Register to Comment
Page 1075 of 1156 FirstFirst ... 75 575 975 1025 106510731074107510761077 1085 1125 ... LastLast
Results 10,741 to 10,750 of 11558
Like Tree3847Likes
  1. #10741
    StarryPlough01 StarryPlough01 is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    8,830

    Quote Originally Posted by nozzferrahhtoo View Post
    If you say so I am not one for labels. I have been told my positions on things match certain labels before, and when I dig into the label I find about 60% of the label matches me and the rest doesn't. I think people too keen, sometimes, to LABEL what you espouse in order to put it in a box. But all too often I do not fit in the box provided.

    So I prefer to offer my positions, and consider the positions of others, on their own merits, rather than on the merits of the closest fitting label. But that is just me I guess. YMMV
    I'm detached from labels. I've been called a feminist (as a slur), baby killer on here...
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #10742
    A Voice A Voice is offline
    A Voice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,283

    Quote Originally Posted by nozzferrahhtoo View Post
    If you keep claiming 2+2=5 then I would have form too in saying that no, 2+2 actually equals 4.

    Since you have form in attacking arguments I have not made...... such as attacking an "analogy" (which was not even an analogy, but you can not even tell the difference) for not achieving something that it was never intended to...... then I will of course reject refutation that does not apply.

    Why would I do otherwise?



    Except no you have not. You have repeatedly INDICATED that you take exception to it, but you have not "repeatedly" shown anything wrong with it. You have not even shown anything wrong with it ONCE.

    You claimed this "repeatedly" lie yesterday too, and I showed (but you edited it out of my reply and ignored it entirely, how convenient) that in fact you only had 9 posts on the thread at that point, and NONE of them did what you claimed they did. Let alone "repeatedly".

    Perhaps in your imagination you have done it "repeatedly" but I can not comment on your imaginary worlds. I can only comment on what you have ACTUALLY POSTED on the thread. And nowhere on this thread have you refuted anything I said on the matter.



    That is simply a blantant, outright, transparent and demonstrable lie from you right there. I have dealt with every single post you have made on this thread to me. The only one failing to deal with my points, my critiques, and my stance here is you. Well not the only one. Your dodge-a-lot cohorts Marshal and Calculus do it too.

    But dodging the substance of every one of my points, and then accusing OTHERS of dodging.... really is just dripping in fetid desperation from you at this point. I have dodged nothing, you have. And pretence that the opposite is true is not going to change what is there in black and white for all to see.
    Quote Originally Posted by Me
    You prefer to discharge more clouds of verbiage instead.
    Quote Originally Posted by nozzferrahhtoo View Post
    Not true. It is YOU that prefers to use the length of my posts as one of your stock off the shelf dodge tactics when you simply fail, in every way it is possible to fail, at dealing with a single point I make.
    You sure about that? You able to do a word count on the stuff you write??

    If your stuff was any good it would be a different matter.

    Your hopeless argument that it's fine to kill a developing human being on Day X but somehow not fine on Day X + 1 will not get any better in the repeating, however long those repetitions are.

    And your crummy analogies (look up the word; you clearly don't understand it) fail to bolster it.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #10743
    Ellen Ripley Ellen Ripley is offline
    Ellen Ripley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    5,330

    Quote Originally Posted by nozzferrahhtoo View Post
    Lots of people do. But all I can do to that is point out that the moment you tell me X is becoming Y, or is in the process of becoming Y..... then by default you have conceded my position that X is NOT Y. Because generally you can not be becoming something AND be that something at the same time.

    And I am happy to have people make such a concession.



    But that is incoherent because as I said the moment you concede that X is based on Y............. then it is incoherent to apply X to an entity that entirely lacks Y.

    It is you not providing any logical necessity when if Y is absent we should apply X solely because the entity is on a path where it potentially might acquire Y.

    And further there is CERTAINLY no logical necessity on offer why we should not only do that, but do it in such a way as to supersede the free choice of entities that DO have Y.......... in this case the pregnant mother seeking an abortion.

    So the "argument from potential", which is basically what you are adumbrating here, is not coherent to me and it is it, not my position, that is lacking in people offering the logical necessities for it.
    Your entire argument in support of abortion rests on: if a foetus is really only the potential for a human being, then it's okay to obliterate it because it doesnít have feeling yet, and it hasnít made any world-changing discoveries yet, or broken any world records yet.
    If your "unassailable" logic stands then it is okay to end anything and anyone that doesnít evoke feeling in you right now, or possess some quality that you deem acceptable 'achievement'.

    That's entirely ludicrous, and AV and TS have comprehensively proven this to you, concisely and 'coherently', several times.

    So, how about a newborn, which isn't really all that useful? Or undergraduate students? They have emotion and some of them might be pretty smart, maybe even capable of a Nobel Prize or something someday, but right now itís just potential. Should I be paying for my 10-year-old's piano lessons at all? His playing sucks right now, but maybe....nah, just potential.

    And after we do whatever great things we do with our short lives, we really arenít very valuable because we've already done what we could do, so...

    See? The problem with dismissing the Ďpotentialí argument is that all we are and ever have been is potential. Potential for greatness, success, love, hate, victory, strength, honour, courage; and yet you dismiss the greatest potential of all-- the possibility of all these things, the potential for life- as unimportant.

    When you dismiss 'mere' potential you dismiss yourself, and what it means to be human.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #10744
    StarryPlough01 StarryPlough01 is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    8,830

    Quote Originally Posted by A Voice View Post
    You sure about that? You able to do a word count on the stuff you write??

    If your stuff was any good it would be a different matter.

    Your hopeless argument that it's fine to kill a developing human being on Day X but somehow not fine on Day X + 1 will not get any better in the repeating, however long those repetitions are.

    And your crummy analogies (look up the word; you clearly don't understand it
    ) fail to bolster it.
    I don't have to look up the word analogy.

    They were not analogies. FROGS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ABORTION.

    Choosing to save one twin over another is not an analogy either.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #10745
    StarryPlough01 StarryPlough01 is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    8,830

    Quote Originally Posted by Ellen Ripley View Post
    Your entire argument in support of abortion rests on: if a foetus is really only the potential for a human being, then it's okay to obliterate it because it doesn’t have feeling yet, and it hasn’t made any world-changing discoveries yet, or broken any world records yet.
    If your "unassailable" logic stands then it is okay to end anything and anyone that doesn’t evoke feeling in you right now, or possess some quality that you deem acceptable 'achievement'.

    That's entirely ludicrous, and AV and TS have comprehensively proven this to you, concisely and 'coherently', several times.

    So, how about a newborn, which isn't really all that useful? Or undergraduate students? They have emotion and some of them might be pretty smart, maybe even capable of a Nobel Prize or something someday, but right now it’s just potential. Should I be paying for my 10-year-old's piano lessons at all? His playing sucks right now, but maybe....nah, just potential.

    And after we do whatever great things we do with our short lives, we really aren’t very valuable because we've already done what we could do, so...

    See? The problem with dismissing the ‘potential’ argument is that all we are and ever have been is potential. Potential for greatness, success, love, hate, victory, strength, honour, courage; and yet you dismiss the greatest potential of all-- the possibility of all these things, the potential for life- as unimportant.

    When you dismiss 'mere' potential you dismiss yourself, and what it means to be human.
    There might be contending reasons why you should have an abortion. An individual should be able to evaluate the pros and cons to make a decision.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #10746
    A Voice A Voice is offline
    A Voice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,283

    Quote Originally Posted by StarryPlough01 View Post
    I don't have to look up the word analogy.

    They were not analogies. FROGS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ABORTION.

    Choosing to save one twin over another is not an analogy either.
    The issue concerned timelines for alcohol purchase and abortion.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #10747
    talkingshop talkingshop is offline
    talkingshop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    17,202

    Quote Originally Posted by Ellen Ripley View Post
    Your entire argument in support of abortion rests on: if a foetus is really only the potential for a human being, then it's okay to obliterate it because it doesn’t have feeling yet, and it hasn’t made any world-changing discoveries yet, or broken any world records yet.
    If your "unassailable" logic stands then it is okay to end anything and anyone that doesn’t evoke feeling in you right now, or possess some quality that you deem acceptable 'achievement'.

    That's entirely ludicrous, and AV and TS have comprehensively proven this to you, concisely and 'coherently', several times.

    So, how about a newborn, which isn't really all that useful? Or undergraduate students? They have emotion and some of them might be pretty smart, maybe even capable of a Nobel Prize or something someday, but right now it’s just potential. Should I be paying for my 10-year-old's piano lessons at all? His playing sucks right now, but maybe....nah, just potential.

    And after we do whatever great things we do with our short lives, we really aren’t very valuable because we've already done what we could do, so...

    See? The problem with dismissing the ‘potential’ argument is that all we are and ever have been is potential. Potential for greatness, success, love, hate, victory, strength, honour, courage; and yet you dismiss the greatest potential of all-- the possibility of all these things, the potential for life- as unimportant.

    When you dismiss 'mere' potential you dismiss yourself, and what it means to be human.
    Just to be clear, I haven't said that we absolutely are morally required to attribute moral value to a being that doesn't yet have consciousness and sentience, but his argument - that rationality and consistency require us to dismiss the potentiality, the "becoming" aspect is patently absurd.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #10748
    StarryPlough01 StarryPlough01 is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    8,830

    Quote Originally Posted by A Voice View Post
    The issue concerned timelines for alcohol purchase and abortion.
    They have a line, that's the RULE OF THE LAW.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #10749
    StarryPlough01 StarryPlough01 is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    8,830

    A rule is a line, a line is a rule. You can try and argue against that fact, but it won't go away.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #10750
    A Voice A Voice is offline
    A Voice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,283

    Quote Originally Posted by StarryPlough01 View Post
    They have a line, that's the RULE OF THE LAW.
    You don't seem to be disagreeing on the analogous relationship between the law in one area and nozzo's suggestion for another.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment