Alglenne (45):
"So, Do you agree that I have accurately represented the argument that is implied in your first post?"
Anything but!!
From post 1 of this thread:
I have often seen or heard it argued that people have to earn other peoples respect ...
I want to argue that every human being has the right to respect from every other human being ...
Why should anyone have to earn the respect of any other person?
Were you not asserting here that "People should not have to earn other people's respect"?
Were you not using the argument that "Every human being has the right to respect from every other human being" as a premise to support that assertion?
Were you not implying that "IF every human being has the right to respect from every other human being THEN people should not have to earn other people's respect"?
If so, then I believe I have accurately represented your argument with my syllogism and the only question is whether or not you were using the same definition of the word "respect" throughout your argument. IF you were not THEN your argument contains the logical fallacy of equivocation and it is a semantics problem rather than a philosophical problem. IF you were THEN this is indeed a philosophical question and we need to examine your premises.
Here is my syllogism again:
P1: IF every human being has the right to respect(1) from every other human being
THEN people should not have to earn other people's respect(2).
P2: Every human being has the right to respect(1) from every other human being.
C: People should not have to earn other people's respect(2).
If this does not accurately represent the argument you were making in post 1, please explain why not.