Abortion

[Snorri1234]

From a grammatical point of view, you are quite correct.

You know there are people in this world who wear surgical masks because they don't want to accidentally breathe in a fly. The basic argument "killing something that is livng is 'wrong'" is a perfectly good argument. People might disagree with it and I might even disagree with it but it's a perfectly good argument. The sentence seemed simple enough for me, and I'm always a proponent of saying things simply. (Yes DM I never said I practice what I propose.)

But that means DM's assumption that swatting a fly is exactly like abortion, according to jay, is correct.

[suggs]

The real problem is Tzor, is that you are not as clever as DM.
Well done for trying!
But i would give up now - its awfully hard for an intellectual mediocrity such as yourself, to best an intellectual genius, such as Mustard, in verbal combat.
But its entertaining watching you try!
Tally-ho!

[tzor]

But that means DM's assumption that swatting a fly is exactly like abortion, according to jay, is correct.

No it means that they are both "wrong." Not exactly wrong, not exactly alike, just both "wrong."

The real problem is Tzor, is that you are not as clever as DM.

This may be true, but it's hard to tell, I think DM is being deliberately not clever. It is hard to have a fair battle of wits when someone has disarmed themselves, and we all know the Black Knight never looses. What's he going to do? Bleed on me?

[Snorri1234]

But that means DM's assumption that swatting a fly is exactly like abortion, according to jay, is correct.

No it means that they are both "wrong." Not exactly wrong, not exactly alike, just both "wrong."

Then neither is abortion as wrong as killing a human. Which if you read jay's posts doesn't seem like his position.

Yay equates killing a person with killing a fetus, and his argument for that is that you're killing a living thing which is wrong.



Either killing any living being is wrong in the same degree, or there are degrees of wrongness in killing living things which makes jay's statement even more inane as it doesn't tell us anything. Eating plants is wrong, but obviously jay doesn't really care about that so it means his statement is meaningless and stupid.

[Dancing Mustard]

I think DM is being deliberately not clever. It is hard to have a fair battle of wits when someone has disarmed themselves

Dull, dull, dull.
Back to whinging "U stupid" and recycling one-liners that I've heard about a squillion times before.

Given that you never actually came up with a coherent answer to the deconstruction of your pedantic grammatical hair-splitting, you're barely in a position to attempt to declare yourself the victor and dismiss others as being 'not clever'. Indeed, so far as I can tell the only person here being 'not clever' is the one desperately attempting to kick all memories of his prior verbal ass-whooping under the carpet, while feebly proclaiming that his opponent has lost.

So there it is Tzor old boy, the ball remains in your court, but you seem reluctant to continue playing. You'll have 'won' when you give me a logical answer that I can't pick to pieces. Until then all this pathetic 'black knight' rubbish is nothing more than you wriggling and writhing in a vain attempt to pretend you didn't just get flattened.

[Napoleon Ier]

Aye, but y'see Mustard, the real pedantic hair-splitting here was from you: Jay expressed a little clumsily what was a perfectly valid point, a fulcrum upon which either side in the debate must base their argument, namely the issue of personhood. Granted, his quick and sketched remark did leave a lot open for interpretation, but it was evident what he was driving at: if you take a life of a human being for your own convenience, that's wrong.

Now, from what was a fair and conceptually sound comment, you had to go and play the smart-alec and point out that he hadn't specified human life as opposed to animal life, or that killing and murder have their subtle distinctions, and so forth, but this is all a smokescreen veiling the true core of the issue, which Player and her magic circus of pastry-faced and patronizing abortionist seem reluctant to address.

[PLAYER57832]

Our friend PLAYER was arguing that if there's a serious risk to the mother's health, and it will be tragedy and she won't be able to care for the child and she's just young with a whole future ahead of her blah blah blah ad (quite literal) nauseam, then it's OK to kill the foetus regardless of whether it's alive or not. If she had addressed the issue of personhood, the parametres of debate may have been acceptable, but surely for all the sob stories she can bring out about abortion, I can come out with another about how some poor ethnic German was losing out to a big Jewish retail oufit and his family were starving as a result (which happenned fretquently).

IN this you make it obvious you never really READ what I wrote.


And, even the Nazis admitted Jews were human. Evil, "inferior", but human. That was why they had to work so hard to convince themselves the "final solution" wasn't.

[Dancing Mustard]

Aye, but y'see Mustard, the real pedantic hair-splitting here was from you: Jay expressed a little clumsily what was a perfectly valid point, a fulcrum upon which either side in the debate must base their argument, namely the issue of personhood.

Did he bollocks...

Jay made a babbled post that could have meant any of several things. I picked him up on that and pointed out the illogicality of what he was saying (that continues to exist even after the unauthorised gloss you and Tzor are attempting to add to it).
It's funny, you spend your whole time here trying to patronize those who make grammatical errors while disagreeing with you, but the minute somebody rocks up who might agree with you and you're running around in circles howling that he's being treated unfairly. Very strange...

To sum up, in case you're still having trouble seeing through your rose-coloured spectacles: I pointed out that Jay was being unclear and failing to make sense. Tzor hopped up and attempted to be a 'smart-alec' with his fallacious pretentions of 'logical clauses'. Tzor had the error of his ways pointed out, and has since resorted to petty insults and empty boasting.
Simple stuff, and no amount of bizarre re-imaginings change it.

Granted, his quick and sketched remark did leave a lot open for interpretation, but it was evident what he was driving at .

Nah.

Remember Nappy: if you don't have time to express yourself clearly, then you don't have time to debate.

[Napoleon Ier]

Our friend PLAYER was arguing that if there's a serious risk to the mother's health, and it will be tragedy and she won't be able to care for the child and she's just young with a whole future ahead of her blah blah blah ad (quite literal) nauseam, then it's OK to kill the foetus regardless of whether it's alive or not. If she had addressed the issue of personhood, the parametres of debate may have been acceptable, but surely for all the sob stories she can bring out about abortion, I can come out with another about how some poor ethnic German was losing out to a big Jewish retail oufit and his family were starving as a result (which happenned fretquently).

IN this you make it obvious you never really READ what I wrote.


And, even the Nazis admitted Jews were human. Evil, "inferior", but human. That was why they had to work so hard to convince themselves the "final solution" wasn't.

OK, and abortionists recognize that fetuses are human, but not "persons". Not that it matters, my point remains logically intact, it's only for people like you who need me to spell it out through analogy that I need to do this.

[Napoleon Ier]

Aye, but y'see Mustard, the real pedantic hair-splitting here was from you: Jay expressed a little clumsily what was a perfectly valid point, a fulcrum upon which either side in the debate must base their argument, namely the issue of personhood.

Did he bollocks...

Jay made a babbled post that could have meant any of several things. I picked him up on that and pointed out the illogicality of what he was saying (that continues to exist even after the unauthorised gloss you and Tzor are attempting to add to it).
It's funny, you spend your whole time here trying to patronize those who make grammatical errors while disagreeing with you, but the minute somebody rocks up who might agree with you and you're running around in circles howling that he's being treated unfairly. Very strange...

Yes, it could have leant any of several things, but Jay isn't a buddhist, is he? So the meaning seemed to be mind-bogglingly clear to me.

[Snorri1234]

Aye, but y'see Mustard, the real pedantic hair-splitting here was from you: Jay expressed a little clumsily what was a perfectly valid point, a fulcrum upon which either side in the debate must base their argument, namely the issue of personhood.

Did he bollocks...

Jay made a babbled post that could have meant any of several things. I picked him up on that and pointed out the illogicality of what he was saying (that continues to exist even after the unauthorised gloss you and Tzor are attempting to add to it).
It's funny, you spend your whole time here trying to patronize those who make grammatical errors while disagreeing with you, but the minute somebody rocks up who might agree with you and you're running around in circles howling that he's being treated unfairly. Very strange...

Yes, it could have leant any of several things, but Jay isn't a buddhist, is he? So the meaning seemed to be mind-bogglingly clear to me.

Regardless of what he wanted to say, his words were stupid.

[Napoleon Ier]

Tongue out of DM's arse and mouth washed out before you address me, snorri. Clear?

[Neoteny]

I disagree. Accoding to jay's statement, abortion is "if you kill something that is living." Also,it is "wrong" for that reason. The logic from that statement is explicitly stated as "if you kill something that is living," which includes flies, that is "wrong." It's clear from the context what jay means, but his sentence was not perfectly illustrative, and thus DM's post was "humorous" as intended.

Don't make me pull put the paint program and start uploading english diagrams.

If you kill something that is living, that's what abortion is, it's wrong.

"that's what abortion is" is a clause that modifies the subject that preceeds it. It does not modify or justify the conclusion (there is an implied "then" missing in the sentence) that follows it.

If you had bothered to study English in college, which I could not because R.P.I. had no English requirement, you would understand.

Does not mean that you would underderstand because R.P.I. had no English requirement.

You fail.

I do not, because R.P.I. had no english requirement.

I believe we've been over your sense of humor before, have we not?

[Dancing Mustard]

Tongue out of DM's arse and mouth washed out before you address me, snorri. Clear?

Another of Jay's defenders reduced to childish insults after running out of allegedly intelligent things to say?

Why yes, so it is...

[Napoleon Ier]

Tongue out of DM's arse and mouth washed out before you address me, snorri. Clear?

Another of Jay's defenders reduced to childish insults after running out of allegedly intelligent things to say?

Why yes, so it is...

No, I'm trying to raise the level of debate here. You obviously have strictly nothing valuable to contribute other than pathetic pedantic remarks which you have to make to satisfy a bloated ego, and most of us would like to progress beyond that to seriously discuss the core meta-existential issue at hand.

Now please, if you have something of interest or something intelligent to discuss, by ball means post. But when the only thing you can do is giggle like a little schoolgirl because jay has left a semantically ambiguous comment and then make a completely irrelevant, redundant and (apparently) supposedly humorous remark, you know you're out of your depth.

[suggs]

"meta-existential issue"
Not sure whether that really makes sense (after all, we' re talking about existence, not "beyond/greater" than existence) but COOL PHRASE!

I'm definitely gonna use it next time I chat up a bird.

[Napoleon Ier]

"meta-existential issue"
Not sure whether that really makes sense (after all, we' re talking about existence, not "beyond/greater" than existence) but COOL PHRASE!

I'm definitely gonna use it next time I chat up a bird.

But we are talking about what 'existence' for the human being is, aren't we? Like meta-ethics is the study of what ethics are and where they come from, so meta-existentialism is the study of what existence can be defined as, and where it can come from, no?

I don't know, it just sounded better and more impressive.

[Dancing Mustard]

No, I'm trying to raise the level of debate here.

Oh, by continuing to drone on about a retarded post that got torn to shreds a long while back? Good plan.

You obviously have strictly nothing valuable to contribute other than pathetic pedantic remarks which you have to make to satisfy a bloated ego

That's odd, my hypocrisy-o-meter just exploded. I think it happened right about the point where you started whinging about people with bloated egos.

Might I take this opportunity to remind you that it was in fact Tzor who kicked off the pedanticism-workshop, when he started banging on about sub-clauses and logic models. It would appear therefore that your rage is misguided, and would be better directed at people to whom it would have some relevance.

most of us would like to progress beyond that to seriously discuss the core meta-existential issue at hand.

Really? Because to me it looks like you're far more interested in making pretentious comments and slinging around unecessary verbage that you imagine makes you look intelligent.

Anyway, I await your return to those 'core meta-existential' issues just the moment that you've overcome your apparently overwhelming urge to descend to the gutter to engage in the slinging of unfounded and childish aspersions.

Now please, if you have something of interest or something intelligent to discuss, by ball means post.

Actually, it's best if you take your own advice before trying to give it out to others...
I don't know if you'd noticed, but your post was irrelevant, redundant, and smacked of hypocriticrisy. Clearly you're out of your depth here, as all you seem to be able to do in the face of overwhelming defeat is make angry noises and beg me to stop pissing all over you.

In summary: I'll stop mocking you and Tzor for your inane pedantic comments, and your inability to stop throwing childish aspersion-spitting tantrums, just the minute that you make a post containing something that isn't simply an extension of the same.

But for the while, it looks like I'm here to stay.

Pip pip!

[Neutrino]

"Yuh, lyke, totally, first thing, u leik totally lose."

Please try and sound less like a pathetic and vacant-minded American High School cheerleader.

Yes. Yes you do.
Godwin's Law.

Ahhh...no, no NO, this is where you make your mistake. Our friend PLAYER was arguing that if there's a serious risk to the mother's health, and it will be tragedy and she won't be able to care for the child and she's just young with a whole future ahead of her blah blah blah ad (quite literal) nauseam, then it's OK to kill the foetus regardless of whether it's alive or not. If she had addressed the issue of personhood, the parametres of debate may have been acceptable, but surely for all the sob stories she can bring out about abortion, I can come out with another about how some poor ethnic German was losing out to a big Jewish retail oufit and his family were starving as a result (which happenned fretquently).

All right, now we've explained that for the slightly slower-of-mind, let's move on...

I was trying to avoid this thread because it has been debated forever and you won't change anyone's mind.

However, reading the post (2 up), makes me ill at the lack of respect for life. So a teenager gets pregnant. Do you think they are able to raise the child? What part of a fetus is a LIVING entity, do you NOT understand? If you kill something that is living, that's what abortion is, it's wrong. Hello? Anyone home? The fact that this issue is still debated and legal shows the moral decline of the people.

Why should the life of one outweigh the happyness of two others? Hell, if the parents are screwed up, the child is likely to be too, so why is the life of one worth the happyness of two, and the happyness of the one saved? Wouldn't it have been best for the one to have never been born, and the two saved a lot of unhappyness? Yes, I'm aware I'm not phrasing it very well, but I would have assumed the basic idea would get across. It's a distasteful solution to a conflict of various people's rights, but if you've got a better idea, I'd like to hear it.

Anyways, I'm with player on this one. Abortion should always be a valid option, but the scenario's allowing it should get fewer and fewer as the birth date gets closer. Eventually, it's medical-only. Of course, this'll probably require more and improved pregnancy tests, but I still assume it's workable.

Yes...just like the Waffen SS could argue that is they didn't gas jews, ordinary citizens would spontaneously erupt onto the streets and smash their shop windows, drag them out into the street and knife them, potentially getting an infected glass cut in the process or something. Which would be tragic...

Congrats on not answering the question. Would you like to play again?

He's conservative so he's rich. Can't fault you logic on that one, can I squire?

No...

You seem to have a fairly good vocabulary (Even if does make you sound like an idiot at times... Increasing the syllables/word ratio does not increase the quality of the post.) for someone who didn't have the slow-motion explosion known locally as english as their native language. From that I would assume your parents had enough monies to send you to a decent school. Therefore, fairly high on the social scale.

If people that stupid exist, the first step is to chemically castrate them and permantly remove their genes from circulation for the good of everyone.

I don't think you've had enough experience with the outside world, then. Assuming anything positive about the intelligence of the average person is an enterprise doomed to failure.

That's an underestimate, since it doesn't include clandestine abortions. But look up the stats for yourself...there's rougly 30-50 million abortions every year worlwide (including clandestine ones), multiply it by 50 and you get about 2 billion abortions. And before I get a load of whinge about how they weren't legalized so my stats aren't accurate etc....yes, OK, but that's an estimate, which has been halved, and in most countries, abortion numbers actually dropped after they were legalized. (Evidence the State should provide them? No,evidence the State should have intensified it's campaign against abortion doctors, like it would against any other kind of criminal wave).

Can you send me a link to these stats? Then the address of the author and the name of a good hitman, since they clearly don't deserve to continue existing.
Infant deaths: not likely. Possible, but certainly not likely.
Abortions: No fricken' way. I don't mind people using "facts I saw on that documentary a few months ago", as long as they're prepared to substantiate them. However, I do demand that these partly remembered facts be exposed to basic common sense at some point before posting.
Lets look at this. Assuming 70% of the population was born in the last 50 years (probably wildly off, but nevermind), one in four point six people have been aborted. Flatly not true. Hell, I recall calculating that your figure beat the formerly biggest killer, heart disease, by a good 50%. I can find those calculations (or, more likely, redo them) if you really want.
I would recomend against it, however. Your credibility is in enough danger as it is.

[Napoleon Ier]

Mustard, I missed the part where you stopped excreting your stagnant bodily fluids all over the laws of logic and re-directed your aim at us? Either shut up or make a decent post, either way, don't waste my time with unfounded accusations.

WHO statistics: 46 million abortions in 1995, 41 million in 2005.
BAM! Facepalmed, dipshit.

The rest of your post essentially consists of you saying "nuh-huh" without actually writing out a decent rebuttal, except for the part where you say that two persons happiness should outweigh someone else's life. To which we again apply our Weimar analogy, where no doubt, two business-owners are suffering because of one Jewish one. It therefore obviously makes sense to organise a Kristallnacht, doesn't it? Moron.

[MeDeFe]

WHO statistics: 46 million abortions in 1995, 41 million in 2005.
BAM! Facepalmed, dipshit.

I'll sum this up in two words:

Source?
Link?

[Napoleon Ier]

WHO statistics: 46 million abortions in 1995, 41 million in 2005.
BAM! Facepalmed, dipshit.

I'll sum this up in two words:

Source?
Link?

WHO, quoted by the Guttmacher institute
[url]http://www.who.int/reproductive-
health/unsafe_abortion/induced_abortion_worldwide.pdf[/url]

[Dancing Mustard]

Mustard, I missed the part where you stopped excreting your stagnant bodily fluids all over the laws of logic and re-directed your aim at us?

Oh look kids, another hypocritical post by a crying conservative desperate not to acknowledge his partner's ass-whooping.

Note the trademark use of a hypocritical flame to criticise an opponent of doing the very same sin that the conservative himself is guilty of. Note also the vain attempts at a pompous high-handed tone as the subject scrabbles furiously to pretend it holds the moral high-ground.

Either shut up or make a decent post, either way, don't waste my time with unfounded accusations.

If you followed that advice yourself then you'd have a post count of zero. Every post you have typed to me in this thread has been filled with unfounded accusations and childish flames, and guess what? All of them have been collosal wastes of time.

Indeed, all you have ever managed to post in this forum has been the spewing of excess verbage (which it's painfully clear you don't actually understand the meaning of), portrayals of trumped up stereotypes, boring trite flames, and the production of dubious statistics that you yanked off of wikipedia. Your current laughable attempts to chastise me for de-railing this thread (when it's you and Tzor who brought us here) are merely an extension of that lamentable trend.

Tell you what Nappy, quit riding your hobby-horse up and down this thread, and quit trying to sound like a grown-up. You have nothing relevant to say, and your sanctimonious whinging is utterly hypocritical and irrelevant.

Go back to school, learn something useful, then try to type some posts that aren't just full of bullshit. Then perhaps you'll be ready for debate.
Until then, have fun playing 'tag' with your friends, and trying to find a peculiarly shaped twig to make a catapult out of.

[jonesthecurl]

When Tom Baker was playing Dr Who, and the script editor was Douglas Adams, the good Doctor came out with the immortal phrase,

"...proof of the theory that the size of mouth is in inverse ratio to the size of brain".

Just a comment, not meaning to apply it personally to any verbose gits on this thread at all.

[Napoleon Ier]

Intelligent and relevant mustard, those were the operative words, intelligent and relevant.

Note that the rules of set theory would hence exclude the current load of unsubsantiaed and hypocritical bollocks from your posts.

The pedantry? You started it with your asinine fly comments.

The illogicality? Your complete disregard for basic set theory and for syntax.

The ass-whupping? When Tzor destroyed your pathetic, weak-willed attempts at a serious rebuttal.

So please, by all means, gallivant around flame-wars throwing petty insults at people if it makes your day easier, but let the big boys to the serious talking, k?