Guest wbyeats@ireland.com Posted February 21, 2008 Posted February 21, 2008 On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 05:36:13 -0000, Justice 4 All <justice@hotmail.com> wrote: > >Euthanasia and selective negative eugenics of unwanted populations never >MAKES SENSE! To many people it is a clean and efficient way of ridding >society of those "UNWANTED" people such as inconvienent pregnancies, >dullards, ethnic minorities, and the criminally cumpulsive, as Margret >Sanger, argued for strenuously in the 1920's. Later Sanger formed the >women's clinic "Planned Parenthood", to carry out her ethnic, racial, and >intellectual cleansing of evil through planned abortion and forced >sterilization. After the attrocities of abortion and sterilization were >uncovered in NAZI Germany (of which Margaret Sanger and many other >Planned Parenthood founders AGREED with the NAZI butchers) were uncovered >to the world, she kept a low profile and told her followers that it may >take decades and even centuries for Planned Parenthood to once again >achieve full euthanasia and negative eugenics status, but they would >someday return to becoming an organization that would rid the world of >Negroes, Jews, and other inferior races, retards and cripples, the >criminally born no-gooders, and of course, unwanted pregnancies! > >Citations: http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm > >http://www.blackgenocide.org/negro.html > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger So Sanger's a creep. So what? To link pro-choice with the Nazis just doesn't compute no matter how hard you jump up and down and scream. It's like saying that clinic bombers and doctor killers are fully representative of the pro-life folks. Abortion has nothing to do with eugenics and everything to do with freedom of choice. The pro-life folks feel that every pregnancy should end with a child's birth - unfortunately they don't give a damn about that child's quality of life afterwards. WB Yeats Quote
Guest M_P Posted February 21, 2008 Posted February 21, 2008 On Feb 20, 6:22 pm, wbye...@ireland.com wrote: > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:45:23 -0800 (PST), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> > wrote: > >On Feb 20, 1:05 pm, wbye...@ireland.com wrote: > >> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:15:48 -0800 (PST), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >On Feb 20, 11:56 am, wbye...@ireland.com wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:50:32 -0800 (PST), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> >On Feb 20, 9:58 am, wbye...@ireland.com wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:58:49 -0500, Pastor Dave > >> >> >> <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:26:01 -0800, "sandman" > >> >> >> ><sand...@hotmail.com> spake thusly: > > >> >> >> >>Reality check. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>For centuries women have been making tough choices, but the right choices. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>Abortionis the poor persons' method of birth control. > > >> >> >> >It is murder! > > >> >> >> Your opinion based upon what? The immortal soul? That's belief and not > >> >> >> fact. That human life is sacred? It's not human (yet). > > >> >> >Here's my basis: > >> >> > > >> >> >In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to > >> >> >not be killed---the only reasonable alternative to blatant species-ism > >> >> >is to START WITH the position that reasoning free-willed individuality > >> >> >(such as is possessed by adult humans) is unique in its ethical > >> >> >significance, and thus that all who possess reasoning free-willed > >> >> >individuality are persons. But we can't stop there, because this group > >> >> >does not include infants, who have almost without exception in Western > >> >> >history been regarded as persons. The extension of "all who possess > >> >> >reasoning free-willed individuality" to include infants seems clear: > >> >> >they have the potential to develop reasoning free-willed > >> >> >individuality. So all who possess, or have the potential to get, > >> >> >reasoning free-willed individuality are persons. This definition of > >> >> >"person" clearly includes all unborn humans, from conception till > >> >> >birth. > > >> >> Beep - wrong. These 'persons' to which you refer cannot exist on their > >> >> own, have no free will, > > >> >Both are also true of newborns, who are nonetheless persons. > > >> Newborns being the key phrase here. > > >The key here is that the criteria you proposed for nonpersonhood are > >true not only of unborn humans but also newborn ones. > > Born is a person per se Says you ... I've presented an argument otherwise, and your attempted rebuttals have thus far failed. > Dumbo. If you must stoop to namecalling, at least don't be juvenile. > >> >> etc; In other words these 'persons' are little > >> >> more than biological parasites. Potential is not actuality. > > >> >Straw man ... I didn't argue that potential is actuality, but that > >> >both confer personhood. > > >> Potential doesn't confer anything except..........potential. > > >Feel free to rebut my argument to the contrary. > > Already did. Tried but failed. > >> >> These > >> >> 'persons' also have the potential to be flushed down the toilet. > > >> >And born persons have the potential to be killed. So what? Potential > >> >for not-X does not disprove potential for X. > > >> Born being the key word here. > > >The key is that since born persons' potential to die doesn't negate > >their potential for other things, neither does unborn persons' > >potential to die negate their potential for other things. > > No such thing as an unborn person by definition. Person denotes birth By whose definition? And why should anyone accept that definition? > - unborn denotes no such thing. Your premise if false hence all else > that follows. > > >> >> There > >> >> is no divine spark in humans > > >> >Another straw man ... I said nothing about anything divine. > > >> Then why do you feel that unborn zygotes are anything besides > >> ........... unborn flotsam. > > >I already told you why in the dozens of lines I posted after "Here's > >my basis." > > >> >> - we're merely the top of the > >> >> evolutionary ladder - at present. > > >> >> >(I could stop right there, except that "potential" needs to be more > >> >> >sharply specified. One could argue that a human gamete---sperm or > >> >> >egg---has the potential to develop reasoning free-willed individuality > >> >> >by first fusing with a complementary gamete. This is true in a certain > >> >> >sense of "potential"---but that is a vastly different sense than > >> >> >applies to zygotes. A zygote has the DNA of one particular human > >> >> >individual; a gamete has an incomprehensibly larger range of > >> >> >possibilities---namely, the possibility to fuse with any one of the > >> >> >incomprehensibly large number of possible complementary gametes---and > >> >> >thus has a vastly different potential to achieve any one of those > >> >> >possibilities.) > > >> >> Shoulda, woulda, coulda - not is. > > >> >Straw man ... I didn't argue that potential is actuality, but that > >> >both confer personhood. > > >> Beep - wrong again - see above. > > >Right back at ya. > > Potential doesn't confer anything except potential by definition. Again with the alleged definitions. Provide a link to your source. > There's no actuality involved, Wrong ... what an entity has potential for says something about what that entity now is (which, please note carefully, is NOT to say that what it has the potential for is identical to what it now is). > your premise false, ergo all else that > follows false > . > >> >> Tell ya what - you keep your nose > >> >> out of other folks business > > >> >Should the slavery abolitionists have just kept their noses out of > >> >other folks' business? > > >> Talk about straw man - not on point. > > >Look up "straw man" ... it has nothing to do with being on or off > >point. > > You're throwing up an argument that's both false and not to the point. > What else would you call it? Here's a real definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/straw%20man American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition straw man A made-up version of an opponent's argument that can easily be defeated. To accuse people of attacking a straw man is to suggest that they are avoiding worthier opponents and more valid criticisms of their own position: "His speech had emotional appeal, but it wasn't really convincing because he attacked a straw man rather than addressing the real issues." > >> Slaves were born beings. > >> Comprende? > > >No shit, Sherlock. How was their enslavement the abolitionists' > >business? > > You're going around in circles again. Equating slaves with the unborn > - your argument - No, that's not my argument. Stop clumsily putting words in my mouth and answer the question. > is patently false as the living and the not-living > are never one in the same, premise false, argument falls flat again. > Try and keep up and on point. > > >> >> and I'm sure they'll respond in kind. BTW > >> >> - how do you feel about capital punishment? > > >> >For it, assuming the target has committed a heinous crime, which is > >> >never true of unborn persons. > > >> Your philosophy is now bankrupt - you're now killing real people. > > >People who have killed (or grievously harmed) other people ... very > >different from killing innocent unborn people. > > Life is life. There's no gradations. Otherwise you're inconsistent > again. Nonsense ... the right not to be killed is obviously not absolute, or else I'd have to condemn people who kill their attackers in self- defense. The only inconsistency is in your fevered imagination. > >> >> The right to die? > > >> >I'm not sure whether it's a "right" but I'm skeptical that government > >> >efforts to prevent suicide do more good than harm. > > >> Not talking about suicide here - if you feel that folks have a right > >> to life then why should they have any right to end their life of pain? > > >Consult a dictionary ... that is suicide, like it or not. > > The definition is outdated.Death with dignity does not fit with the > definition of suicide whether assisted or not. So you get to make up definitions that fit your preconceptions, and reject established definitions that don't fit your preconceptions. How convenient for you. Quote
Guest wbyeats@ireland.com Posted February 21, 2008 Posted February 21, 2008 On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:38:18 -0800 (PST), M_P <m_p@rocketmail.com> wrote: >On Feb 20, 6:22 pm, wbye...@ireland.com wrote: >> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:45:23 -0800 (PST), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> >> wrote: >> >On Feb 20, 1:05 pm, wbye...@ireland.com wrote: >> >> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:15:48 -0800 (PST), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >On Feb 20, 11:56 am, wbye...@ireland.com wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:50:32 -0800 (PST), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >On Feb 20, 9:58 am, wbye...@ireland.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:58:49 -0500, Pastor Dave >> >> >> >> <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:26:01 -0800, "sandman" >> >> >> >> ><sand...@hotmail.com> spake thusly: >> >> >> >> >> >>Reality check. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>For centuries women have been making tough choices, but the right choices. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Abortionis the poor persons' method of birth control. >> >> >> >> >> >It is murder! >> >> >> >> >> Your opinion based upon what? The immortal soul? That's belief and not >> >> >> >> fact. That human life is sacred? It's not human (yet). >> >> >> >> >Here's my basis: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to >> >> >> >not be killed---the only reasonable alternative to blatant species-ism >> >> >> >is to START WITH the position that reasoning free-willed individuality >> >> >> >(such as is possessed by adult humans) is unique in its ethical >> >> >> >significance, and thus that all who possess reasoning free-willed >> >> >> >individuality are persons. But we can't stop there, because this group >> >> >> >does not include infants, who have almost without exception in Western >> >> >> >history been regarded as persons. The extension of "all who possess >> >> >> >reasoning free-willed individuality" to include infants seems clear: >> >> >> >they have the potential to develop reasoning free-willed >> >> >> >individuality. So all who possess, or have the potential to get, >> >> >> >reasoning free-willed individuality are persons. This definition of >> >> >> >"person" clearly includes all unborn humans, from conception till >> >> >> >birth. >> >> >> >> Beep - wrong. These 'persons' to which you refer cannot exist on their >> >> >> own, have no free will, >> >> >> >Both are also true of newborns, who are nonetheless persons. >> >> >> Newborns being the key phrase here. >> >> >The key here is that the criteria you proposed for nonpersonhood are >> >true not only of unborn humans but also newborn ones. >> >> Born is a person per se > >Says you ... I've presented an argument otherwise, and your attempted >rebuttals have thus far failed. You've presented nothing. To say that a person can be both born and unborn is contradictory. >> Dumbo. > >If you must stoop to namecalling, at least don't be juvenile. It fits. >> >> >> etc; In other words these 'persons' are little >> >> >> more than biological parasites. Potential is not actuality. >> >> >> >Straw man ... I didn't argue that potential is actuality, but that >> >> >both confer personhood. >> >> >> Potential doesn't confer anything except..........potential. >> >> >Feel free to rebut my argument to the contrary. >> >> Already did. > >Tried but failed. Potential - what something MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be capable of. Actuality - what a person IS capable of. Comprende? >> >> >> These >> >> >> 'persons' also have the potential to be flushed down the toilet. >> >> >> >And born persons have the potential to be killed. So what? Potential >> >> >for not-X does not disprove potential for X. >> >> >> Born being the key word here. >> >> >The key is that since born persons' potential to die doesn't negate >> >their potential for other things, neither does unborn persons' >> >potential to die negate their potential for other things. >> >> No such thing as an unborn person by definition. Person denotes birth > >By whose definition? And why should anyone accept that definition? By every definition there is - both biologically and realistically. If you don't accept accurate definitions that's your problem and nobody else's. >> - unborn denotes no such thing. Your premise if false hence all else >> that follows. >> >> >> >> There >> >> >> is no divine spark in humans >> >> >> >Another straw man ... I said nothing about anything divine. >> >> >> Then why do you feel that unborn zygotes are anything besides >> >> ........... unborn flotsam. >> >> >I already told you why in the dozens of lines I posted after "Here's >> >my basis." >> >> >> >> - we're merely the top of the >> >> >> evolutionary ladder - at present. >> >> >> >> >(I could stop right there, except that "potential" needs to be more >> >> >> >sharply specified. One could argue that a human gamete---sperm or >> >> >> >egg---has the potential to develop reasoning free-willed individuality >> >> >> >by first fusing with a complementary gamete. This is true in a certain >> >> >> >sense of "potential"---but that is a vastly different sense than >> >> >> >applies to zygotes. A zygote has the DNA of one particular human >> >> >> >individual; a gamete has an incomprehensibly larger range of >> >> >> >possibilities---namely, the possibility to fuse with any one of the >> >> >> >incomprehensibly large number of possible complementary gametes---and >> >> >> >thus has a vastly different potential to achieve any one of those >> >> >> >possibilities.) >> >> >> >> Shoulda, woulda, coulda - not is. >> >> >> >Straw man ... I didn't argue that potential is actuality, but that >> >> >both confer personhood. >> >> >> Beep - wrong again - see above. >> >> >Right back at ya. >> >> Potential doesn't confer anything except potential by definition. > >Again with the alleged definitions. Provide a link to your source. Look at any dictionary for p-o-t-e-n-t-i-a-l. >> There's no actuality involved, > >Wrong ... what an entity has potential for says something about what >that entity now is (which, please note carefully, is NOT to say that >what it has the potential for is identical to what it now is). So what? >> your premise false, ergo all else that >> follows false >> . >> >> >> Tell ya what - you keep your nose >> >> >> out of other folks business >> >> >> >Should the slavery abolitionists have just kept their noses out of >> >> >other folks' business? >> >> >> Talk about straw man - not on point. >> >> >Look up "straw man" ... it has nothing to do with being on or off >> >point. >> >> You're throwing up an argument that's both false and not to the point. >> What else would you call it? > >Here's a real definition: > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/straw%20man >American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition >straw man > >A made-up version of an opponent's argument that can easily be >defeated. To accuse people of attacking a straw man is to suggest that >they are avoiding worthier opponents and more valid criticisms of >their own position: "His speech had emotional appeal, but it wasn't >really convincing because he attacked a straw man rather than >addressing the real issues." Exactly - like you trying to equate slaves (born) with fetuses (unborn). Falls apart at once as there is no comparison. >> >> Slaves were born beings. >> >> Comprende? >> >> >No shit, Sherlock. How was their enslavement the abolitionists' >> >business? >> >> You're going around in circles again. Equating slaves with the unborn >> - your argument - > >No, that's not my argument. Stop clumsily putting words in my mouth >and answer the question. That was your argument - no one is putting words in your mouth. "Should the slavery abolitionists have kept their nose out of other people's business." That was your answer where you equate abolition of BORN folks with the protection of unborn entities - doesn't work. >> is patently false as the living and the not-living >> are never one in the same, premise false, argument falls flat again. >> Try and keep up and on point. >> >> >> >> and I'm sure they'll respond in kind. BTW >> >> >> - how do you feel about capital punishment? >> >> >> >For it, assuming the target has committed a heinous crime, which is >> >> >never true of unborn persons. >> >> >> Your philosophy is now bankrupt - you're now killing real people. >> >> >People who have killed (or grievously harmed) other people ... very >> >different from killing innocent unborn people. >> >> Life is life. There's no gradations. Otherwise you're inconsistent >> again. > >Nonsense ... the right not to be killed is obviously not absolute, or >else I'd have to condemn people who kill their attackers in self- >defense. The only inconsistency is in your fevered imagination. Okay - so you see gradations in who should be able to live and who should not. Ergo - life is sacred except where I say it is not? Doesn't work. Self defense was never brought up. >> >> >> The right to die? >> >> >> >I'm not sure whether it's a "right" but I'm skeptical that government >> >> >efforts to prevent suicide do more good than harm. >> >> >> Not talking about suicide here - if you feel that folks have a right >> >> to life then why should they have any right to end their life of pain? >> >> >Consult a dictionary ... that is suicide, like it or not. >> >> The definition is outdated.Death with dignity does not fit with the >> definition of suicide whether assisted or not. > >So you get to make up definitions that fit your preconceptions, and >reject established definitions that don't fit your preconceptions. How >convenient for you. Okay - then death by lethal injection by an MD is a form of suicide. Okay? Happy now? That doesn't negate anything I've said. I'm done here but feel free to continue to chase your tail - you just might catch it someday. WB yeats Quote
Guest M_P Posted February 21, 2008 Posted February 21, 2008 On Feb 21, 11:01 am, wbye...@ireland.com wrote: > On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:38:18 -0800 (PST), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> > wrote: > >On Feb 20, 6:22 pm, wbye...@ireland.com wrote: > >> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:45:23 -0800 (PST), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >On Feb 20, 1:05 pm, wbye...@ireland.com wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:15:48 -0800 (PST), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> >On Feb 20, 11:56 am, wbye...@ireland.com wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:50:32 -0800 (PST), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >On Feb 20, 9:58 am, wbye...@ireland.com wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:58:49 -0500, Pastor Dave > >> >> >> >> <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:26:01 -0800, "sandman" > >> >> >> >> ><sand...@hotmail.com> spake thusly: > >> >> >> >> >>Reality check. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >>For centuries women have been making tough choices, but the right choices. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >>Abortionis the poor persons' method of birth control. > > >> >> >> >> >It is murder! > > >> >> >> >> Your opinion based upon what? The immortal soul? That's belief and not > >> >> >> >> fact. That human life is sacred? It's not human (yet). > > >> >> >> >Here's my basis: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to > >> >> >> >not be killed---the only reasonable alternative to blatant species-ism > >> >> >> >is to START WITH the position that reasoning free-willed individuality > >> >> >> >(such as is possessed by adult humans) is unique in its ethical > >> >> >> >significance, and thus that all who possess reasoning free-willed > >> >> >> >individuality are persons. But we can't stop there, because this group > >> >> >> >does not include infants, who have almost without exception in Western > >> >> >> >history been regarded as persons. The extension of "all who possess > >> >> >> >reasoning free-willed individuality" to include infants seems clear: > >> >> >> >they have the potential to develop reasoning free-willed > >> >> >> >individuality. So all who possess, or have the potential to get, > >> >> >> >reasoning free-willed individuality are persons. This definition of > >> >> >> >"person" clearly includes all unborn humans, from conception till > >> >> >> >birth. > > >> >> >> Beep - wrong. These 'persons' to which you refer cannot exist on their > >> >> >> own, have no free will, > > >> >> >Both are also true of newborns, who are nonetheless persons. > > >> >> Newborns being the key phrase here. > > >> >The key here is that the criteria you proposed for nonpersonhood are > >> >true not only of unborn humans but also newborn ones. > > >> Born is a person per se > > >Says you ... I've presented an argument otherwise, and your attempted > >rebuttals have thus far failed. > > You've presented nothing. To say that a person can be both born and > unborn is contradictory. Now you're becoming unhinged. Show where I said that a person can be both born and unborn. > >> Dumbo. > > >If you must stoop to namecalling, at least don't be juvenile. > > It fits. A diaper fits you, it seems. > >> >> >> etc; In other words these 'persons' are little > >> >> >> more than biological parasites. Potential is not actuality. > > >> >> >Straw man ... I didn't argue that potential is actuality, but that > >> >> >both confer personhood. > > >> >> Potential doesn't confer anything except..........potential. > > >> >Feel free to rebut my argument to the contrary. > > >> Already did. > > >Tried but failed. > > Potential - what something MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be capable of. Actuality > - what a person IS capable of. Comprende? That's not a rebuttal, since my argument doesn't assume that potential is the same as actuality. Comprende? > >> >> >> These > >> >> >> 'persons' also have the potential to be flushed down the toilet. > > >> >> >And born persons have the potential to be killed. So what? Potential > >> >> >for not-X does not disprove potential for X. > > >> >> Born being the key word here. > > >> >The key is that since born persons' potential to die doesn't negate > >> >their potential for other things, neither does unborn persons' > >> >potential to die negate their potential for other things. > > >> No such thing as an unborn person by definition. Person denotes birth > > >By whose definition? And why should anyone accept that definition? > > By every definition there is - Another unsupported claim from you. Provide quotations or links ... or stand self-exposed as an ignorant blowhard. > both biologically "Person" is not a biological concept. Try again. > and realistically. Provide evidence for your claim. > >> >> >> There > >> >> >> is no divine spark in humans > > >> >> >Another straw man ... I said nothing about anything divine. > > >> >> Then why do you feel that unborn zygotes are anything besides > >> >> ........... unborn flotsam. > > >> >I already told you why in the dozens of lines I posted after "Here's > >> >my basis." > > >> >> >> - we're merely the top of the > >> >> >> evolutionary ladder - at present. > > >> >> >> >(I could stop right there, except that "potential" needs to be more > >> >> >> >sharply specified. One could argue that a human gamete---sperm or > >> >> >> >egg---has the potential to develop reasoning free-willed individuality > >> >> >> >by first fusing with a complementary gamete. This is true in a certain > >> >> >> >sense of "potential"---but that is a vastly different sense than > >> >> >> >applies to zygotes. A zygote has the DNA of one particular human > >> >> >> >individual; a gamete has an incomprehensibly larger range of > >> >> >> >possibilities---namely, the possibility to fuse with any one of the > >> >> >> >incomprehensibly large number of possible complementary gametes---and > >> >> >> >thus has a vastly different potential to achieve any one of those > >> >> >> >possibilities.) > > >> >> >> Shoulda, woulda, coulda - not is. > > >> >> >Straw man ... I didn't argue that potential is actuality, but that > >> >> >both confer personhood. > > >> >> Beep - wrong again - see above. > > >> >Right back at ya. > > >> Potential doesn't confer anything except potential by definition. > > >Again with the alleged definitions. Provide a link to your source. > > Look at any dictionary for p-o-t-e-n-t-i-a-l. I shouldn't be doing your homework for you ... you're lazy enough as it is ... but look how the dictionary doesn't say what you claim it does: American Heritage Dictionary po·ten·tial (pə-těn'shəl) n. 1. The inherent ability or capacity for growth, development, or coming into being. 2. Something possessing the capacity for growth or development. > >> There's no actuality involved, > > >Wrong ... what an entity has potential for says something about what > >that entity now is (which, please note carefully, is NOT to say that > >what it has the potential for is identical to what it now is). > > So what? So you're wrong to claim "There's no actuality involved." > >> >> >> Tell ya what - you keep your nose > >> >> >> out of other folks business > > >> >> >Should the slavery abolitionists have just kept their noses out of > >> >> >other folks' business? > > >> >> Talk about straw man - not on point. > > >> >Look up "straw man" ... it has nothing to do with being on or off > >> >point. > > >> You're throwing up an argument that's both false and not to the point. > >> What else would you call it? > > >Here's a real definition: > > > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/straw%20man > >American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition > >straw man > > > >A made-up version of an opponent's argument that can easily be > >defeated. To accuse people of attacking a straw man is to suggest that > >they are avoiding worthier opponents and more valid criticisms of > >their own position: "His speech had emotional appeal, but it wasn't > >really convincing because he attacked a straw man rather than > >addressing the real issues." > > Exactly - like you trying to equate slaves (born) with fetuses > (unborn). Falls apart at once as there is no comparison. Get a grownup to explain this to you. IF I tried to equate slaves and fetuses, that would NOT be a straw man under the definition I posted. However, since I have NOT equated slaves and fetuses, your claim that I did IS a straw man. > >> >> Slaves were born beings. > >> >> Comprende? > > >> >No shit, Sherlock. How was their enslavement the abolitionists' > >> >business? > > >> You're going around in circles again. Equating slaves with the unborn > >> - your argument - > > >No, that's not my argument. Stop clumsily putting words in my mouth > >and answer the question. > > That was your argument - no one is putting words in your mouth. > "Should the slavery abolitionists have kept their nose out of other > people's business." That was your answer Correct so far. > where you equate abolition > of BORN folks "Abolition of born folks"? That doesn't even make sense. > with the protection of unborn entities - doesn't work. To compare opposing slavery to opposing abortion is NOT to "equate" slaves and fetuses, no matter how often you stamp your little feet and insist it is. Will you finally answer the question, or just continue to duck, weave, and dodge: How was slavery the abolitionists' business? > >> >> >> and I'm sure they'll respond in kind. BTW > >> >> >> - how do you feel about capital punishment? > > >> >> >For it, assuming the target has committed a heinous crime, which is > >> >> >never true of unborn persons. > > >> >> Your philosophy is now bankrupt - you're now killing real people. > > >> >People who have killed (or grievously harmed) other people ... very > >> >different from killing innocent unborn people. > > >> Life is life. There's no gradations. Otherwise you're inconsistent > >> again. > > >Nonsense ... the right not to be killed is obviously not absolute, or > >else I'd have to condemn people who kill their attackers in self- > >defense. The only inconsistency is in your fevered imagination. > > Okay - so you see gradations in who should be able to live and who > should not. Yes. > Ergo - life is sacred Never said that ... that's yet another of your straw men. > except where I say it is not? [...] > > >> >> >> The right to die? > > >> >> >I'm not sure whether it's a "right" but I'm skeptical that government > >> >> >efforts to prevent suicide do more good than harm. > > >> >> Not talking about suicide here - if you feel that folks have a right > >> >> to life then why should they have any right to end their life of pain? > > >> >Consult a dictionary ... that is suicide, like it or not. > > >> The definition is outdated.Death with dignity does not fit with the > >> definition of suicide whether assisted or not. > > >So you get to make up definitions that fit your preconceptions, and > >reject established definitions that don't fit your preconceptions. How > >convenient for you. > > Okay - then death by lethal injection by an MD is a form of suicide. > Okay? Happy now? That doesn't negate anything I've said. I'm done here Flee, lazy coward, flee. Quote
Guest Pastor Dave Posted February 22, 2008 Posted February 22, 2008 On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 07:01:33 -0800, wbyeats@ireland.com spake thusly: >On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 07:38:02 -0500, Pastor Dave ><ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:58:28 -0800, wbyeats@ireland.com >>spake thusly: >> >>>On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:58:49 -0500, Pastor Dave >>><ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:26:01 -0800, "sandman" >>>><sandman@hotmail.com> spake thusly: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Reality check. >>>>> >>>>>For centuries women have been making tough choices, but the right choices. >>>>> >>>>>Abortion is the poor persons' method of birth control. >>>> >>>>It is murder! >>> >>>Your opinion based upon what? >> >>It's a life. Then it's killed. But hey, no hypocrisy >>in charging people for murder, if they kill an >>unborn child, right? I mean it's not hypocrisy >>to call it legal when the mother and her doctor >>does it, right? > >It's not a life - both biologists and the courts agree. Sorry, you're a liar. >>>>>--When the sperm provider is not good father material, and not who you would >>>>>choose to father your child.. >>>> >>>>Then don't spread your legs! >>> >>>And that has worked how well over the past million years or so? >> >>So then make all murders legal. After all, >>the law hasn't prevented murder and by >>your logic, if people do it, then it should >>be legal. > >That leap of logic didn't clear anything. It isn't murder. There's no >divine spark being lost - just a parasite who has not been born and is >not a human. If males gave birth, the right to an abortion would be in >the first amendment. Now you're an idiot. And btw, good thing your mother didn't look at you like a parasite, huh? Btw, it is murder, if someone other than the doctor does it, with the mother. Look it up, you lying idiot. Now goodbye to you, moron. -- Healing after abortion: http://www.rachelsvineyard.org/ Quote
Guest Pastor Dave Posted February 22, 2008 Posted February 22, 2008 On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:37:38 -0500, US spake thusly: >On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:58:49 -0500, >Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote: > >>It is murder! > >If that bothers you, you should be objecting to the >mass murders of Bush and Cheney. Ah, you're stupid too, huh? Bye now! -- "An earthly kingdom cannot exist without any quality of persons. Some must be free, some surfs, some rulers, some subjects." - Martin Luther Quote
Guest * US * Posted February 23, 2008 Posted February 23, 2008 On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:28:21 -0500, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote: >... stupid too ... That's why you can't prioritize. Bush has caused increases in abortions, but he's mass-murdered a million totally innocent people with his terrorism. On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:58:49 -0500, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote: >It is murder! If that bothers you, you should be objecting to the mass murders of Bush and Cheney. Quote
Guest * US * Posted February 23, 2008 Posted February 23, 2008 On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:28:21 -0500, Pastor Liar Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote: >"An earthly kingdom cannot exist without any quality >of persons. Some must be free, some surfs [sic], some rulers, >some subjects." - Martin Luther Luther never said that. You're still merely a servant of the lie. On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:58:49 -0500, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote: >It is murder! If that bothers you, you should be objecting to the mass murders of Bush and Cheney. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.