Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/22/10 01:48 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 11/22/10 01:16 AM, The-General-Public wrote: In case you didn't notice, this is a topic about abortion, not alligators. Seriously, I'm really not sure you noticed.

Re-read my posts. All I ever asked was for you to explain why a fetus deserved more consideration than a microbe. You're the one that went off the rails and thought I was part of some conspiracy to prove that you were an idiot. Granted, you've only proved that you're a slightly paranoid and unhinged pseudo-intellectual, so I guess you win.

So you understanding what I was trying to explain doesn't mean I succeeded in explaining it. Fair enough.

I think that 1+1=2 despite the fact that you probably would need 10 pages worth of explanation to teach that to a kindergartner(while intermittently complaining that you didn't want to talk about why 2 plus 2 equals 4)

You still haven't answered why it matters that you "never thought they were." It's kind of odd that you should drop the tangent most related to the thread while berating me for going off topic

I wanted to explain your opinion so I could discern why you believed what you did, not have you writhe and wiggle your way out of some imaginary logical trap.

and turning essentially anything you can into an insult.

You make it so easy.

At 11/22/10 07:01 AM, The-General-Public wrote: Re-read my posts. All I ever asked was for you to explain why a fetus deserved more consideration than a microbe.

All I ever asked != all I ever did was ask. That's kind of an important distinction to make. Cause I'm not saying you asked much more, though you were at a point much more specific.

"I'm just asking you to explain why you think that a Fetus deserves legal protection despite the fact that it can't think, feel, or express any preferences in regards to being aborted or not."

You're the one that went off the rails and thought I was part of some conspiracy to prove that you were an idiot.

Conspiracy? Paranoia?

What I accused you of doing is nothing uncommon or unnatural to debate. When someone sees a position they disagree with, they may and often do ask about it to expose flaws they generally expect to find. From the beginning you made it clear that you thought my position was flawed, and a little further down the road made it clear you expected to find flaws.

And all of that is really a rather minor part of my 'going off the rails.'

I think that 1+1=2 despite the fact that you probably would need 10 pages worth of explanation to teach that to a kindergartner(while intermittently complaining that you didn't want to talk about why 2 plus 2 equals 4)

I wasn't being sarcastic. You raised a fair point.

But sure. Let's say I demonstrate it by showing one apple, then two, and then saying essentially that the words "one" and "two" are labels to identify the amount of apples. So, basically, 1+1=2 gives us the rule, without having to think about anything in particular, like apples.

Should do the trick, while providing some insight beyond trivial memorization.

Now. If someone objects to that on the premise that apples can't be enumerated, the conversation might have to go a little bit longer. Kinda like... if someone objects to the premise that strictly normative inquiry inherently begs an infinite regression.

Here's some more childlike handicapped off-topic ranting... Generally, a particular position is based on generalities that apply to it. Exploring those generalities does not render the position off topic. It renders the generality on topic. Like for instance, the generality that a lack of proverbial steps-down-the-rabit-hole of normative inquiry does not render a particular philosophy logically incoherent - the premise for why the question I quoted at the beginning of this post was missing the point - the premise for why pro-life philosophy did not necessarily implicate a fetus' ability to think feel or express.

I wanted to explain your opinion so I could discern why you believed what you did, not have you writhe and wiggle your way out of some imaginary logical trap.

The 'trap' was inherent to your argument, and realized when you made it clear that "human preservation is the moral imperative" wasn't enough.

You make it so easy.

Considering that the better portion of your insults are name-calling paired with misrepresentations of me or what transpired between us. I'd say you're the one making it easy. I just seem to irk you enough for you to bother, rather unrelentingly.

Honestly. Is this suppose to discourage me or are you just venting?

And you still haven't answered why it matters that you "never thought they were."

Here. For context...

Me: The latter is apparent in the following: "while I guess that believing those things would be a logical implication of my personal beliefs about abortion/fetal rights, they're not required to be pro-choice."

You: I never thought they were,

Me: So what?

At 11/22/10 09:45 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

What I accused you of doing is nothing uncommon or unnatural to debate. When someone sees a position they disagree with, they may and often do ask about it to expose flaws they generally expect to find. From the beginning you made it clear that you thought my position was flawed, and a little further down the road made it clear you expected to find flaws.

not really

Honestly. Is this suppose to discourage me or are you just venting?

As if anyone could discourage you from writing these walls of text.
As If I could actually discourage you from writings these walls of text. Brevity is a virtue

At 11/23/10 02:13 AM, The-General-Public wrote: As if anyone could discourage you from writing these walls of text.
As If I could actually discourage you from writings these walls of text. Brevity is a virtue

So is answering questions. One you don't seem up to.

I get it that all your 6th grade friends are impressed when you write off something as stupid or irrelevant. But justbecause you declare it to be...doesn't mean it is.

At 11/23/10 02:27 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

Look who's back, I thought you'd been scared out of the topic for good.

At 11/23/10 02:13 AM, The-General-Public wrote: not really

Inquiry is a means to confirm or deny. Yes?

***

Almost immediately out of the gate, you tell me my philosophy would be logically coherent if I were to stop using mouthwash. That suggests a somewhat particular flaw. Such a sentiment tends to betray the notion that you're just curious.

Then, you continuously ask for clarification of my position, which you are sure abounds with flaws. And in fact, you use that prediction (that my position abounds with flaws) explicitly to make the case that my position does not stand up to scrutiny.

Brevity is a virtue

Some things I can and have tackled with brevity. Such things you've cut out and chosen not to respond to anyway, or have, in the past, rejected as valid statements - leading further defense to be more involved, and subsequent summary to be more involved.

***

And again I'll ask, what does it matter that you never thought the implications of your personal beliefs were required to be pro-choice?

At 11/23/10 03:02 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

Almost immediately out of the gate, you tell me my philosophy would be logically coherent if I were to stop using mouthwash. That suggests a somewhat particular flaw.

Maybe to you

Then, you continuously ask for clarification of my position, which you are sure abounds with flaws. And in fact, you use that prediction (that my position abounds with flaws) explicitly to make the case that my position does not stand up to scrutiny.

I made the case that you seemed to want to talk about anything (well, actually judging by the length of your posts, everything) except your feelings on abortion seemed to indicate that you had nothing useful to contribute.

Some things I can and have tackled with brevity. Such things you've cut out and chosen not to respond to anyway, or have, in the past, rejected as valid statements - leading further defense to be more involved, and subsequent summary to be more involved.

words breeding like rabbits

And again I'll ask, what does it matter that you never thought the implications of your personal beliefs were required to be pro-choice?

Because there are people who are pro-choice and not vegetarian. Want to try disproving that with your high school logic?

At 11/18/10 02:19 PM, The-universe wrote: It is impossible to give birth to a 2 month baby. The earliest born was James Elgin Gill and he was 4 months premature.

So, because I pointed out that your definition was wrong...(birth would be abortion by your definition), you point out that 2 month olds can't survive outside of the womb? Well, um, brilliant?

You're still wrong?

So yes, my definition still applies.

That is because murder and execution are differently defined. An abortion is not differently defined REGARDLESS of the cause. It DOES NOT matter if it is punishment or willingness, it is still an abortion nonetheless.

Murder and Execution are both the deliberate taking of human life, albeit for different reasons. While it may be fun to ignore similarities when it helps your case and ignore them when it hurts yor case, it's not intellectually honest. Which...pretty much sums up the rest of your post. You play semantics when your argument sucks, and point out obviousness when your case sucks and well....your case just sucks.

In fact, reading the rest of your argument, you don't make a single point. You just take shots and say "damn, you're stupid". I admittedly used some clumsy langage, but you ignored real distinctions, created fake ones, played semantics, and pointed out nonsense to ignore just how inane some of your arguments are.

At 11/18/10 03:42 PM, KillroyOmega wrote: It's not impossible, you just won't admit that. Slavery and rape are unethical because they involve violating the rights of others. To describe it simply, one can apply a rule to oneself that their body is their own, and if they do they must also apply it to all others. You can think of it as a simple math rule.

I actually addressed that. Without an objective morality to define my actions, you don't have rights. Rights are whatever society give you. So if society decides that slavery or rape or murder is ok...then it's ok. Bottom line. I know that's uncomfortable for many people, but that's the logical consequence of your argument. Society can simply decide away (as it repeatedly has) your rights away. And, while we can argue from today's morality that this is wrong...that morality could shift tomorrow. Slavery could come back into chiq. Or genocide. And without some final athority to appeal to, it is simply impossible to claim any moral basis on ANY of this.

Simply claiming "we have rights because we do" is nonsense. Slavery may be illegal today, but it was legal for millenia. Rape is now recognized inmarriage, bt that wasn't true before the 50s. Genocide was the norm, and in many parts of the world still is. If your money, your roperty, even your life, is beter used by the majority than yourself, then so be it. Majority rules and all.

Anyone who looks at how laws make something illegal today that was illegal yesterday, and simply asserts "that can't be done" is living in a fantasy.

At 11/18/10 03:48 PM, KillroyOmega wrote: The Bible actually originally claimed slavery to be morally acceptable (Or a pope did, whichever one doesn't really matter. Both are claimed to be direct words of God.) It also said that women were lesser than men.

There's a huge difference between the Pope and the Bible. But whatever.

The first instances of the rights of slavery and women came before Catholicism and Christianity were even thoughts.

The Bible predates Christianity. You really don't know what you're talking about at all do you? And no, the first instances of the rights of woman and slaves came from the Jews (that Old Testiment thingie in the Bible).

At 11/23/10 02:33 AM, The-General-Public wrote: Look who's back, I thought you'd been scared out of the topic for good.

Because I don't come here 24/7 and have a life and friends, you thought your idiocy had scared me away? Goodness, look at who is a self important little tit.

At 11/23/10 07:04 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

I actually addressed that. Without an objective morality to define my actions, you don't have rights.

You still don't know what rights are.

Rights are whatever society give you.

Ok, maybe you do

So if society decides that slavery or rape or murder is ok...then it's ok.

By society's definition it would be. It personally wouldn't be ok by my standards however.

Bottom line. I know that's uncomfortable for many people, but that's the logical consequence of your argument. Society can simply decide away (as it repeatedly has) your rights away. And, while we can argue from today's morality that this is wrong...that morality could shift tomorrow. Slavery could come back into chiq. Or genocide. And without some final athority to appeal to, it is simply impossible to claim any moral basis on ANY of this.

Well now you're getting it.

Simply claiming "we have rights because we do" is nonsense.

Not any more nonsensical than claiming that we do because God gives them to us. (I disagree with both statements)

Slavery may be illegal today, but it was legal for millenia. Rape is now recognized inmarriage, bt that wasn't true before the 50s. Genocide was the norm, and in many parts of the world still is. If your money, your roperty, even your life, is beter used by the majority than yourself, then so be it. Majority rules and all.

Absolutely. Which is why I, unlike most Americans, take the threat of religious extremists like you who want to criminalize abortion seriously.

a fetus is a parasite of the same species it's host is. what rights parasites have besides the rights their hosts giving them?

At 11/23/10 11:19 AM, satanbrain wrote: a fetus is a parasite of the same species it's host is. what rights parasites have besides the rights their hosts giving them?

I heard that argument used before, but the thing is that a baby (or a fetus) is not considered a parasite, because the woman serves her evolutionary purpose of reproducing.

You stupid stupid people. You embarrass the hell out of me.

It's not obvious to you that this issue was designed to spark debate because it's essentially unanswerable. You can't be staunch about it in either direction without turning part of your brain off. It, like the facade that we must all work 9-5 for the bulk of our lives is just a part of government control of the masses.

It boggles me that so many fell for it though.

It's like having the "I am a liar" paradox evolving into two groups of people arguing over whether I'm a liar or not.

At 11/23/10 01:19 PM, sharpnova wrote: You stupid stupid people. You embarrass the hell out of me.

It's not obvious to you that this issue was designed to spark debate because it's essentially unanswerable. You can't be staunch about it in either direction without turning part of your brain off. It, like the facade that we must all work 9-5 for the bulk of our lives is just a part of government control of the masses.

That's completely untrue. You can be completely intelligent, acknowledge and understand the points of view of both sides, and still be staunchly for one particular side.

At 11/23/10 11:22 AM, Ericho wrote: I heard that argument used before, but the thing is that a baby (or a fetus) is not considered a parasite, because the woman serves her evolutionary purpose of reproducing.

It is nourished from the woman's body and therefore the woman can decide if it'll live or die, whatever it's name is.

At 11/23/10 03:19 AM, The-General-Public wrote:

Almost immediately out of the gate, you tell me my philosophy would be logically coherent if I were to stop using mouthwash. That suggests a somewhat particular flaw.

Maybe to you

Well. Obviously to me. What's your point?

Then, you continuously ask for clarification of my position, which you are sure abounds with flaws. And in fact, you use that prediction (that my position abounds with flaws) explicitly to make the case that my position does not stand up to scrutiny.

I made the case that you seemed to want to talk about anything (well, actually judging by the length of your posts, everything) except your feelings on abortion seemed to indicate that you had nothing useful to contribute.

Is that like... in addition to what I wrote or suppose to be a correction?

And again I'll ask, what does it matter that you never thought the implications of your personal beliefs were required to be pro-choice?

Because there are people who are pro-choice and not vegetarian. Want to try disproving that with your high school logic?

You're answering a question I'm not asking.

***

Inquiry is a means to confirm or deny, yes?

At 11/23/10 11:22 AM, Ericho wrote: I heard that argument used before, but the thing is that a baby (or a fetus) is not considered a parasite, because the woman serves her evolutionary purpose of reproducing.

So what?

At 11/23/10 03:03 PM, satanbrain wrote: It is nourished from the woman's body and therefore the woman can decide if it'll live or die, whatever it's name is.

Is that an argument that they are capable or that they are morally justified?

At 11/23/10 11:19 AM, satanbrain wrote: a fetus is a parasite of the same species it's host is. what rights parasites have besides the rights their hosts giving them?

That's a bit disingenuous considering any other example would involve a parasite that isn't human. As if I should let tape worms kill me, if I'm pro-life.

At 11/19/10 07:54 PM, The-General-Public wrote: I certainly don't expect anyone here to agree with me when I say that pigs should have rights, or that infants aren't equal to an adult person in terms of personhood, but while I guess that believing those things would be a logical implication of my personal beliefs about abortion/fetal rights, they're not required to be pro-choice.

Ok. Can you supply a pro-choice rationale, which you deem equally or more adequate than yours, which does not imply that pigs should have more rights than a human fetus, nor that infants aren't equal to adults in terms of personhood?

At 11/23/10 10:33 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 11/23/10 03:03 PM, satanbrain wrote: It is nourished from the woman's body and therefore the woman can decide if it'll live or die, whatever it's name is.

Is that an argument that they are capable or that they are morally justified?

The fetus is fed from their own body, no one else but them are nourishing it. why is it immoral to want a foreign body stop feeding on one's energy and causing her pain?

At 11/23/10 03:03 PM, satanbrain wrote: It is nourished from the woman's body and therefore the woman can decide if it'll live or die, whatever it's name is.

I never said I was pro life, I was merely pointing out that from a scientific perspective, it is not proper to call a fetus a "parasite".

This is my third attempt at replying. What a fun filled rehash it's going to be.

At 11/23/10 07:04 AM, WolvenBear wrote: So, because I pointed out that your definition was wrong...(birth would be abortion by your definition), you point out that 2 month olds can't survive outside of the womb? Well, um, brilliant?

Nope. What I'm saying is, the limit one can have an abortion is earlier than the ability to survive an early pregnany (results may vary) and it can only be a fetus if it's developing in the womb.

But if my defintion doesn't suit you, then pick up a text book and fire one that's more accurate.

Murder and Execution are both the deliberate taking of human life, albeit for different reasons. While it may be fun to ignore similarities when it helps your case and ignore them when it hurts yor case, it's not intellectually honest. Which...pretty much sums up the rest of your post. You play semantics when your argument sucks, and point out obviousness when your case sucks and well....your case just sucks.

So hang on, murder and execution are exactly the same because they take another human life?....right. So unlawfully taking the life of another human being while comitting another felony, have prior knowledge of the killing, did so out of mercy or malice etc (look up first, second and third degree murder) is the exact same as taking another human life.

But guess what numb nuts, if someone executes another but executions are illegal, it actually IS murder. For it to be murder, it has to be legally established as such. Wow, way to go government!

On the other hand it is amusing you trying to compare gods (laughable) laws with those of government ones. Adultery isn't a crime, but then again according to god bears killing kids just because of a joke isn't a crime either.

But until you find me a defintion that states an abortion isn't an abortion because of the reason, then shout back. I wont reply to you until you do. You're wasting my kitchen building time.

In fact, reading the rest of your argument, you don't make a single point. You just take shots and say "damn, you're stupid". I admittedly used some clumsy langage, but you ignored real distinctions, created fake ones, played semantics, and pointed out nonsense to ignore just how inane some of your arguments are.

Hmm...that accusation sounds awfully similar to what another guy was saying about you. And coincidentally only after he mentioned it....

..Strange, isn't it? That you accuse him of doing the exact same thing he accused you of. Or maybe he's just fed up of your attitute so he's playing your game because you don't like being given what you dish out (otherwise you wouldn't of mentioned it).

At 11/23/10 07:04 AM, WolvenBear wrote: And without some final athority to appeal to, it is simply impossible to claim any moral basis on ANY of this.

IF anything the trend, over history, is for morality to become more 'liberal,' that is, it has generally come to be more inclusive of individuals and rights. You talk as if morality is a wholly arbitrary phenomenon, when it's not, and seem to shy away from the fact that, even if you acknowledge some final authority, morality is a dynamic thing. The existence of a deity-as-moral-authority does not preclude the shift of moral norms - the recognition of that deity and application of its rules by people may however supply moral norms as long as they are applied. A god doesn't solve anything.

At 11/24/10 08:46 AM, satanbrain wrote: The fetus is fed from their own body, no one else but them are nourishing it. why is it immoral to want a foreign body stop feeding on one's energy and causing her pain?

One thing at a time, since that's how you seem to want to reply to me. Is "no one else but them are nourishing it" a moral justification?

At 11/25/10 01:04 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

:: At 11/24/10 08:46 AM, satanbrain wrote:

The fetus is fed from their own body, no one else but them are nourishing it. why is it immoral to want a foreign body stop feeding on one's energy and causing her pain?

One thing at a time, since that's how you seem to want to reply to me. Is "no one else but them are nourishing it" a moral justification?

Yes because at any momeny they can decide they want to stop nourishing it and since it can't survive by itself it will die. Although if the fetus was already born they can't kill it since they chose to let it live before.

At 11/26/10 12:37 AM, satanbrain wrote: Yes because at any momeny they can decide they want to stop nourishing it and since it can't survive by itself it will die. Although if the fetus was already born they can't kill it since they chose to let it live before.

They may have chosen to let it live before, but can't they just, I dunno, jam a sock down it's throat, "and since it can't [breathe] is will die."?

At 11/26/10 09:37 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 11/26/10 12:37 AM, satanbrain wrote: Yes because at any momeny they can decide they want to stop nourishing it and since it can't survive by itself it will die. Although if the fetus was already born they can't kill it since they chose to let it live before.

They may have chosen to let it live before, but can't they just, I dunno, jam a sock down it's throat, "and since it can't [breathe] is will die."?

no because after it is born it can be fed not only by it's previous host, other people can take care of it, what can't be done when it's in the womb.

At 11/26/10 11:46 PM, satanbrain wrote: no because after it is born it can be fed not only by it's previous host, other people can take care of it, what can't be done when it's in the womb.

A "host" you say?
......Two human beings reproducing and somehow a type of "parasite" is made?
Yep, things like this conclude that thr world is fucked with a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire.

Well anyway I'm not gonna go through why abortion is wrong, could be seen as a necessity, like murder in self defense, but is wrong nonetheless.

I am a man so I can't have an abortion, WEWT! That is all.

At 11/27/10 12:58 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: I am a man so I can't have an abortion, WEWT! That is all.

WooHoo! Shaggy is back!

As I see from your youtube comments, you're still up to your old tricks. I can't wait for the:
"Stupid atheist evolutionists lol"
*rant*
"You're dumb you stupid evolutionist XD"
"I don't care lol"
"I'm leaving goodbye forever!"
*20 minutes later* "Stupid atheist evolutionist XD"

At 11/27/10 12:58 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: A "host" you say?
......Two human beings reproducing and somehow a type of "parasite" is made?
Yep, things like this conclude that thr world is fucked with a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire.

roflcopterzzzz; i agree with shaggy.
that is all.

no, i'm completely serious: its a terrible misuse of biological terminology.