Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Abortion Discussion
Options
Comments
-
-
My most urgent point of curiosity is... why are you now referring to yourself in the third person?Ah... so it's possible you are claiming you've explained to Absolam several times in the past the flaws in his criteria for "human being", but in fact were thinking of some other criteria for something else entirely? Which will remain unspecified and unquoted, as well as unrelated?
Possible, but unlikely. Mainly I think you sharply overestimate the attraction of trawling your posting history for a recollection I'm pretty confident is broadly accurate, and even more confident would dealt with further lengthy exercises in splitting tangential hairs than any good-faith acknowledgement of the essential point.
You don't feel "fictional" is a remarkably strong and uncivil claim, even in the context of this otherwise routine exercise in "links or it didn't happen"? Who knows, maybe if you escalate a few more steps I might actually find that sheer infuriation overcomes laziness, so perhaps it's worth the try.Hmm. So if you think I've failed to define something else to your satisfaction at some point (without getting into anything like specifics), that in some way substantiates a claim that's fictional? I can't really see it, sorry.
I'm pretty sure if you had, you'd be able to quote it.
As I recall, what you sought to imply was that they weren't genetically distinct at all, and thus you didn't have any real argument you were able to stand up on the point. Feel free to refresh my memory if you did, or have salvaged one since.And yet I didn't say that an absence of totipotence is what makes a genetically distinct tumour not a human being either. If you want to offer the argument feel free... it's just not mine
But since you're now using the "totipotence" point I helpfully supplied to you positively left and right, "I would rather you just said 'thank you', and went on your way."
This is all by the by, in any case. It would largely suffice to produce a definition of any of these consistent with your use of the terminology and underlying point(s) in the present.
In your own time.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Well, you seem to have managed to find it all the same, unlike all the other posts you didn't manage to quotealaimacerc wrote: »Better to link to individual posts rather than a entire page of them, ideally, btw.
Really?alaimacerc wrote: »Yes, it was pretty poor, but those others won't suffice for what you're aiming at either: they rely on "individual" and "person", respectively.
Encyclopedia Brittanica
human being (Homo sapiens), a culture-bearing primate that is anatomically similar and related to the other great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning.
doesn't seem to include either individual or person. Which is not to say a definition of human being that includes either individual or person doesn't suffice for what I'm aiming at, just that some people don't like it.0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't understand the mentality of those people. They chose to abort the foetus or "their son" as they put it, and then they asked the UK clinic to send the ashes to them by courier.
Then when the ashes arrive they complain about it not being a proper funeral. I do feel sorry for them though, they must be physically, mentally and emotionally drained.
Now that's sarcasm....
0 -
-
-
-
aloyisious wrote: »Now that's sarcasm....
Oh. Sorry recedite. Still drinking my first cuppa, not quite awake.
0 -
Oh, it was where you expressed your distaste for a particular kind of argument; I didn't need to imagine emotions on your behalf
I never once said you needed to do it. I just pointed out where you WERE doing it. Imagining emotions I never expressed, and words I never said, has been a bit of an MO from you through the conversation so far.I wonder would it be the case if they had been pro choice posters. I understand, and I'm sure given the opportunity you'd say you'd find the same thing equally poor and unconvincing from a pro choice poster.
I am happy to point out bad arguments from both sides when I see them and explain why I think they are bad. For example the Pro Choice movement has many people who make the appeal to rape fallacy. I never use rape in the argument about abortion. A fetus either has a right to life, or it does not. I do not see the mother having been raped as an argument therefore to allow abortion. Because if a fetus DID have rights, then why would we remove the rights of entity X because of a crime committed on Y by some person Z?
Thankfully however since I see no arguments being put forward at all, much less from you, that a fetus should have rights at all, let alone specifically the right to life, the rape argument is less than relevant to me.No, I haven't; I still think it's a difficult assertion to prove.Well, I'm sure you know your own mind Well, again what you actually said was
I can see you like irrelevant post fillers on your mission to dissect the posts you reply to into as many tiny sections as possible, but really telling me what my own words were is superfluous to requirements. I am more than aware of what I said, and what I mean by what I said. I am happy to repeat: Peoples personal beliefs are of no concern to me, until such time as they are either proselytizing them or using them to influence public law or policy.You're telling me people are making this statement; I'm telling you I'm not seeing anyone making it.
I am telling you what my experience of the arguments being made by the anti choice side effectively boil down to. You might not see it but that does not mean it is not there. It happens all the time. The "potential" argument of what a zygote has the potential to be or become in the future permeates the discourse on this topic and if you have not seen it, then it is only for want of looking. And I am merely pointing out a simple linguistic fact that you have not once rebutted, but dodged which is this: If something is becoming something else, or has the potential to be that something else, then by definition it is not that something else now.I'm not so sure; you've yet to substantitate the claim that anyone is offering the arguments you're arguing against, for instance.
Except I have, but your capacity to ignore things is unrivaled on this thread. Every thread on this forum debating abortion, for example, including this very thread here and the last recent pages of it, are permeated by the "potential" argument of what a Zygote could or may become. If you choose to ignore it to feed this narrative you have invented of me arguing against things that are not there, then so be it.And yet you still seem rather exercised by the notion that posters might assert their views unchallenged, and perform all kinds of linguistic feats to back track when asked to do so. that seems rather conflicted.
I recognize that this is a debate and discussion forum. And I am here to debate and discuss. There appears to be two kinds of people on the forum. Those that are happy to debate, discuss and substantiate their views.... like myself.... and those who wish to simply soap box an idea or definition or claim, and then duck dodge and weave and essentially cop out of any and all requests to engage on those things. Like you.Which is all well and good; what I was wondering was whether you could see that a human zygote has more in common with a human adult than a blueprint for a chair has in common with a chair.Maybe you just didn't realise how germane it was to your not at all throw away filler comment then?
Nothing germane about it, the distinction was a real one, and a useful one to make. As is the analogy between blueprints. As far as the analogy goes the answer is a clear "no" I do not see how one has more in common than the other. They are both essentially a set of instructions for building something that they, in and of themselves, are not. They are blue prints for building X but are not themselves X. And while the analogy appears to bother you you have neither discussed it, explained your issue with it, nor refuted it as of yet.And as I pointed out; it wasn't intended to support the notion, you simply read it that way. Which begs the question are you simply reading other similar propositions the same way, and failing to consider that the point being offered is not the one you think it is.
Had there been only one or two examples of this then it might be a useful bit of introspection to consider that point. However given not just some or many but the VAST majority of arguments I hear from the Anti Choice side have fit this narrative exactly, you can rest assured that introspection was performed a long time ago and the answer is "no".So, if for instance the word Human is used in a discussion, and then the words"Human being" and "Human rights" are also used, is the first always used in order to jump to the second and third, or is it at all possible that all three might appear cogently in a discussion, without any desire to link the three in some sort of magical trifecta that creates some sort of mystical power argument?
Of course it is possible. Which is why one explores the context at the time, engages the speaker on their arguments and what exactly they are trying to say, and then finds out if one's suspicions are well founded or not. I do not have some simplistic parsing system that if I hear the three phrases used in the one paragraph I instantly dismiss it as being the linguistic trickery I describe. I continue to engage with the speaker until such time as I evaluate if they are selling the narrative I describe. And invariably the answer is yes.I still can't see where you think people who would offer this line of argument think they will end up?
Odd given I described already where I believe they think they will end up. I am happy to repeat it again however to accommodate your ongoing failure in this regard. The point is that people on both sides of the argument agree that the right to life should be accorded human beings. So the linguistic trickery narrative that these people sell is simply designed to accord the status of "human being" to the fetus as early as possible in the fetus, in an attempt to get people who are Pro Choice to reverse their position due to the fetus being a human being deserving of a right to life.
But as we have seen, there have BEEN no arguments on this thread, or any other thread on this entire boards.ie forum on the subject of abortion, that has coherently argued the position that the zygote or fetus has any attributes to usefully assign the status of "Human Being" to. Much less from you.It's not really linguistic trickery to point out you said what you said.
Pointing out someones words is one thing, assigning meaning to them that is not there is another. I repeat my point again and you are free to distort it once again as you see fit: Given no one has managed to argue that the blob HAS interests, pointing out existence in terms of its interests at all is one of the irrelevant red herrings you have in your repertoire.0 -
Oh. Did you not saynozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I never once said you needed to do it. I just pointed out where you WERE doing it. Imagining emotions I never expressed, and words I never said, has been a bit of an MO from you through the conversation so far.
I thought you did.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Not sure what this has to do with the text you are replying to in which I was pointing out your need to imagine emotions on my behalf that I never expressed.
Great stuff.. I'm sure it will be interesting to see you pointing out the pro choice posters bringing "Human" into the conversation in an attempt to jump from that word to any other contextual use of the word "Human".nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I am happy to point out bad arguments from both sides when I see them and explain why I think they are bad. For example the Pro Choice movement has many people who make the appeal to rape fallacy. I never use rape in the argument about abortion. A fetus either has a right to life, or it does not. I do not see the mother having been raped as an argument therefore to allow abortion. Because if a fetus DID have rights, then why would we remove the rights of entity X because of a crime committed on Y by some person Z?
It seems hardly worth mentioning if it's less than relevant to younozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Thankfully however since I see no arguments being put forward at all, much less from you, that a fetus should have rights at all, let alone specifically the right to life, the rape argument is less than relevant to me.
I admit, i tend to dissect them into the discrete statements being made, so that unlike what you just did there, I don't combine three different points under discussion into one. To take them in order;nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I can see you like irrelevant post fillers on your mission to dissect the posts you reply to into as many tiny sections as possible, but really telling me what my own words were is superfluous to requirements. I am more than aware of what I said, and what I mean by what I said. I am happy to repeat: Peoples personal beliefs are of no concern to me, until such time as they are either proselytizing them or using them to influence public law or policy.
Pointing out the original assertion under discussion as distinct from the tangent you took is neither irrelevant or a post filler, it's simply steering back on topic.
If you're going to tell me what you think of what I think you think, I'm likely to poke fun at what you're thinking.
If you say you never said something that you did say, I'll probably quote it back to you.
But you said it's what people actually did, which is not at all the same as what you think it effectively boiled down to. And, as I said, I'm not seeing anyone doing it.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I am telling you what my experience of the arguments being made by the anti choice side effectively boil down to.
It might be that you think it effectively boils down to it all the time, when in fact they may be different points being forward, and it's the effective boiling down that's the issue. It's difficult to tell, when no one is putting forward that argument and the only thing we have to go on is your opinion of how it effectively boils down.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »You might not see it but that does not mean it is not there. It happens all the time.
Which, on the face of it before effectively boiling it down would appear to be a different argument from bringing "Human" into the conversation in an attempt to jump from that word to any other contextual use of the word "Human" in order to manufacture arguments that are not actually there?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »The "potential" argument of what a zygote has the potential to be or become in the future permeates the discourse on this topic and if you have not seen it, then it is only for want of looking.
Is that a linguistic fact? Anyway, I'm pretty sure I didn't dodge it;I've been saying that I'm not seeing anyone making the argument you're opposing. In fairness, you have now updated from X becomes Y therefore wasn't Y to including the word potential (is that as an alternative to 'becoming'?).nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »And I am merely pointing out a simple linguistic fact that you have not once rebutted, but dodged which is this: If something is becoming something else, or has the potential to be that something else, then by definition it is not that something else now.
If someone does want to argue that the thing will become human, therefore something, you're obviously well prepared. I just don't think anyone is arguing it.
And, as I said before, (you see, I really wasn't dodging it) it seems fairly apparent that at some point that this particular thing which is composed of human material will leap from being a thing to being human (with whatever various adjective you choose), and deserving of some level of human rights, including the right to life. Based on that, it seems your objection can't be based on the factuality of humanness (I did at that point introduce another fuzzy concept there, apologies again) since there can be no doubt that the leap you described does at some point occur, and more on when that leap occurs.
To be fair though, you've only just added 'potential' to your 'becoming' argument, so it does kind of look like you're trying to tack something on there in order to give the appearance that what you're saying is actually relevant to posts on the thread, when the unamended assertion wasn't....nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Except I have, but your capacity to ignore things is unrivaled on this thread. Every thread on this forum debating abortion, for example, including this very thread here and the last recent pages of it, are permeated by the "potential" argument of what a Zygote could or may become. If you choose to ignore it to feed this narrative you have invented of me arguing against things that are not there, then so be it.
I always thought there were heaps of different kinds of posters on the forum, but I'll admit I usually concern myself more with what's being posted than the posters, so it's certainly possible I'm wrong.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I recognize that this is a debate and discussion forum. And I am here to debate and discuss. There appears to be two kinds of people on the forum. Those that are happy to debate, discuss and substantiate their views.... like myself.... and those who wish to simply soap box an idea or definition or claim, and then duck dodge and weave and essentially cop out of any and all requests to engage on those things. Like you.
You put two points together there, so regarding the germane one; if you feel the need to pontificate on whether you'd require people to have abortions or not, how they would react to that requirement or lack thereof seems perfectly germane to the statement you offered.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Nothing germane about it, the distinction was a real one, and a useful one to make.
I see. But I really wanted to get a good idea of your thinking behind the analogy. Personally, I have to say I do find issues with the analogy, which is why I was trying to get an idea of your thinking. For instance;nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »As is the analogy between blueprints. As far as the analogy goes the answer is a clear "no" I do not see how one has more in common than the other. They are both essentially a set of instructions for building something that they, in and of themselves, are not. They are blue prints for building X but are not themselves X. And while the analogy appears to bother you you have neither discussed it, explained your issue with it, nor refuted it as of yet.
A blueprint describes how to build a chair. Left as is, it will never be a chair; it will always be a blueprint. We might, I suppose, artificially amend it, reconstruct it and make it part of a chair, but if we leave it as we found it, it will always be a blueprint. If we don't amend or reconstruct it, we can use obviously use the instructions to build a chair and at the end we will still have a blueprint, and we will have a chair.
There is no necessary relationship between the blueprint and the chair; the blueprint can describe the chair, but the chair can exist without a blueprint,and the blueprint can exist without a chair.
Then, a zygote will change itself. Left as is, it will become a blastocyst, then an embryo, etc etc. No outside agency need artificially amend or reconstruct it; it's not instructions for someone else to build it, it changes itself. And when it does, the zygote does not remain. It is not an instruction set used by another agency to create something else, remaining behind when the work is done to something else; it changes itself.
There is a necessary relationship between the zygote and its' future forms; none of them will exist without the zygote, and future zygotes won't exist without those forms. A human adult has in common with the human zygote the fact that they are both human; a chair and a blueprint don't have to be even the same material, without even rising to being the same species.
So, I suppose that's a couple of issues I'd point out with the analogy, as well as a commonality that exists with a human zygote and human adult that doesn't exist with a blueprint and a chair.
Now, I know I've avoided saying the zygote changes into a human being which kind of ruins the whole "Look, the becoming/potential argument!" thing. But you chose a functional analogy, and the functional reply is that the zygote becomes a blastocyst, and a blueprint doesn't become a chair. Whether you choose to ascribe the term human being, or person, or whatever, to any of those four is obviously a philosophical discussion, but I'm comfortable that of themselves, blueprint, zygote, chair and blastocyst are all rather more factual than philosophical concepts.
Actually, maybe the real problem there is that you're taking two factual things (a blueprint and a chair) and trying to compare them to a factual and a philosophical thing ( a zygote and a human being). Some posters might say it's therefore a fallacious analogy, others might call it a red herring.
Anyway, I think it doesn't really work.
To be honest, it's actually that you think it's the vast majority of arguments, despite them not comprising anything like the vast majority of arguments put forward here, that makes me think the answer is actually more likely to be "yes".nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Had there been only one or two examples of this then it might be a useful bit of introspection to consider that point. However given not just some or many but the VAST majority of arguments I hear from the Anti Choice side have fit this narrative exactly, you can rest assured that introspection was performed a long time ago and the answer is "no".
But it doesn't seem at all odd, that despite it being possible that all three might appear cogently in a discussion, without any desire to link the three in some sort of magical trifecta, it is invariably the case on investigation that they're all attempting the same trick. Invariably. That's not odd?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Of course it is possible. Which is why one explores the context at the time, engages the speaker on their arguments and what exactly they are trying to say, and then finds out if one's suspicions are well founded or not. I do not have some simplistic parsing system that if I hear the three phrases used in the one paragraph I instantly dismiss it as being the linguistic trickery I describe. I continue to engage with the speaker until such time as I evaluate if they are selling the narrative I describe. And invariably the answer is yes.
But if it's a trick; an obvious, linguistic trick, which can't actually convince anyone of anything, because it is purely linguistic, would none of the people who invariably use it notice that it can't work? Ever?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Odd given I described already where I believe they think they will end up. I am happy to repeat it again however to accommodate your ongoing failure in this regard. The point is that people on both sides of the argument agree that the right to life should be accorded human beings. So the linguistic trickery narrative that these people sell is simply designed to accord the status of "human being" to the fetus as early as possible in the fetus, in an attempt to get people who are Pro Choice to reverse their position due to the fetus being a human being deserving of a right to life.
You mean, of course, other than the ones put forward which turned out on evaluation to simply be linguistic tricks?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »But as we have seen, there have BEEN no arguments on this thread, or any other thread on this entire boards.ie forum on the subject of abortion, that has coherently argued the position that the zygote or fetus has any attributes to usefully assign the status of "Human Being" to. Much less from you.
And yet again; no one said that it HAS interests. Claiming that a foetus (blob if you feel the need for snarl words to add cachet) has no interests really doesn't address the point that being aborted is not in it's best interests. There's nothing to distort there; they're just two different things. A foetus doesn't need to have any interests for being aborted not to be in it's best interests.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Pointing out someones words is one thing, assigning meaning to them that is not there is another. I repeat my point again and you are free to distort it once again as you see fit: Given no one has managed to argue that the blob HAS interests, pointing out existence in terms of its interests at all is one of the irrelevant red herrings you have in your repertoire.0 -
-
-
So, would you say you'd be inclined to call a pro life poster on it if they put it forth and you are not in a discussion with them?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »If I am in discussion with such a person and such an argument is put forth, then I will be every bit as inclined to call that person on it yes. It has not happened in conversation with me thus far however from someone on the Pro Choice side.
Not really; you said it was less than relevant to you, yet you felt it was worth mentioning. I don't think it's a throw away line (or even a red herring) to point out that it's odd to mention something that's less than relevant to you. It indicates that it's more relevant to you than you seem to want to give credence to.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Another of your throw away lines that dodges actually replying to what was said. You have a stock of those it seems. It was worth mentioning in the context of exampling how I am indeed more than happy to confront bad arguments from the Pro Choice side as I am the Anti choice side.
Well.. it does point out what you actually said, which is useful when you're claiming that you didn't actually say it.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Which adds nothing if you are misrepresenting what I say. You can quote my words at me once or a thousand times, but if you are pretending I am using them to say something I am not, then quoting them will do nothing.
Actually, what you said wasnozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I am happy to repeat my point again which you still have not actually replied to: Peoples personal beliefs are of no concern to me, and if their beliefs lead them to not want abortions that is no issue for me, but at such time as they are either proselytizing them or using them to influence public law or policy about other people having abortions, that changes things.
My reply (yes, I did give you one) was thatnozzferrahhtoo wrote: »it only becomes relevant when they proselytize that opinion by moving to ensure other people can not have abortions.
Since the idea that proselytising their opinion by moving to ensure other people can not have abortions means converting other people to their opinion by moving to ensure other people can not have abortions seemed to cause you some problems, I followed up my reply withI'm afraid you've a long way to go from acting in accordance with their own principles to "proselytize that opinion by moving to ensure other people can not have abortions". I simply don't see how preventing people from having abortions converts them to believing they shouldn't have abortions.
Since you've now decided to change your point to "proselytizing them or using them to influence public law or policy about other people having abortions", I think you know you're not repeating your point, you're altering it.Proselytising is converting or attempting to convert someone to your beliefs. Hence my response; I simply don't see how preventing people from having abortions converts them to believing they shouldn't have abortions.
I've no doubt it's what you see. Just that when all the points put forward invariablynozzferrahhtoo wrote: »And as I said, I see it in the majority of my discussions with Anti Choice debaters and campaigners. And since my point was that I see it, not whether or not you see it, my point stands. I repeat, the vast majority of the time I have personally entered into discussion with these people, the entire argument they have put forward has been an attempt to jump from introducing the word "Human" into the conversation to declaring that therefore the Human thing (such as DNA) should have rights like the right to life. That is the only argument the majority of people I have discussed or debated with have offered. That is my experience. Nothing more.
turn out to be the same piece of linguistic trickery, despite coming from so many different sources, I wonder if you're actually seeing what's there to be seem. Maybe you are, and I just haven't actually seen that particular piece of trickery employed on the thread, so have never noticed it. Anyway, you seem well prepared for when someone does.
In that case, maybe you should just quote it? I'm not addressing the point you're making because it is a point arguing against a point I haven't seen. Why rebut a rebuttal to something I haven't seen?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »And that is how you are dodging it. You are not addressing the point I am making, but dodging it by simply declaring you are not seeing anyone doing it. Even though it has happened on this thread and others I have been on discussing this topic. It seems you see only what you want to see.
I don't think it's a linguistic fact though. It looks like a assertion of logic, but as I said, I'm still waiting for someone to make the logical assertion that if X is becoming Y or has the potential to be Y, then X is by definition Y that you're looking to rebut.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »It is not just a linguistic fact either, but a logical one. Which is why I put it in simple and easy to understand terminology for you. If X is becoming Y or has the potential to be Y, then X is by definition NOT Y.
You added a bit there. I said "human" you said "human deserving of rights" . I'm just pointing it out; you've been critical of people who make a leap from "human" to "human xxx", so you might want to revise that bit to avoid having to, as you said, call yourself on it.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Exactly my point. This "thing" will go from being a "thing" to being a "human deserving of rights".
But we haven't specified the thing. The thing might be a sperm cell, or an ovum, in which case most people are likely to agree with you. When we get to zygote, probably less, maybe less again at blastocyst, at embryo a few less, at foetus the numbers are significantly shifting towards human.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »But this "thing" is not that now. It will become that in the future quite likely, but it is not that now. Maybe in the future it will be something deserving rights, but it is not one now. And hence I have no issue with abortion because the abortion is being performed on something I do not see as having any rights.
Whilst you may see some or none of those as having rights, the fact is all of them from zygote up do have rights, or at least one right.
The abortion discussion isn't about whether they have rights, it's about whether they should have rights, when they should have rights, what should those rights be, and how far should they extend.
And living in the moment is supposed to be a great thing I'm told, but most of us tend to consider the future consequences of actions we take in the moment; we don't plant crops without considering whether they will grow to be harvested, we don't buy cars without considering if we'll be able to use them in the future, we invest in pension funds so that we will have money in the future. A very large amount of our decisions are based on not just what something is now, but what it may be in the future. Don't you think failing to consider the future is a very limiting point of view?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Or to make it simpler for you: I mediate based on what something is NOW, not what it may or may not maybe just might be in the future.
I don't think so, I think you added words because you knew your point wasn't working. Becoming and potential are different concepts, not easily interchangable. And whilst the potential argument has been offered on the thread, the becoming one hasn't (unless you pretend that becoming and potential are the same, which I think is what you're trying to do).nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Yes, I was adding words to aid your understanding. The addition of the word does not modify the point I am making in any way however. If someone appears to be failing to understand a point I am making, I often make the same point using different words. It can be quite helpful. Unsurprising in the light of the linguistic pedantry that permeates your point that you want to distort this as me modifying my argument in some way, but that is a misrepresentation. My argument is unchanged, the language I am using to make my point is.
You specifically said:they will get no argument from me attempting to make them have one. That's not pontificating on whether you'd require people to have abortions or not? Sure soonds like it.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I did no such thing, I was making a simple distinction between where peoples beliefs concern me and where they do not. Anything else you assign to my words therefore is merely your own invention.
I did. I asked "So, when something that is clearly human DNA (lets say we tested it in a lab to be sure) and clearly alive (an excellent biologist assured us of all seven characteristics firing on all cylinders), therefore it is alive human DNA.... what? Human, Human being, Human rights, tada everyone must agree with me I have the magic of three? I still can't see where you think people who would offer this line of argument think they will end up?"nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Then by all means ask, rather than making false assumptions about what I really think about it.
I also asked "whether you could see that a human zygote has more in common with a human adult than a blueprint for a chair has in common with a chair." See, I was asking, not making false assumptions.
Was it not a zygote we were talking about rather than DNA? Which would be a different analogy, and as I was saying, is rather flawed. Maybe you should have offered an analogy with DNA instead of a zygote? Though I doubt many people would argue that human DNA should be afforded human rights, so maybe it wouldn't be worth the effort.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Left as is the DNA will never become a person either. It requires much interaction between itself and external elements present in the Human Cell around it. So the analogy stands. In both cases all you essentially have is some encoded instructions on how to build something that those instructions themselves clearly are not, that something external to those instructions uses to build that thing.
Yes, I think we've covered that fairly comprehensively.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Again, as I said above, it is the vast majority of arguments I have been presented. Again this is my experience.
Would it be fair to say that you've never seen anyone being convinced by either? As distinct from someone who appeared to have been convinced of it before you came across them, to be clear.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I never said it can not convince anyone. I can only assume that the people using such poor linguistic trickery do so because they have convinced someone before using it, were themselves convinced by it, or they believe they might convince someone by it. I have no idea. I can only comment on the fact that I have experienced the use of the trick very often. I have no position to comment on, beyond speculation, their motivation for employing it.
Ah. So do you think that there were none put forward, or just none that were coherently argued?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »No I mean what I said. Not what you just changed it to.
Irrelevant to what?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »And yet again: That fact is irrelevant to the point I am making which is that the statement you made was irrelevant and a red herring.
Inocybe said "It's also in everyone's best interests for the abortion to happen as early as possible"
I said "Arguably not likely to be in the foetus's best interests for the abortion to happen at all?"
You said "Irrelevant given the entity in question has not been demonstrated to have "interests" in the first place"
So we have two posts about what is in the relevant parties best interests, and one about whether a party has interests. It would seem from that sequence that the irrelevant red herring there is actually your post?
Actually, that was me saying that the word blob could be substituted for foetus in my sentence if someone wanted to use a snarl word to provide some cachet. I don't think anyone needs to assign any emotions or motivations to you when you choose to use a word like blob in the contextnozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Again with the assigning emotions and motivations to me that do not actually exist in me. You simply see me using a word, and invent your own reasons on my behalf for my having chosen the word. 0 -
Advertisement
-
So, would you say you'd be inclined to call a pro life poster on it if they put it forth and you are not in a discussion with them?
I often do.Not really; you said it was less than relevant to you, yet you felt it was worth mentioning.
Because mentioning it was relevant in the context, even if not to me in general. Context is everything son.Well.. it does point out what you actually said, which is useful when you're claiming that you didn't actually say it.
As I said, there is a difference between quoting what I said, and pretending what I said means something that it does not.Actually, what you said was.............Since you've now decided to change your point
Elaboration on a point is not editing it. It is moving forward with it. You can sit there pretending I have changed my point or you can, for once, actually respond to one of my points. All I am saying is there is a distinction between peoples beliefs informing their own actions privately, or influencing those of others. The former is not relevant to me. The latter is.you seem well prepared for when someone does.
Experience has prepared me for it indeed, given how often I have seen it. Do an experiment for yourself. Start a thread on the subject of "Abortion yay or nay" in After Hours or Humanities and link me to it sometime. We will see how quickly the trick in question pops up. I will identify it for you when I see it.I don't think it's a linguistic fact though. It looks like a assertion of logic
As I said, it is both. If someone says that X is becoming Y or has the potential to be Y, then they have linguistically and logically indicated to you that X is not now Y. If you think the sentence can linguistically or logically mean otherwise, then by all means explain to us how.You added a bit there.
Nope. I am making the exact same point, nothing added, nothing removed. Just said a different way to assist your understanding of the point.But we haven't specified the thing.
Not required to for me to make the point I am making. If you need to specify it to make some other point of your own, by all means have at it. But the point I was making does not require it. My point is just that whatever a "thing" is, if you say that that thing will sometime become a different thing, or has the potential to be a different thing, then you are saying that the thing is not that other thing now. Logically and linguistically.And living in the moment is supposed to be a great thing I'm told, but most of us tend to consider the future consequences of actions we take in the moment
Nor did I suggest you do otherwise, but again context is everything son. In the context of equivocating over whether an entity should be afforded rights or not, I do so based on what the entity is NOW, not what someone imagines it MIGHT be in the future.I don't think so, I think you added words because you knew your point wasn't working.
And as usual when you imagine emotions, intentions and motivations vicariously on my behalf, you are simply wrong. Of course the option to listen to me telling you what my points are.... or sit there telling me what my own points are.... is yours to make. But as long as you insist on doing the latter you will achieve nothing more than being this wrong, this often, with some consistency.Sure soonds like it.
See, I was asking, not making false assumptions.
Again, you can choose to listen to me explaining what my positions are, or you can choose to pretend they are what you want to invent on my behalf.Was it not a zygote we were talking about rather than DNA? Which would be a different analogy, and as I was saying, is rather flawed.
Saying something is flawed does not magically make it so. You have failed to establish that it is flawed at all. The point again is that when someone says that a zygote might become a human being, they are logically also saying it is not a human being now. And that it contains the instructions and capabilities to MAKE a human being, does not make it one. Any more than a blue print for a chair is itself a chair. Again context is everything son, and your penchant for overly dissecting posts means you take individual points in isolation rather than together in a flow as they were presented.Would it be fair to say that you've never seen anyone being convinced by either? As distinct from someone who appeared to have been convinced of it before you came across them, to be clear.
Not sure why relevant, but I have seen both since you have asked.Ah. So do you think that there were none put forward, or just none that were coherently argued?
As I said, I mean what I said. Read it, read it again, and then again, until such time as you understand it. Repeating myself is not required given the words are still there.Irrelevant to what?
I do not see it as relevant to anything on this thread at all. As you pointed out, no one has suggested the entity in question has any interests at all in the first place, so the comment was an irrelevancy.I don't think anyone needs to assign any emotions or motivations to you when you choose to use a word like blob in the context
And yet you did all the same.0 -
But not pro choice posters?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I often do.
Well, I rather think it's not everything; it's certainly indicative. Like the context in which one uses the word 'son'.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Because mentioning it was relevant in the context, even if not to me in general. Context is everything son.
Anyhow, in the context of your own statement, it wasn't relevant since no one put if forward, so again, hardly seems worth mentioning. In the context of the overall discussion? Maybe if you're addressing the argument, but since you weren't whether or it's relevant to you seems quite... irrelevant.
Absolutely; but that doesn't change the fact that quoting what you said is useful when you're claiming that you didn't actually say it.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »As I said, there is a difference between quoting what I said, and pretending what I said means something that it does not.
And elaborating on a point is not the same as changing it. For instance, changing your wording fromnozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Elaboration on a point is not editing it. It is moving forward with it. You can sit there pretending I have changed my point or you can, for once, actually respond to one of my points. All I am saying is there is a distinction between peoples beliefs informing their own actions privately, or influencing those of others. The former is not relevant to me. The latter is.
tonozzferrahhtoo wrote: »it only becomes relevant when they proselytize that opinion by moving to ensure other people can not have abortions.
you're not elaborating on the point; you're changing the point.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »at such time as they are either proselytizing them or using them to influence public law or policy about other people having abortions, that changes things.
Would it not be easier to do it on this thread instead?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Experience has prepared me for it indeed, given how often I have seen it. Do an experiment for yourself. Start a thread on the subject of "Abortion yay or nay" in After Hours or Humanities and link me to it sometime. We will see how quickly the trick in question pops up. I will identify it for you when I see it.
I don't think so; it deals neither in phonetics, phonology, syntax, morphology, lexicology or semantics so I don't think it's a linguistic fact. You're obviously putting forward the notion that it's a logical fact, but so far it stands as an assertion (well two assertions since you added your 'potential' assertion).nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »As I said, it is both. If someone says that X is becoming Y or has the potential to be Y, then they have linguistically and logically indicated to you that X is not now Y. If you think the sentence can linguistically or logically mean otherwise, then by all means explain to us how.
Which is all well and good, but it tends to fall apart on the 'if someone says' bit. If no one says, then what's the point?
Tut Tut. I said:nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Nope. I am making the exact same point, nothing added, nothing removed. Just said a different way to assist your understanding of the point.
You said:it seems fairly apparent that at some point that this particular thing which is composed of human material will leap from being a thing to being human (with whatever various adjective you choose), and deserving of some level of human rights, including the right to life.
I bolded the bit you added, just to helpnozzferrahhtoo wrote: »This "thing" will go from being a "thing" to being a "human deserving of rights". But this "thing" is not that now. It will become that in the future quite likely, but it is not that now. Maybe in the future it will be something deserving rights, but it is not one now. I kept my own description as human and deserving of some level of human rights, because I want to be sure that your experience with people using linguistic trickery to leap from human to human xxx doesn't lead you to think that this is what happening. So best if you don't use the same trick yourself, lest you think it was me
But your point seems to hinge on "if you say", which you say lots of people have said. But nobody seems to be saying it now?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Not required to for me to make the point I am making. If you need to specify it to make some other point of your own, by all means have at it. But the point I was making does not require it. My point is just that whatever a "thing" is, if you say that that thing will sometime become a different thing, or has the potential to be a different thing, then you are saying that the thing is not that other thing now. Logically and linguistically.
To take the example I put forward; a zygote may become a blastocyst, a blastocyst an embryo, an embryo a foetus, a foetus a child. It is in each case a different thing. However, a zygote is human (well, a human zygote is). When it becomes a blastocyst, it will still be human (if it was human to begin with), and so on so forth, up to a corpse, which is still a human even though it's a dead one. The fact that a thing becomes another thing does not preclude it from being something else as well, and remaining that something else throughout those changes.
Which is certainly very straightforward of you (daddyo?), though I do think "what someone imagines it might be in the future' is a maybe not so straightforward way of minimising 'what someone could reasonably expect it to be in the future'. But I wonder; if you're affording rights to (or at least, would be affording rights to, if it were up to you) something based on what it is now, how do you do it? What rights would you afford based on what aspects of it's current existence?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Nor did I suggest you do otherwise, but again context is everything son. In the context of equivocating over whether an entity should be afforded rights or not, I do so based on what the entity is NOW, not what someone imagines it MIGHT be in the future.
Or I might actually be right... Not that it matters either way, all we say is you did what you didnozzferrahhtoo wrote: »And as usual when you imagine emotions, intentions and motivations vicariously on my behalf, you are simply wrong. Of course the option to listen to me telling you what my points are.... or sit there telling me what my own points are.... is yours to make. But as long as you insist on doing the latter you will achieve nothing more than being this wrong, this often, with some consistency.
Well your position was "Then by all means ask, rather than making false assumptions about what I really think about it." I was just pointing out that I did ask.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Again, you can choose to listen to me explaining what my positions are, or you can choose to pretend they are what you want to invent on my behalf.
Well, the only part of what I said that you took issue with was where you changed from arguing 'zygote' to arguing 'DNA'. But if there are any failures in what I said I'm happy to discuss them.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Saying something is flawed does not magically make it so. You have failed to establish that it is flawed at all.
If someone says that. Which no one is saying.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »The point again is that when someone says that a zygote might become a human being, they are logically also saying it is not a human being now.
And again, I'm not seeing anyone saying that. Apart from you.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »And that it contains the instructions and capabilities to MAKE a human being, does not make it one. Any more than a blue print for a chair is itself a chair.
But this context dad, is that of an argument you are presenting on behalf of someone else in order that you can knock it down. I know, you've heard it from pro choice posters throughout your experience, but none of them are putting it forward right now, so if we are to judge the entity that is your argument on what it is right now, we'd really have to judge it as something of a strawman?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Again context is everything son, and your penchant for overly dissecting posts means you take individual points in isolation rather than together in a flow as they were presented.
Because I find it amazing that anyone would be persuaded by such simple linguistic trickery, especially in your presence given your inclination to call people on such arguments.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Not sure why relevant, but I have seen both since you have asked.
Well you said "there have BEEN no arguments on this thread, or any other thread on this entire boards.ie forum on the subject of abortion, that has coherently argued the position that the zygote or fetus has any attributes to usefully assign the status of "Human Being" to", all I'm asking is if you think there were any arguments put forward that simply weren't coherently argued, since from what you said you might think there were.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »As I said, I mean what I said. Read it, read it again, and then again, until such time as you understand it. Repeating myself is not required given the words are still there.
Ah there you are then; I can see that it's directly relevant to the post it answered. You just couldn't see it is all.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I do not see it as relevant to anything on this thread at all. As you pointed out, no one has suggested the entity in question has any interests at all in the first place, so the comment was an irrelevancy.
Nope, as I said, I offered it as an option on my own post.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »And yet you did all the same.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Brian Shanahan wrote: »There's always the report button, or we could make a conscious attempt to ignore Absalom's posts going forward.
I got a warning for saying that I'd had a particular poster on ignore for quite some time, so I won't sAy who But I will Say it's sAved me a Lot Of wasted tiMe - probably done my blood pressure a power of good as well!
0 -
I got a warning for saying that I'd had a particular poster on ignore for quite some time, so I won't sAy who But I will Say it's sAved me a Lot Of wasted tiMe - probably done my blood pressure a power of good as well!
Well I'm not advocating putting Absalom on ignore (that's a matter for each individual), just advocating that we stop responding to his constant and childish attempts to derail the topic. I reckon that about 90% of his motivation for posting here in A&A is getting a rise out of those who disagree with him, we stop replying to him and he'll get bored soon enough.0 -
Advertisement
-
Just not when Oldrnwisr did it, or when alaimacerc did it.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I repeat. I often do.
So... less than relevant to you, not put forward by a poster, but relevant because you need to establish when peoples beliefs affect you? Why?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »In the context of me establishing when peoples beliefs affect me, and when they do not, it was perfectly relevant thanks.
Which is fine, though I only find quoting what you said is useful when you're claiming that you didn't actually say it. It probably wouldn't be much use if I were trying to misrepresent you, because it would show what you actually said.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »As I said, I am not so much claiming I did not say something as claiming I did not mean what you misrepresent me as meaning.
Ah... I think you got a bit ahead of yourself there. Or didn't read the rest of the post. I don't know, I wouldn't want to misrepresent you! So (in full);nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »My point exactly. And as I said I was elaborating on the point, not changing it. Glad you are catching up.
Elaborating on a point is not the same as changing it. For instance, changing your wording from
it only becomes relevant when they proselytize that opinion by moving to ensure other people can not have abortions.
to
at such time as they are either proselytizing them or using them to influence public law or policy about other people having abortions, that changes things.
means you're not elaborating on the point; you're changing the point.
Well that's true. But.. in order to be a lingusitic point it has be about linguistics, and it wasn't. So happily, what I think coincides with the facts.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »You are not required to in order for it to be true.
And amazingly, there's still no one saying it... which means it is still something of a strawman.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Again it is simple logic 101 that if you are becoming something, or have the potential to be something, then you are not that something now. Anyone saying the zygote has the potential to be a human being, or will sometime maybe become a human being, is logically and linguistically conceding it is not a Human Being now.
You mean lingusitic trickery like switching from 'human' to 'human deserving of rights' as if the latter were the same point? Just how odd is it that you're employing that stratagem?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I am perfectly aware of what was said and I am perfectly aware that the point I made still stands unassailable and without rebuttal. The point being that in _my experience_ the vast majority of people arguing against Abortion do so by an attempt to assign Humanity and Human rights through linguistic trickery.
Well, you said your argument was a logical one; not a moral, legal or philosophical one. If it's logical it should apply across all species, so we can say equine or canine instead of human if you like. So.. a zygote may become a blastocyst, a blastocyst an embryo, an embryo a foetus, a foetus a foal (or puppy). It is in each case a different thing. However, a zygote is equine (well, an equine zygote is). When it becomes a blastocyst, it will still be equine (if it was equine to begin with), and so on so forth, up to a corpse, which is still an equine even though it's a dead one. The fact that a thing becomes another thing does not preclude it from being something else as well, and remaining that something else throughout those changes. That still seems quite relevant to the 'logical' assertion you're putting forward?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »An example that does nothing at all except use the word "Human" throughout in terms of taxonomy and literally nothing more. So not really anything to do with Abortion, this thread, or any discussion anyone might be having on the morality, legality or philosophy of abortion. Taxonomically everything you said is perfectly ok. It is simply irrelevant to the topic however.
I wasn't talking about a zygote though; I said if you're affording rights to (or at least, would be affording rights to, if it were up to you) something based on what it is now, how do you do it? What rights would you afford based on what aspects of it's current existence? I was talking about something, by which we can mean any thing; you've said that in the context of equivocating over whether an entity should be afforded rights or not, you do so based on what the entity is NOW, not what someone imagines it MIGHT be in the future., so I'm asking what entities you think should be afforded what rights in the NOW, based on what criteria.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »None. I repeat what I have said several times now. I see no basis whatsoever of affording any rights of any kind to a zygote.
Alternatively I could listen to you tell me what your points are, understand them, and still be rightnozzferrahhtoo wrote: »You can certainly tell yourself that if it sits well with you, but the fact remains you can listen to me tell you what my points are and eventually understand them, or you can presume to inform me of what my own points mean and simply be wrong.
I have; I'm afraid your answer admits of two possibilities. But I guess you're not telling.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »The same answer applies, just go and read it again and again until you get it.
Of course not.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I can not see what is simply not there.
Not in the least; anyone who wants to take that option on my post is genuinely welcome to do so.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »And it is false, as are all the attempts you have thus far made to assign emotions, motivations and meanings to what I have written that simply were not there.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement