y ..that's logically inconsistant!" How could we know that from just the position level of comparison. Don't we have to hear the logic?

hope that's clearer, didn't mean to bog you down in specifics by the examples, lucky me.