Logically inconsistant, my ***

[imported_luckyme]

I used to be surprised at comments about Actions being 'logically inconsistant', now I rather expect a majority of people to commit that linkage.

Good poker players are already exposed to the concept that there are no two identical situtions and that the correct, logical answer always starts out with "it depends". IOW, the consistancy exists in the accurate application of logic to two different (but very similar looking) situations, not in the comparison of the answers to just some of the variables involved.
"I have AA UTG, I should raise because..."
is not logically inconsistant with "I have AA UTG, I shouldn't raise because..." if there is even one eensy,teensie variable that is different between the two specific situations it may sway the answer.

So, what is logically inconsistant with having a SOP of being against shooting people, but having no qualms about ventilating a burglar about to crowbar your child?

Not all humans are of equal value.
A burglar taking a crowbar to my child ranks just above sewer rats. A child taking a crowbar to a burglar approaching them is a brave li'l darlin.

It's not logically inconsistant to have two different ratings on "whacking people with crowbars". Positions aren't logical entities. The method of arriving at them may be.

So, it makes no sense to think it's logically inconsistant to be "against killing" but "ok with some wars". Or, not a supporter of abortion but willing to concede some exceptions. Or, for the death penalty but against mercy killing.

IOW, we can consider people to be intellectually honest if they are consistant in fairly applying equal logical rigor to each situation based on the same variety of underlying principles that touch on the case in question. Looking for 'intellectual honesty' in the approach to different situations is much more meaningful ( and a better character assessment) than thinking there is a way of judging logical consistancy from merely looking at 'positions' on non-identical situations.

I intend this as stimulative, not definitive, have at it.. luckyme