Abortion Ban In South Dakota!

[Achán hiNidráne]

Dear TimmyBerry,

So, if a mad surgeon stole your newborn baby, and grafted it into the body of a random woman in South Dakota, then it would be "her business" whether she got a ten-minute abortion, or else suffered to carry it for the week (say) the non-mad surgeons would need to extract the child unharmed?

Cpl Ferro

Can I buy some pot from you?

 

[CFLarsen]

Oh, my, what a pretty series of strawmen!

Those are questions. A strawman is when I create a position, attribute it to you, and refute it, even though you don't hold that position in the first place.

Learn the difference, please.

1. I never claimed to be "so knowledgable about life in Denmark".

Since you are ignorant of it, stop lecturing Danes about it.

I merely pointed out the existence of a blasphemy law. Are you denying the existence of this law?

Since you are perfectly aware that I have explained the law, the use (or lack of!) and the background, your question is most disingenious. Are you denying that it cannot be enforced?

2. Clearly not, because you go on to call it "useless" and say that "nobody can implement immediately", which necessarily implies it does exist. My contention is that having a blasphemy law at all is enough to disqualify a country from running for the title of "Hotbed of Enlightenment". If it's so useless, why don't you get rid of it? Wouldn't a Hotbed of Enlightenment do so?

A "hotbed" does not mean "perfect". A "hotbed" is a place where a lot of things happens, as opposed to "deadbeat" or "stale".

E.g., Europe around 1848 was a "hotbed" of democratic movements and revolutions. Does that make the countries who got democracy after that perfect democracies? Of course not.

3. And I didn't claim that my own country was more enlightened, or indeed, enlightened at all.

Then stop deriding other nations. Sweep before your own doorstep first.

4. As for your questions "bothering" me, why, dearest Claus, of course they don't. I have among my acquaintance several great aunts, drama queens, and waspish primadonnas, so I am well used to civilized discourse. Speaking of which, I notice that you've stopped swearing at me. How sweet.

We are defined by the company we keep.

Your post:

You're wrong. Pure and simple.

 

[ceo_esq]

Those are questions. A strawman is when I create a position, attribute it to you, and refute it, even though you don't hold that position in the first place.

Learn the difference, please.

That's a straw man fallacy. In this case, the straw man itself technically would refer simply to a position attributed to, but not held by, TragicMonkey, whether or not subsequently refuted.

I think the average reader could reasonably (though perhaps incorrectly) infer by the way in which you posed the questions that you were attributing the position to TragicMonkey and challenging, or expressing disbelief in, the relevant propositions. That is frequently the case in English (though not in some languages) when someone forms a question specifically by adding a question mark at the end of what would otherwise be a declarative sentence (as in "Having a useless law that nobody can implement immediately renders everything else moot? We are simply back to the dark ages?")

 

[CFLarsen]

That's a straw man fallacy. In this case, the straw man itself technically would refer simply to a position attributed to, but not held by, TragicMonkey, whether or not subsequently refuted.

I think the average reader could reasonably (though perhaps incorrectly) infer by the way in which you posed the questions that you were attributing the position to TragicMonkey and challenging, or expressing disbelief in, the relevant propositions. That is frequently the case in English (though not in some languages) when someone forms a question specifically by adding a question mark at the end of what would otherwise be a declarative sentence (as in "Having a useless law that nobody can implement immediately renders everything else moot? We are simply back to the dark ages?")

I wasn't attributing any positions to TragicMonkey. I was asking questions.

Now, what? Still straw men?

 

[fishbob]

Your position is, frankly, stupid and an assault on careful thought. . . . . . .
. . . . . . It is a childish attempt to avoid debate by namecalling.

Stop right now. I expect better from you.

 

[CplFerro]

1. What if this "grafting" you're talking about? Last 've heard, it was something done to fruit trees. Not people.
2. One would certainly hope that our "mad surgeon" wouldn't have gotten away from authorities the first time around. Unless by "m.s." you mean "aliens". Which would explain #1 by default.
2a. If I am an alien, wouldn't that make me untouchable?
3. Do not make assumptions about other peoples' sexual orientations, k, lar?

Dear TimmyBerry,

Thanks for the willful obtuseness! It's such a good way to duck a morals question.

Cheers,

Cpl Ferro

 

[TragicMonkey]

Since you are ignorant of it, stop lecturing Danes about it.

Oh, is mentioning the existence of the Danish blasphemy law "lecturing" now? Or is it "mentioning something about Denmark that Claus doesn't like to hear even though it's true"?

Since you are perfectly aware that I have explained the law, the use (or lack of!) and the background, your question is most disingenious. Are you denying that it cannot be enforced?

Your "explanation" is a train wreck. And again, the existence of a blasphemy law alone is enough to disqualify a place as a hotbed of enlightenment.

A "hotbed" does not mean "perfect". A "hotbed" is a place where a lot of things happens, as opposed to "deadbeat" or "stale".

E.g., Europe around 1848 was a "hotbed" of democratic movements and revolutions. Does that make the countries who got democracy after that perfect democracies? Of course not.

Perhaps it's a language thing again. A hotbed means a place characterized by extreme manifestations, both in degree and number, of whatever it is a hotbed of. A blasphemy law is a sizeable iceberg in the barbecue of enlightenment.

Then stop deriding other nations. Sweep before your own doorstep first.

Which is precisely the point of my original remark. You set Denmark up as a hotbed of enlightenment, and I pointed out your blasphemy law. It is you who wish to "deride other nations", and throw a hissy fit when someone points out the log in your own eye.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Dear TimmyBerry,

Thanks for the willful obtuseness! It's such a good way to duck a morals question.

Cheers,

Cpl Ferro

No one is ducking anything, your "morals (Sic) question" is too absurd to even fathom.

Moral questions have to have some grounding in the possible, or at least, probable, before they are considered. I don't seem to remember any cabal or "mad scientists" snatching recently-born children then re-implanting them in unwilling women's wombs. Such a thing is medically impossible. Ergo, it's a very stupid question, and I don't blame anyone for not wanting to sully their intellect by answering it.

 

[Art Vandelay]

No, it's just dumb.

How so?

So if you believe killing other humans is murder you should be free to not kill humans but you have no right to force others to not kill humans?

If Hindu's feel a moral obligation to protect cows then they absolutely should seek to protect cows. This from an avid steak lover.

You're changing the subject. The issue is not whether they shoul "seek to protect cows", but whether have the right to force others to not kill cows. Do you believe that Hindus have that right?

You know, that is the WORST strawman on the planet.

It doesn't even make sense.

You're banned.

I found the responses to be incredibly harsh. What's worse: making a point that other people don't agree with, or acting with a complete lack of civility towards people who make points you don't agree with?

 

[boooeee]

Stop right now. I expect better from you.

What was wrong with Manny's post? I don't think he was calling the pro-choice movement itself stupid, just the debating tactic TCS happened to be employing. What if I insisted that everybody refer to the pro-choice movement as pro-fetus death? Pretty silly, huh?

I'm pro-choice, but I can't stand when bad arguments are used for positions I am in favor of.

 

[Art Vandelay]

You're wrong. Pure and simple.

You're a jackass. Pure and simple. If you're going to demand that I defend my posts, it's rank hypocrisy for you to act this way. So from now on, I will consider myself entitled to simply declare "you're wrong", and no further explanation will be necessary.

Now, you've shown that you have absolutely no idea how rounding works. I've provided the cite, and everyone who understands math can see that you don't.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Hmm. I think I might open a coat-hangar shop in South Dakota.

 

[Art Vandelay]

What if I insisted that everybody refer to the pro-choice movement as pro-fetus death? Pretty silly, huh?

The difference is that they are actually anti-choice, while the opposition is not pro-fetus death.

 

[CFLarsen]

You're a jackass. Pure and simple. If you're going to demand that I defend my posts, it's rank hypocrisy for you to act this way. So from now on, I will consider myself entitled to simply declare "you're wrong", and no further explanation will be necessary.

Now, you've shown that you have absolutely no idea how rounding works. I've provided the cite, and everyone who understands math can see that you don't.

Ehhh....well, yeah. I do demand that you defend your posts.

Sorry if you think that is a problem.

 

[Art Vandelay]

What I criticized was not that you demand that I defend my posts, but that you demand that I defend my posts, yet you refuse to defend your own. Once again you reveal yourself to be a dishonest jackass.

 

[TimmyBerry]

Methinks that there's a difference between constructive criticism and name-calling, ArtVandelay.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Methinks that there's a difference between constructive criticism and name-calling, ArtVandelay.

"Constructive criticism" is when you point out someone's fault so that they can correct them. Claus has no interest in correcting his complete lack of honesty, so constructive criticism would not be useful. What he posted was a complete misrepresentation of my position, he knows it was a complete misrepresentation, and he has absolutely no intereset in stopping posting misrepresentations.

 

[TimmyBerry]

Dear TimmyBerry,

Thanks for the willful obtuseness! It's such a good way to duck a morals question.

Cheers,

Cpl Ferro

No problem, by the way.

 

[TimmyBerry]

Art: after looking through the thread, it looks like CLF didn't give a reason for why you were wrong on quoting him, as well as starting on the overly strong language.
I still stand by the "constructive crit." not being equal to "insults".

 

[HarryKeogh]

You're wrong. Pure and simple.

How is Art Vandelay wrong? Saying "You're wrong. Pure and simple" is a lousy retort.