Conquer Club

Napoleon Ier has been making a good argument and since I actually have a life I've been a little quiet lately but I would like to make one observation.

Dancing Mustard is a lot like Hillary Clinton (aside from the fact that both hate conservatives).

HC still thinks she "won" the nomination.
DC still thinks he "won" a battle of logic.

Alas, for both, it is only in their own minds.

As for jonesthecurl, Tom Baker for the win any time! The best doctor in my not always humble opinion and one of the best Sherlock Homes I've ever seen.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Intelligent and relevant mustard, those were the operative words, intelligent and relevant.

They were indeed...

I note you failed to satisfy either.

Behold as I point out the absence of either intelligence or relevance in your post. Again.

Napoleon Ier wrote:The pedantry? You started it with your asinine fly comments.

Completely untrue (and predictably missing the original point of the exercise), but neither intelligent or relevant.

Napoleon Ier wrote:The illogicality? Your complete disregard for basic set theory and for syntax.

All utter bollocks, but neither intelligent or relevant.

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

A laughably fallacious assertion (and a cute attempt to salvage the destruction of your sugar-daddy), but neither intelligent or relevant.

Napoleon Ier wrote: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?

Ok little trash-talking fifteen year old... how about you take your previous advice and go do that?

tzor wrote:HC still thinks she "won" the nomination.
DC still thinks he "won" a battle of logic.

Alas, for both, it is only in their own minds.

That'll be why you ran away from logical argument and descended into making petty aspersions then?

Sure. I believe you.

Neutrino wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote: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.

Yeah, I get the feeling Naps hasn't been paying attention to the "real world" everyone is talking about all the time.

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

Hmmm, looke what I found. A little less than half way down, there is "Maternal Conditions". "Pregnancies with Abortive Outcome" is listed as one of its components.
Supported by this table (bottom of the first page), "Maternal Conditions" only managed to muster a paltry 510 000 deaths.
It appears we have reached an impasse. It also appears WHO have managed to keep themselves consistently stoned for the past several years.

P.S. When did "29 in every thousand" equal one fifth? I want whatever WHO is smoking.

Dancing Mustard wrote:That'll be why you ran away from logical argument and descended into making petty aspersions then?

I've never ran away from logical argument. You, on the other hand have never been there.

To be honest I haven't seen many petty aspersions since the liturgical reforms of Vatican II made the rite of sprinkling optional in the new order of liturgy.

But I do disagree that I have ever defamed or brought into disgrace anyone in the course of this discussion. On the other hand, your quote, accusing me of petty aspersiions is in fact a petty aspersion of its own.

Dancing Mustard wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Intelligent and relevant mustard, those were the operative words, intelligent and relevant.

They were indeed...

I note you failed to satisfy either.

Behold as I point out the absence of either intelligence or relevance in your post. Again.

Napoleon Ier wrote:The pedantry? You started it with your asinine fly comments.

Completely untrue (and predictably missing the original point of the exercise), but neither intelligent or relevant.

Napoleon Ier wrote:The illogicality? Your complete disregard for basic set theory and for syntax.

All utter bollocks, but neither intelligent or relevant.

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

A laughably fallacious assertion (and a cute attempt to salvage the destruction of your sugar-daddy), but neither intelligent or relevant.

Napoleon Ier wrote: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?

Ok little trash-talking fifteen year old... how about you take your previous advice and go do that?

You excel yourself, Mustard, you really do. You post the most outrageous load of shit, you get dismantled, and now you're having some sort of fit, or nervous breakdown.

I make a simple constate about your post's failings, and end up with:

"No, you're the one whose not intelligent or relevant, so nah!"

Then I list the instances in which you've humiliated yourself by fucking up basic reading comprehension or posting absolute crap. But no:

"Wrongzor!!11!1 ur saying teh bollox! my post waz teh awesome!!1"

And of course, we have to accept you're right, because you're saying it on the internet, and aren't adding LOL at the end of the sentence.

Seriously though, I have little patience left here: either you're going to post up a serious rebuttal to what Jay quite clearly intended to say, or you're going to continue look like plain old strawberry flavored stupid by posting hysterical and childish garbage.

Ok. You guys aren't going to listen to me, but we aren't getting anything out of this conversation anymore. Let's stop fighting and actually discussing this, because no one else will post here untill you do. You are all acting like asses. And yes, I could see what Jay intended to say, but he did say it stoopidly. Now lets move on. Could I please get someone to be the bigger man/woman?

jay_a2j wrote: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.

Let's go through this in detail, shall we, btw, do you all use Skype because I'm feeling an urge to shout at all of you to shut the f*ck up. Unfortunately that is not possible over the internet when typing as we do here.

So, jay perceives a "lack of respect for life" in the previous posts and states that "a fetus is a living entity". So far so good. Now for the one about which the arguing has been going on, or at least the one about you argued initially.

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

Minus the subordinate clause we get the following: "If you kill something that is living, it is wrong." While not grammatically perfect, the meaning is fairly clear. In jay's view, killing something that is living is wrong.
The subordinate clause indirectly refers back to the previous sentence, that a fetus is also something living. The logic behind his argument is then as follows:
Killing something that lives is wrong.
A fetus is something that lives.
Abortion kills the fetus.
Therefore abortion is wrong.


It's perfectly logical but it leaves some huge holes, as DM pointed out. "Killing something that is living", is in many cases not seen as wrong at all. Whether it's swatting a fly, slaughtering cattle for us to eat or (at least for some people) the execution of a condemned criminal, or a soldier shooting an enemy combatant who is fighting for his country. Asking jay whether he perceives every form of killing to be wrong is therefore a perfectly reasonable reaction, even if it was done rather flippantly in anticipation of a modification of the statement. From DM's fly example and my additional ones it would seem that "killing something that lives" is not a sufficient reason for saying that an action is wrong per se (or perceived as wrong). Possibly a necessary condition but not by itself sufficient.

Napoleon Ier wrote:
You excel yourself, Mustard, you really do. You post the most outrageous load of shit, you get dismantled, and now you're having some sort of fit, or nervous breakdown.

I make a simple constate about your post's failings, and end up with:

"No, you're the one whose not intelligent or relevant, so nah!"

Then I list the instances in which you've humiliated yourself by fucking up basic reading comprehension or posting absolute crap. But no:

"Wrongzor!!11!1 ur saying teh bollox! my post waz teh awesome!!1"

And of course, we have to accept you're right, because you're saying it on the internet, and aren't adding LOL at the end of the sentence.

Seriously though, I have little patience left here: either you're going to post up a serious rebuttal to what Jay quite clearly intended to say, or you're going to continue look like plain old strawberry flavored stupid by posting hysterical and childish garbage.

Well i'll say one thing for you Nipper; you can handle the Propaganda for your "Neo-conservative, meta-Christian, antipathetical Materialist-dialecticologically Meta-State"! .... Meta-existentially speaking of course!

because you can turn a resounding defeat into what sounded like a victory speech!

sorry to interrupt, please don't let me distract you from the important business at hand; your being handed your meta-phorical arse on a metal-platter. ... (it is a real shame there is an 'l' in metal)

I'd love to but the last time I "moved on" I was accused of "running away."

When last I talked about the issue, I was agreeing with PLAYER57832 (It was on page 25) and we were both asserting the need to work twards the reasonable middle ground here.

So I raise the question. What is "reasonable?" Arguing from extremes is pointless, arguing from the reasonable middle requires each side to give up something.

What are you willing to "give up?"

tzor wrote:I'd love to but the last time I "moved on" I was accused of "running away."

When last I talked about the issue, I was agreeing with PLAYER57832 (It was on page 25) and we were both asserting the need to work twards the reasonable middle ground here.

So I raise the question. What is "reasonable?" Arguing from extremes is pointless, arguing from the reasonable middle requires each side to give up something.

What are you willing to "give up?"

I agree with this. Where is the middle?

MeDeFe wrote:

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

Minus the subordinate clause we get the following: "If you kill something that is living, it is wrong." While not grammatically perfect, the meaning is fairly clear. In jay's view, killing something that is living is wrong.
The subordinate clause indirectly refers back to the previous sentence, that a fetus is also something living. The logic behind his argument is then as follows:
Killing something that lives is wrong.
A fetus is something that lives.
Abortion kills the fetus.
Therefore abortion is wrong.

This has been my point. But even considering this point, and taking into account the general nature of the dialogue so far the whole discussion is missing the point. Let's look at the final sentence of the argument.

"Therefore abortion is wrong."

What is "wrong?" I have to go to Webster for this one and, "an injurious, unfair, or unjust act," is the first definition. Abortions are "wrong." Earthquakes are "wrong." Swatting a fly is "wrong." Conquer Club dice are "wrong."

This is why it is obvious why this argument is goning nowhere. Just because something is wrong doesn't in and of itself mean anything. (Yes the dice are unfair ... let's move on.) And yet there is this strange resistance to admit that sometimes "wrong" things are not only done but are "necessary." Swatting a fly is wrong. An abortion is wrong. Having a woman die because she could not get an abortion is wrong. All different levels of wrong.

Juan_Bottom wrote:I agree with this. Where is the middle?

I think in order to get the middle we need to divide gaul into parts. It may be annoying to do so, but this is the only solution. For sake of argument I would divide the parts (that is the condition the fetus falls under) into non-viable, viable, and pre-viable.

Non-viable: Not capable of living for an extended period without significant permanent life support. We might also add those who would exist in extreeme perpetual pain and other conditions that would be considered exceptionally cruel.

Viable: Able to live a regular life on its own. Some support may be needed at first but it is not permanent.

Pre-Viable: All things considered, given time, the pre-viable will become viable.

(For a moment I'm going to ignore a possible fourth condition - pre-implant - as that cocerns an embryo and I'm just looking at the fetus right now.)

Now that we have divided gaul let's tackle the parts seperately.

Non-viable is a non issue. Abortions should be available for all non-viable situations because the life and health of the woman is the only issue. No one likes a non-viable abortion and no one really wants them but they are necessary.

Viable: When a viable fetus directly harms the life of the mother and when there are no viable alternatives possible, such abortions should be allowed. One can get into a tricky problem when one extends this to the "health" of the woman, you can either be too broad or too narrow, but reasonable men (which must include experts and doctors) can come up with reasonable guidelines just as there are reasonable guidelines for all other medical procedures.

Pre-Viable: I think the state has an inherant right if not an obligation to encourage all women to bring the pre-viable to term but the final decision should rest with the woman - the fully informed woman - after all viable and reaonable options are given to her. The state has a right and an obligation to ensure that all options are indeed reasonable and possible.

Neutrino wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote: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's estimates do seem quite exaggerated, at least for the US.

BUT, the point I want to make is that even the "real" numbers are inflated. Many of these so-called "abortions" include removal of a comfirmed DEAD child. Given that roughly 1 in 4 women have a miscarriage in the first trimester (after that, it goes down SIGNIFICANTLY), and that a fair number have the child removed surgically (I have not found actual numbers. I can say that a rough, unscientific survey of the women I know was roughly 1 in 10), the REAL abortion rate is much lower.

Further, some of the most extreme "abortion" totals actually include children who miscarried due to tests (such as an amnio), and in some cases even C-sections! (though the last is only included in the most extreme statistics ... )

Further, there are countries, such as China where abortions ARE practiced in horrific manner. AND, countries like Italy where abortion is actually used as the "first line" of birth control. (birth control is banned by the Catholic Church and not used much in Italy). Combining the overall abortion statistics is not at all informative about what is happening within the US, Canada and Each European country (individually).

tzor wrote:Viable: Able to live a regular life on its own. Some support may be needed at first but it is not permanent.

tzor wrote:Viable: When a viable fetus directly harms the life of the mother and when there are no viable alternatives possible, such abortions should be allowed. One can get into a tricky problem when one extends this to the "health" of the woman, you can either be too broad or too narrow, but reasonable men (which must include experts and doctors) can come up with reasonable guidelines just as there are reasonable guidelines for all other medical procedures.

I just have to clarify here. A post viable procedure is a birth. No doctor would actually KILL a truly viable child. That, I believe is a gross misunderstanding that folks like Napoleon have tried to put forward. (though a few crazies advocate that, they are only the fringe and not part of any real debate).

The two exceptions are a mother that is very seriously suicidal. In that case, the child's life is in as much danger as if it were another medical cause. IN fact, she may be given drugs that are quite detrimental to the child. Also, realize that a seriously suicidal woman is not someone who has taken good care of herself. In many cases, the child is not truly "healthy". Even so, ost doctors will STILL try to "take" the child alive, to save it. BUT, there are cases where this is not practical. HOWEVER, these cases are very rare. I know the stories abound to the contrary. But, though the statistics are difficult to come by (because of HEPA, among other issues), eveyr doctor I have spoken with says the same thing... it happens very rarely, is probably "warrented" when it does. Teh few exceptions are more a case of poor medical ethics of the doctor and not a legal deficit (that is, it is already illegal. If a doctor is going to skirt the law, they will skirt the law).


The second is the "maybe" child. The child that, as determined by the doctors, parents and whatever clergy they prefer... is not going to have a "life worth living".

What does happen, though, is this. When the mother's life is in danger, the child's life is automatically in danger as well. Usually, the best and quickest means to help the child and the mother both, is to remove him/her. Sometimes it doesn't work. Sometimes it does. In either case, it is not an "abortion".

PLAYER57832 wrote:I just have to clarify here. A post viable procedure is a birth. No doctor would actually KILL a truly viable child. That, I believe is a gross misunderstanding that folks like Napoleon have tried to put forward. (though a few crazies advocate that, they are only the fringe and not part of any real debate).

I think I heard of a case a long time ago where in Califorina someone wanted an abortion becasue the doctors determined that regular birth would be too life threatening but she didn't want to go through a c-section because it would have left a scar. I don't think the doctors were in much agreement with this either, but it was a case where the absolute law sided on the unnecessary abortion.

One of the problems is that patient's rights is often used as a general "secrecy" excuse. The result is that in the absence of hard facts that aren't decades old conspiracy theories rise like dandilions in the field.

As Reagan said, "trust but verify."

First, Gobshite Major:

Tzor wrote:I've never ran away from logical argument.

Presumably because you don't appear to recognise them, even when they're turkey-slapping you in the face.

Tzor wrote:You, on the other hand have never been there.

Proof of the above point indeed...

Tzor wrote:To be honest I haven't seen many petty aspersions since the liturgical reforms of Vatican II made the rite of sprinkling optional in the new order of liturgy.

Apparently you haven't seen many dictionaries in your time either:
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=aspersion

Tzor wrote:But I do disagree that I have ever defamed or brought into disgrace anyone in the course of this discussion.

Then you have clearly been posting from some unconcious state and ought to consult your physician immediately.

Tzor wrote:On the other hand, your quote, accusing me of petty aspersiions is in fact a petty aspersion of its own.

Actually it was a statement of plain and unmitigated fact.

Remind me who it was whinging about proper English again?



And now onto Gobshite-Minor:

Napoleon Ier wrote:You excel yourself, Mustard, you really do. You post the most outrageous load of shit, you get dismantled, and now you're having some sort of fit, or nervous breakdown.

Not so much, the only outrageous shit here is the bizarre humbug you keep dreaming up and alleging that I'm doing, and the only nervous breakdown is the one I can only presume that you're projecting from the comfort of your desk.

Napoleon Ier wrote:I make a simple constate about your post's failings, and end up with:
"No, you're the one whose not intelligent or relevant, so nah!"

Oh yes, the old 'make up a fictional post by Dancing Mustard then reply to it' gambit, I hear it's all the rage at nursery-schools this year.

Shame that it's neither relevant or intelligent though... two words I seem to remember some arrogant kid being all hung up on only moments ago. Now who could that have been?

Napoleon Ier wrote:Then I list the instances in which you've humiliated yourself by fucking up basic reading comprehension or posting absolute crap.

Oh yes, that list of things which never happened... great stuff.

Please come back when you have something factual to say, rather than these weird little fairy tales about how you wish things were.

Napoleon Ier wrote:And of course, we have to accept you're right, because you're saying it on the internet, and aren't adding LOL at the end of the sentence.

Actually you have to accept it as right because neither you or Tzor seem to have anything logical to say in response.

Perhaps it would help to convince you that it was correct if I were to assume the pompous and pedantic tone that the two of you seem to favour? Or maybe I could throw in the odd quasi-masonico-socialogical-Marxist-construct to help you swallow the bitter pill?

Napoleon Ier wrote:Seriously though, I have little patience left here

Sorry, you appear to have mistaken me for somebody who gives a toss about your 'patience' and feelings. Bad luck.

Napoleon Ier wrote:either you're going to post up a serious rebuttal to what Jay quite clearly intended to say

Fallacy 1: That Jay clearly intended anything remotely like what you allege
Fallacy 2: That I haven't already pointed out why the bullshit you allege he said is ridiculous and entirely without merit.

Napoleon Ier wrote:you're going to continue look like plain old strawberry flavored stupid by posting hysterical and childish garbage.

You certainly are little boy, you certainly are...

Dancing Mustard wrote:Apparently you haven't seen many dictionaries in your time either:
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=aspersion

I prefer Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged myself but there is a nominal annual fee. The sprinkling was actually the first definition listed on Webster's so I ran it from there.

(Honestly, Princeton University, a reference for the (American) English Language.)

OK here is the definition in the free version of Webster's Dictionary - Aspersion where it only lists two definitions and the first is still "a sprinkling with water especially in religious ceremonies."

tzor wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

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

Minus the subordinate clause we get the following: "If you kill something that is living, it is wrong." While not grammatically perfect, the meaning is fairly clear. In jay's view, killing something that is living is wrong.
The subordinate clause indirectly refers back to the previous sentence, that a fetus is also something living. The logic behind his argument is then as follows:
Killing something that lives is wrong.
A fetus is something that lives.
Abortion kills the fetus.
Therefore abortion is wrong.

This has been my point. But even considering this point, and taking into account the general nature of the dialogue so far the whole discussion is missing the point. Let's look at the final sentence of the argument.

"Therefore abortion is wrong."

What is "wrong?" I have to go to Webster for this one and, "an injurious, unfair, or unjust act," is the first definition. Abortions are "wrong." Earthquakes are "wrong." Swatting a fly is "wrong." Conquer Club dice are "wrong."

This is why it is obvious why this argument is goning nowhere. Just because something is wrong doesn't in and of itself mean anything. (Yes the dice are unfair ... let's move on.) And yet there is this strange resistance to admit that sometimes "wrong" things are not only done but are "necessary." Swatting a fly is wrong. An abortion is wrong. Having a woman die because she could not get an abortion is wrong. All different levels of wrong.

If that was truly your point regarding grammar all along and you really wanted to discuss the point of wrongness and what that means, you, Sir, are still an idiot for picking excessively on the grammar and not at all on the second point of DM's response to jay's statement. You failed to achieve the very thing you desired in what might be considered the most effective way imaginable.

As for "different levels of wrong", I think some clarifications are in order, how exactly do you determine how wrong (or how right) any given action is? Which criteria apply?

MeDeFe wrote:If that was truly your point regarding grammar all along and you really wanted to discuss the point of wrongness and what that means, you, Sir, are still an idiot for picking excessively on the grammar and not at all on the second point of DM's response to jay's statement.

No I think my original complaint was against the notio that the sentence somehow made abortion and fly swatting equivalent. It went bad from there.

Nice little spiel Mustard, shame it contains nothing relevant to the issue we're trying to discuss whatsoever.

Never mind. Return past "go", collect a fucking IQ, and try again.

I have already done that.
But i lost my it immediately on income tax.
Now i am a republican

Napoleon Ier wrote:Nice little spiel Mustard, shame it contains nothing relevant to the issue we're trying to discuss whatsoever. Blah blah blah blah blah, look how far my head is rammed up my own arse, blah blah blah blah. Have you ever seen a little boy take himself this seriously before in your life? Blah blah blah behold as I do exactly the same thing I'm whinging about blah blah blah blah blah fucking blah. Again.

Sorry Nappy, what was that? I was trying to listen to your insignificant wrong opinions, I really was, but you got drowned out by the blaring of the hypocrisy-alarm that started sounding just the moment you opened your mouth.

Better luck next time eh?

Dancing Mustard wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Nice little spiel Mustard, shame it contains nothing relevant to the issue we're trying to discuss whatsoever. Blah blah blah blah blah, look how far my head is rammed up my own arse, blah blah blah blah. Have you ever seen a little boy take himself this seriously before in your life? Blah blah blah behold as I do exactly the same thing I'm whinging about blah blah blah blah blah fucking blah. Again.

Sorry Nappy, what was that? I was trying to listen to your insignificant wrong opinions, I really was, but you got drowned out by the blaring of the hypocrisy-alarm that started sounding just the moment you opened your mouth.

Better luck next time eh?

Oh yes, the old 'make up a fictional post then reply to it' gambit, I hear it's all the rage at nursery-schools this year.

What's this? Dancing Mustard being a hypocrite? Never...

Well, sorry Mustard, "I was trying to listen to your insignificant wrong opinions, I really was, but you got drowned out by the blaring of the hypocrisy-alarm that started sounding just the moment you opened your mouth."

Anyway, I'll leave you to keep trying to thrash and squirm out of the monumental pile of shit you've gotten yourself into, and let you have your insignificant and rather unintelligent last word, if it leaves you with any feeling of satisfaction.

Please do feel free to, oh, I don't know, read or book, or properly think about a serious issue between now and tomorrow, so perhaps you and I can have an actual debate rather than have you just gallivant around the place making hair-splitting grammatical points and then accusing others of doing so themselves before throwing a hysterical tantrum and sobbing at how unfair it is you're being dismantled by people younger than you.

Who knows?

Until then, adieu.