Notes on Excrement
What, in your opinion, is the compromise between truth—here defined as factual accuracy—and untruth?
It's one thing to talk about both sides and the superficial manifestations of behavior, but quite another—and rather dishonest, in fact—to demand parity between two different things.
In practice, your argument is exactly excrement; it has no practical value.
In trying to establish this bizarre parity, you've come so far as to make fallacious demands. And the reason you're doing so is, apparently, one of informational ignorance or simple cognitive failure.
You should try dealing in reality sometime. It really helps your credibility.
Alternately, you could try making sense.
There are problems about the comparion of paradigm valences there, but it is also reasonable to point out that some Muslims are bending over backward to ward off the terrorism. Some are even giving their lives. And when the terrorists score a win, those Muslims don't celebrate and congratulate one another.
Think of it this way:
Here's a question for you: One day your brother gives you a hundred thousand dollars. The next day, the police show up with proof that he robbed a bank. Do you tell the cops that they can't call your brother a bank robber? Of course not. Now, here's the second part: Do you insist that you're not a bank robber, didn't rob the bank, and thus are entitled to keep the money?
You do realize that we're all familiar with this phase of the discussion? You know, the one that suggests you have no idea what's going on in this thread? As evidenced by your late inquiry into fourteen months worth of shorthand. Or, you know, asking people to repeat what has been pointed out.
The actual issue Bells and Syne were discussing and your own quest to convince pro-choice to take a dive.
The problem really is the disrespect you're showing other people by constantly insisting on changes of subject.
I'm sorry, did you say rationally?
Where is the rational, affirmative assertion of personhood? Not just these fourteen months in particular, since we're on the point about stonewalling, but also the last forty-plus years? If it's so obvious that we should be able to see it as self-evident, why can't they explain it?
A fine hypothesis. Once we've appropriately struck the historical record and general rules of logic, you might actually have a chance of demonstrating it.
That is to say, have at it.
You like to make those stiff generalizations, but your specifics are pretty much impotent.
Every single one of them that isn't out there demonstrating in support of Dr. Means, so that abortion services can restart in Wichita, and the policy debate can continue without the spectre of terrorism.
Like I said, they're happy to harvest the fruit.
I would think the answer to that rather quite obvious. Earlier this month, Aitizaz Hasan gave his life to stop a suicide bomber from killing schoolchildren. In 2012, Malala Yousafzai took a bullet to the head for the sake of her schoolmates.
Who is going to take the blast for Dr. Means or her patients? You know, the doctor who was threatened with bombing if she provided abortion services in Wichita? And who was that anti-abortion activist who took a bullet for George Tiller?
What Hasan and Yousafzai have done is extraordinary. It's true, not everyone has the courage to face mortal fear. But, to the other, anti-abortion activists are celebrating their victory in Wichita.
What, you can't tell the difference?
And there's your conflation again. But there are a couple of things, here.
No, you had to manipulate words in order to craft this one.
The discussion at hand was Syne's attempt to manipulate pro-choice into pro-life in order to inflate support for anti-abortion policies. This opened a discussion of extremism. Bells responded by describing her idea of extremism as it relates to this subject. Syne then whipped out the classic insult that one only finds something extreme because they disagree with it. Bells retorted by explaining what she finds extreme. And, you know, you and I have been through this before, too; pro-choice is not in a conciliatory mood because we're far too accustomed to this routine. So your digression is just that, a digression.
What? You object that I find it adorable when people declare themselves the victor in an internet discussion?
Don't bother apologizing; her language only made it appear how you were looking for it to appear. That is, this one's entirely on you.
If I call a black man a nigger, but do it politely? Look, here we can come back to the whole question the GOP is wrangling with. If the fundamental message is offensive, is there really a suitable way to say it?
In the abstract, LACP is an intriguing proposition. But the discussion also has real effects. Those real effects do, in fact, influence people's responses to this persistent behavior.
No, I have said your demand for proof of negative is ridiculous because, in addition to being fallacious, there is no way to make a reasonable argument when the other side won't listen. I have also pointed out that personhood was granted at the outset with the intention of exploring other issues. One of those issues has been to demand we set aside the topic to argue over what has already been conceded.
The avoidance of the subject is thematically consistent with the misogyny thesis. As I have reiterated multiple times, now, it may be that the problem with the topic proposition is that in order to suspend a woman's human rights she must first have them.
And you will never accomplish that goal as long as your method is fallacious.
That's actually nearly funny, given that I've offered my argument for why I have a dryfoot abortion policy. What's lacking from the discussion is an affirmative assertion of personhood. The effect is demonstrable, and recorded. Pro-choice expresses its concerns about the impacts. Anti-abortion says those concerns are wrong, but won't discuss what the actual impacts will be.
So we're down to pointing out the misogyny? Sometimes, that's the way it goes. Yet your characterizations of the situation seem willful in their disregard for that history. Why is this?
What is so important about this issue that you're willing to disregard history, manipulate other people's words, pretend you have no clue what's going on in the discussion, and all these other classic trollbait maneuvers? You know, making demands for fallacy, declaring yourself the victor, and all that?
We need to call pro-lifers names? This isn't about them being a bunch of poopy-pants booger-eaters. This is about fundamental questions of life and quality of life, and the side demanding this argument isn't willing to take part in good faith. After a while, yes, they get called out on the behavior. And what's that? Warranted or not?
What is this determination to give over to bullies? Oh, goodness, they're treating that person horribly, but it might hurt their feelings to tell them that they're treating someone horribly, so I'm not going to get involved. How does that even make sense? When it gets down to the point that one can address the charge by simply answering the point, but refuses to do so in order to complain about the charge?
Fine with me. And thank you for the insight into your methods of botchery.
Please set the precedent by proving a negative.
Furthermore, you will be under the challenge of doing so when the judges of your argument have already decided that nothing you say will persuade them.
I mean, that's all you're asking of others.
You're still on it, even as you ask for the information:
Prove that the fetus is not a person? That mass murder is not taking place?
Hello?
____________________
Notes:
° does not hold consistent in the advocates' outlook throughout the theology — This is a long theological discussion, but the basic gist of it is that if a phrase from Jeremiah applies to God's blessing of life and therefore a rejection of abortion, it also applies to God's blessing of life and therefore the Divine Will that homosexuals should exist. But the first rule of religion in politics is that the doctrine asserted is issue-specific, and should not be carried outside those confines.
ElectricFetus said:
Merely a product of turning around Bell's exact words, the basic premise is the pro-life arguement is pro-choicers are demanding murder be legal, certainly they are just as convince of our evil and your are of theirs. You fail to again reconginize this and go off on a long winded irrelevent tangent.
What, in your opinion, is the compromise between truth—here defined as factual accuracy—and untruth?
It's one thing to talk about both sides and the superficial manifestations of behavior, but quite another—and rather dishonest, in fact—to demand parity between two different things.
In practice, your argument is exactly excrement; it has no practical value.
In trying to establish this bizarre parity, you've come so far as to make fallacious demands. And the reason you're doing so is, apparently, one of informational ignorance or simple cognitive failure.
Well if the phrase is "misogynist terrorist religous extermist" or something to that extend, I can see why they complain.
You should try dealing in reality sometime. It really helps your credibility.
So if pro-choicers don't openly condem such acts they must also be terrorists, is that what your saying?
Alternately, you could try making sense.
Why then have we not killed off most of the world muslism for being "terrorist" then?
There are problems about the comparion of paradigm valences there, but it is also reasonable to point out that some Muslims are bending over backward to ward off the terrorism. Some are even giving their lives. And when the terrorists score a win, those Muslims don't celebrate and congratulate one another.
Think of it this way:
(1) Misogyny: There are reasons why people perceive misogyny, including demonstrable disdain toward considering the negative impacts of the policy on women. This could, of course, be at least partially addressed by a rational, affirmative assertion of personhood, but here we are, fourteen months into this discussion and over forty years since Roe, and everyone is still waiting. And it would be one thing if those offended by the charge would put up some sort of rational response instead of whining about insults. Yeah, we get it; they don't like being called misogynists. They just want to behave misogynistically and how dare anyone call them out. But that's the thing; that second sentence is what they don't respond to. They can certainly make a rational argument that their behavior isn't misogynistic, but they're not even trying to do that. Think of those people of the classic David Duke persuasion; you know, they're not racist, but them coloreds is just criminals. So anti-abortion advocate wants this and this and this. But what about these impacts? I don't know, they won't discuss them. And when those impacts include challenging the gains toward equal standing in society women have achieved in recent decades, yes, there is more than just a whiff of misogyny about it.
(2) Terrorism: This one isn't hard, unless one isn't paying attention to the issue in general. There is and has for years been a low-key, persistent wave of terrorism against abortion clinics and medical professionals. And while it is one thing to condemn terrorism and say one has no part in it, that also means that often we must accept that openly encouraging murder doesn't contribute to that person's murder, and generally must accept that anti-abortion advocates are happy to enjoy the spoils of a terrorist's victory.
(3) Religious Extremist: In the first place, this life at conception defined as fertilization argument is based on mid- to late-twentieth century decontextualizations of Scripture. Secondly, that decontextualization is issue-specific, and does not hold consistent in the advocates' outlook throughout the theology°. Add to that the observable fact that this is a movement attempting to impose a religious outlook on other people through force of law, according to an unsubstantiated and perhaps insupportable thesis. Are we getting close, yet? Advocacy of violence, and even those who don't are willing to enjoy the gains? What, is it because they're mostly Christian, and not Muslim, that we need to give them a pass?
(2) Terrorism: This one isn't hard, unless one isn't paying attention to the issue in general. There is and has for years been a low-key, persistent wave of terrorism against abortion clinics and medical professionals. And while it is one thing to condemn terrorism and say one has no part in it, that also means that often we must accept that openly encouraging murder doesn't contribute to that person's murder, and generally must accept that anti-abortion advocates are happy to enjoy the spoils of a terrorist's victory.
(3) Religious Extremist: In the first place, this life at conception defined as fertilization argument is based on mid- to late-twentieth century decontextualizations of Scripture. Secondly, that decontextualization is issue-specific, and does not hold consistent in the advocates' outlook throughout the theology°. Add to that the observable fact that this is a movement attempting to impose a religious outlook on other people through force of law, according to an unsubstantiated and perhaps insupportable thesis. Are we getting close, yet? Advocacy of violence, and even those who don't are willing to enjoy the gains? What, is it because they're mostly Christian, and not Muslim, that we need to give them a pass?
Here's a question for you: One day your brother gives you a hundred thousand dollars. The next day, the police show up with proof that he robbed a bank. Do you tell the cops that they can't call your brother a bank robber? Of course not. Now, here's the second part: Do you insist that you're not a bank robber, didn't rob the bank, and thus are entitled to keep the money?
What two separate aspects of the issue have I misconstrued into one?
You do realize that we're all familiar with this phase of the discussion? You know, the one that suggests you have no idea what's going on in this thread? As evidenced by your late inquiry into fourteen months worth of shorthand. Or, you know, asking people to repeat what has been pointed out.
What two separate aspects of the issue have I misconstrued into one?
The actual issue Bells and Syne were discussing and your own quest to convince pro-choice to take a dive.
The problem really is the disrespect you're showing other people by constantly insisting on changes of subject.
What stonewalling? pro-lifers are here, now, talking calmly and rationally on this thread.
I'm sorry, did you say rationally?
Where is the rational, affirmative assertion of personhood? Not just these fourteen months in particular, since we're on the point about stonewalling, but also the last forty-plus years? If it's so obvious that we should be able to see it as self-evident, why can't they explain it?
Here a hypothesis, maybe the discussion is breaking down because pro-choicers are actively breaking it down with mindless hateful jabbering of the same level the pro-lifers provide.
A fine hypothesis. Once we've appropriately struck the historical record and general rules of logic, you might actually have a chance of demonstrating it.
That is to say, have at it.
You like to make those stiff generalizations, but your specifics are pretty much impotent.
Every single one of them?
Every single one of them that isn't out there demonstrating in support of Dr. Means, so that abortion services can restart in Wichita, and the policy debate can continue without the spectre of terrorism.
Like I said, they're happy to harvest the fruit.
Can we separate the good Muslims from the bad or do they overlap to greatly as well?
I would think the answer to that rather quite obvious. Earlier this month, Aitizaz Hasan gave his life to stop a suicide bomber from killing schoolchildren. In 2012, Malala Yousafzai took a bullet to the head for the sake of her schoolmates.
Who is going to take the blast for Dr. Means or her patients? You know, the doctor who was threatened with bombing if she provided abortion services in Wichita? And who was that anti-abortion activist who took a bullet for George Tiller?
What Hasan and Yousafzai have done is extraordinary. It's true, not everyone has the courage to face mortal fear. But, to the other, anti-abortion activists are celebrating their victory in Wichita.
What, you can't tell the difference?
I still see no reason we can discuss personhood here and now, on this thread, as it is title, it is not the pro-lifers that have brought up "terrorism", “perverts” or other diversions of the issue like this but you and Bells! Is any pro-lifers here talking about terrorizing abortion clinics? No, then I see no reason to raise the issue.
And there's your conflation again. But there are a couple of things, here.
(1) Personhood was conceded at the outset. Does that make it off limits? No, not specifically. But when it is the discussion one insists on having in lieu of the topic, it is a willful attempt to change the subject. And when that willful attempt to change the subject hinges on a refusal to make any affirmative assertion, the result is that the only reason we can't discuss personhood here and now is because the only discussion of personhood the anti-abortion advocates want to have is intended to distract from the question of what LACP does to women.
(2) You've been on this weird reconciliation trip, insisting that pro-choice make all sorts of concessions like validate fallacy and ignore history; you have also been told why pro-choice is not in a conciliatory, conceding mood. We are now onto a digression about whether or not it is appropriate to even consider why pro-choice is not prepared to simply surrender as you ask. And now here you are with this?
(3) Perverts? It is an inevitable consideration when the answer to public policy is to police women's sex lives. We've discussed this point and why it is important before. If you are not willing to rationally address the issue, then quit complaining.
(2) You've been on this weird reconciliation trip, insisting that pro-choice make all sorts of concessions like validate fallacy and ignore history; you have also been told why pro-choice is not in a conciliatory, conceding mood. We are now onto a digression about whether or not it is appropriate to even consider why pro-choice is not prepared to simply surrender as you ask. And now here you are with this?
(3) Perverts? It is an inevitable consideration when the answer to public policy is to police women's sex lives. We've discussed this point and why it is important before. If you are not willing to rationally address the issue, then quit complaining.
Bell's invented it not I.
No, you had to manipulate words in order to craft this one.
The discussion at hand was Syne's attempt to manipulate pro-choice into pro-life in order to inflate support for anti-abortion policies. This opened a discussion of extremism. Bells responded by describing her idea of extremism as it relates to this subject. Syne then whipped out the classic insult that one only finds something extreme because they disagree with it. Bells retorted by explaining what she finds extreme. And, you know, you and I have been through this before, too; pro-choice is not in a conciliatory mood because we're far too accustomed to this routine. So your digression is just that, a digression.
Is it possible to talk about the issue and not indirectly slander people? Adorable is your behavior, like a child, instead of talking about the issue, you make disparaging comments.
What? You object that I find it adorable when people declare themselves the victor in an internet discussion?
Are you telling me that Bells did not mean all prolifers, all prolifer groups, that she specified clearly that only some were perverts and only some were terrorist all this time? Well forgive me if her language made it appear she was speaking of all, at least now she said "some" when pressed to the point, so I think strawman or not she has made the alterations at least once as per my instigation.
Don't bother apologizing; her language only made it appear how you were looking for it to appear. That is, this one's entirely on you.
1)Well again we have pro-lifers here, that we are debating, no patiences is needed there behavior as so far been reasonable.
If I call a black man a nigger, but do it politely? Look, here we can come back to the whole question the GOP is wrangling with. If the fundamental message is offensive, is there really a suitable way to say it?
In the abstract, LACP is an intriguing proposition. But the discussion also has real effects. Those real effects do, in fact, influence people's responses to this persistent behavior.
I been asking repeated about us actually defining personhood, are you saying that we shouldn't try, that we need no ethical framework to validate abortion, because the otherside won't listen?
No, I have said your demand for proof of negative is ridiculous because, in addition to being fallacious, there is no way to make a reasonable argument when the other side won't listen. I have also pointed out that personhood was granted at the outset with the intention of exploring other issues. One of those issues has been to demand we set aside the topic to argue over what has already been conceded.
The avoidance of the subject is thematically consistent with the misogyny thesis. As I have reiterated multiple times, now, it may be that the problem with the topic proposition is that in order to suspend a woman's human rights she must first have them.
I personally would like the have my ethics sorted out before siding with any issue, regardless if the otherside will listen or not.
And you will never accomplish that goal as long as your method is fallacious.
We can provide an extensive argument for why a fetus does not have a right to life, why its not a person, yet your saying we should not waste the time? We need to call prolifers names instead, warranted or not?
That's actually nearly funny, given that I've offered my argument for why I have a dryfoot abortion policy. What's lacking from the discussion is an affirmative assertion of personhood. The effect is demonstrable, and recorded. Pro-choice expresses its concerns about the impacts. Anti-abortion says those concerns are wrong, but won't discuss what the actual impacts will be.
So we're down to pointing out the misogyny? Sometimes, that's the way it goes. Yet your characterizations of the situation seem willful in their disregard for that history. Why is this?
What is so important about this issue that you're willing to disregard history, manipulate other people's words, pretend you have no clue what's going on in the discussion, and all these other classic trollbait maneuvers? You know, making demands for fallacy, declaring yourself the victor, and all that?
We need to call pro-lifers names? This isn't about them being a bunch of poopy-pants booger-eaters. This is about fundamental questions of life and quality of life, and the side demanding this argument isn't willing to take part in good faith. After a while, yes, they get called out on the behavior. And what's that? Warranted or not?
What is this determination to give over to bullies? Oh, goodness, they're treating that person horribly, but it might hurt their feelings to tell them that they're treating someone horribly, so I'm not going to get involved. How does that even make sense? When it gets down to the point that one can address the charge by simply answering the point, but refuses to do so in order to complain about the charge?
No I don't see the self-evidence there.
Fine with me. And thank you for the insight into your methods of botchery.
Women's rights are unimportant if we don't prove that mass murder is not taking place. Why is it so hard to focus on proving a fetus is not a person, not deserving of a right to life over it hostess right to choice?
Please set the precedent by proving a negative.
Furthermore, you will be under the challenge of doing so when the judges of your argument have already decided that nothing you say will persuade them.
I mean, that's all you're asking of others.
Yeah please clarify these negative rational position you speak of again.
You're still on it, even as you ask for the information:
"Women's rights are unimportant if we don't prove that mass murder is not taking place."
Prove that the fetus is not a person? That mass murder is not taking place?
Hello?
____________________
Notes:
° does not hold consistent in the advocates' outlook throughout the theology — This is a long theological discussion, but the basic gist of it is that if a phrase from Jeremiah applies to God's blessing of life and therefore a rejection of abortion, it also applies to God's blessing of life and therefore the Divine Will that homosexuals should exist. But the first rule of religion in politics is that the doctrine asserted is issue-specific, and should not be carried outside those confines.