It's very sly of you to sneak the 'giving differences choices' in there, but I'm not fooled.
wasn't trying to "fool" anyone. it was a poor choice of wording: informing is what i defined it as previously
You can argue in favor of a particular stance, and provide information on said stance. Hence 'informing' and 'urging' aren't mutually exclusive.
i will concede that it depends a lot upon circumstances: perhaps if you are on a debate team, you can argue that there is the possibility of "informing" and "urging" at the same time... perhaps if you are trying to enlighten or educate while also trying to promote a position
however, given the circumstances as quoted by Cap and argued by you (the family member urging abortion) then the situation is completely different and gets relegated to sphere's of influence. then said situation becomes a matter of coercion. there was
no indication (or statement) that
said opinion was requested, it was simply stated that said family member would urge abortion: this indicated that said member would utilise influence over a child to effect a specific outcome, thus it can be stated to be coercion and not a matter of choice.
Once does not need to be 'unbiased' to provide information, and I'd argue that an unbiased person is very rare indeed.
truly all people are biased. however, information (especially in these kinds of cases, meaning emotionally charged) should be given by third parties without a vested interest in certain outcomes. perhaps you see a benefit in a passionate argument in favour of certain outcomes due to belief, but IMHO i feel that a logical assessment without emotional baggage provides a much better viewpoint
So you are claiming that it is information, but providing this information would not count as 'informing' someone? I don't agree.
that is your prerogative.
consider this, though: not everyone has the same life experiences. thus anecdotal information or experiences cannot always be applied equally because of the inevitability of change as well as the subjectivity of perspective. We can see this in simple things like: parachuting. it is a wholly different experience to become a human "lawn dart" with a round chute than use a square chute. the basic premise is the same- jump out of a perfectly good airplane. however, both experiences, though charged with adrenaline and beautiful to behold and experience are about as much the same as the difference between rolling to a stop on a motorcycle and hitting a wall at 25 miles an hour.
anecdotal evidence, or personal perspectives, may well have "information" that is relevant (this is your position), but they
cannot necessarily be applied to the situation because not all people experience the exact same things the exact same way because each person is their own world of experiences and coloured by their own past and perspectives. this is most evident when you take eye-witness testimony in any crime scene with more than one person. you will have a crowd of people witness and live through the exact same thing and you usually have just as many different versions of what happened as there are people (and a lot of times, a person will change details based upon what they hear/overhear from another). Opinion, anecdote, experiences etc are all subjective to the individual.
Is this why left-wingers are so keen on censorship? Because they think being exposed to various opinions and perspectives is 'dangerous'. Hoo boy.
so your defense on this is to throw around ad hominem because you cannot thing of a logical argument for your position? imagine that... of course, that is kinda like throwing a tantrum because you can't get your way, right? are you going to call me a commie next? or simply denigrate the logical argument as some emo-posted drivel?
that would mean, by definition, that you don't approve of other opinions and that you don't feel anyone with a logical argument should be considered if you have a different opinion about a subject, right? isn't that a little Dunning-Kruger? or are you being narcissistic?
lets get a few things straight:
1- i am not left wing (nor right wing- i have no wings. i am not affiliated nor do i feel like minded with a political party)
2- i despise censorship in ALL forms
3- this is not about exposure to new ideas, so keep on topic: (summarized) Cap said he would urge for abortion, and you wanted to know how urging was coercion... then you altered this and went with:
I want someone, anyone, to demonstrate to me how arguing in favor of a particular action reduces the choices available to the audience
this was answered by more than just i... however, if you want a recap, i can give it from all parties making said argument against you... just in case you missed it, or are ignoring it (kinda like where you ignored my point about :
1- i hate party lines
2- i am neither liberal nor conservative. PERIOD. i consider myself a Truck Captain (RET) and Veteran. and i personally despise politics and religion (not a faith: there is a difference)
i posted: because you are elder or parental doesn't mean you have all the facts or know every detail about the situation
Nobody claimed this. However, elders and parents do (sometimes) have your best interests at heart, and (sometimes) have more life experience, and (sometimes) can look at your situation with a more clinical eye.
sometimes... you do realise that you are actually supporting my argument here, right?
lets get some more things clear, shall we?
1- i didn't say anyone claimed it, did it?
2- elders and family, friends, etc always claim to have your best interests at heart (and maybe they do, or try to) but that doesn't mean that they are actually thinking of your best interest, nor does it mean that they don't have ulterior motives or biases that you do not wish to accept
this also doesn't mean that their opinion
really is your best choice- it doesn't mean that their good intentions are
in any way what is really in your best interest!
in fact, if you will remember: it is
their opinion, and the decision must be the one
the deciding individual can live with, as
they are
ultimately responsible.
3- life experiences really are the meat of the problem - but as stated above: people can go through the exact same life experiences and take away completely different lessons (see: eyewitness testimony argument)
4- sometimes is not every time. you even note that all people are biased, so how is this more clinical or logical?
5- this is just actually proving
my point: the assumption of authority or greater experience is the tool of
coercion
Now, if you read my post, you will see, above, my comment about eyewitness testimony. this is the exact same thing: just because you have been there doesn't mean things are exactly the same, nor does it mean that you will perceive things exactly as another person. this cannot be stressed enough.
the actual point and conversation started because of your anger over people judging Cap. the argument Cap gave was: he would urge his daughter to have an abortion. this is tantamount to coercion. there was
NO indication of request for opinion or personal experience which you are now arguing -this is a distraction, or red herring.... why are you trying to shift the argument?
Why are you now focused on arguing "left wing" or ad hominem, pushing censorship etc?
As you admit, urging is not about reducing the total number of choices, therefore urging by its very nature is not anti-choice. Therefore all the outrage about Capracus being anti-choice is unjustified. Q.E.D.
1- urging is not about the
total number of choices, however, it
does reduce the choices available to an individual through selective pressures, so, it is anti-choice, especially when given without request.
2- all the "outrage" is justified because there was no indication Cap was requested to share opinion. it was simply a statement of: i would urge abortion
3- you are arguing a point of perceived moral superiority without comprehending the argument fully
4- just because you don't believe (through your own cultural training) that parental figures can have ulterior motivations doesn't mean it is not true
5- just because you don't understand the differences between choice and coercion doesn't mean it aint coercion (perhaps you should go back through the thread and re-read the arguments again... specifically, read about coercion, the definition, and how peer, family, social etc pressures can force a person into making decisions)
you are circling, IMHO
your argument has twisted itself into a knot of confusion and you keep coming back to Cap.
IOW - you are simply trying to justify your own position with circular reasoning. this is similar to Conspiracy Ideation or Trolls who argue about scientific matters like AGW with no evidence (or debunked evidence- i am
NOT trying to introduce a new topic, so don't bother trying to argue the science there). You can see this same tactic explained in this article:
http://phys.org/news/2014-10-ironclad-logic-conspiracy-theories.html
it appears, IMHO, that since you have no legitimate points or argument, you will simply apply semantic games, ad hominem, distractions or red herrings from the topic, intentional misrepresentations and accusations,
Non sequitur and circular logic to press your position, much like in the article.
