Further post-secondary education, you mean; probably so, though not for the reasons you stated.
Joel Send a noteboard - 26/08/2012 08:20:45 PM
Exchanges like the one above showcase how untrained you are in anything approaching a formal argument.
All your replies to me for about two years have been condescending ad hominems masquerading as logic; you are no authority on formal argument.
Of course, given your strident refusals to correct practices like not using apostrophes, coupled with your complete inability to let go of a point that nobody else is interested in discussing, you'd probably drive your teachers and classmates up the wall as much as you do Isaac.
Isaacs (not Rolands) hypothetical was that fetuses are indisputably children; discussing the proposition invites, almost demands, discussing its consequences: Killing people for any reason but saving life is murder, justifying anything necessary to prevent it, including lethal force. It is just like the NYPD killing the Empire State Building shooter. Calling that old idea my creation denies its documented history.
Isaac then asserted that any mental trauma sufficient to justify abortion makes a woman incompetent to decide that. I noted that many people experience great mental (and other) trauma without being incompetent to make decisions about it (e.g. parents of critically ill children are not legally incompetent to decide their care.) He ignored that rebuttal to simply reiterate his assertion, so I reiterated the rebuttal; that exchange occurred several times, yet he never addressed the rebuttal. Under formal debate rules, where does that leave his assertion...?
Finally, he asserted that since any woman motivated to request abortion is legally incompetent to do so, doctors deserve no legal protection for killing at the request of someone mentally incompetent. Isaac noted in passing that those possessing mental competence an abortion seeker lacks might have authority to decide whether she receives an abortion, and I responded that doctors have that mental competence and the necessary professional training; he again ignored the wholly relevant rebuttal. Of course, saying abortion doctors have no legal protection leads right back where we started: If they have no legal protection, killing them to prevent abortions is legally valid (which was the principal reason I brought it up in the first place.)
Dismissing the inevitable conclusions of ones logic as tangential just because they are distasteful is arguing in bad faith. So is opposing arguments one accepts, solely due to disliking their articulator. This is not about how you, me or Isaac feel about each other personally.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Rape - British left wing politician takes on American right wing politician in stupidest comment off
22/08/2012 11:03:50 PM
- 1054 Views
Galloway - I'll always remember him for being a Cat to be honest.
22/08/2012 11:14:58 PM
- 625 Views
That is second on my list of things I remember about him, probably down to third now.
22/08/2012 11:21:17 PM
- 546 Views
People who support abortion only for rape are the most retarded in the whole debate
23/08/2012 01:05:17 AM
- 595 Views
Bullshit
23/08/2012 05:01:24 AM
- 500 Views
That's an interesting variation with some legitimacy, though not compelling, to me anyway
23/08/2012 07:25:50 AM
- 518 Views
That is a dangerous line of logic.
23/08/2012 09:26:25 PM
- 750 Views
Okay, that really wasn't connected to my comments
24/08/2012 02:39:21 AM
- 452 Views
Sure it was, but we can do it your way.
24/08/2012 04:10:37 AM
- 521 Views
Yet you don't, you jump the gun here too
24/08/2012 04:37:02 AM
- 536 Views
I was trying to cut to the chase; like I say, I followed your logic: I just disliked where it led.
24/08/2012 06:10:40 AM
- 617 Views
Disliking the conclusion doesn't invalidate the logic, and stop veering out of the debate boundary
24/08/2012 06:43:43 AM
- 569 Views
No, the logics invalidity does that, though you do not seem to like its conclusion either.
24/08/2012 07:48:21 AM
- 731 Views
I'm not even sure what that means
25/08/2012 12:38:56 AM
- 462 Views
The logic is invalid because invalid, however either of us feels about where it leads.
25/08/2012 10:37:34 PM
- 525 Views
Okay, we're done here
26/08/2012 05:36:28 AM
- 494 Views
Quotes are not my opinion.
26/08/2012 06:37:19 AM
- 468 Views
You'd really benefit from post-secondary education.
26/08/2012 12:14:02 PM
- 558 Views
Further post-secondary education, you mean; probably so, though not for the reasons you stated.
26/08/2012 08:20:45 PM
- 514 Views
Haven't you and Joel had about the same amount of post-secondary education, actually?
27/08/2012 01:31:43 AM
- 585 Views
It has nothing to do with consequences or responsibility. It's about life & privacy. Period
23/08/2012 12:04:55 PM
- 620 Views
To be honest, I think people MIGHT be overreacting to both comments.
23/08/2012 01:33:54 AM
- 578 Views
Really? *NM*
23/08/2012 06:33:46 AM
- 329 Views
Yeah.
23/08/2012 06:40:05 AM
- 525 Views
I expect it is more of a "stating the obvious" response.
23/08/2012 02:01:18 PM
- 520 Views
Heh, I didn't think so.
23/08/2012 05:44:55 PM
- 563 Views
I said Akins comments needed MORE context.
23/08/2012 08:50:09 PM
- 653 Views
Yes, I saw that.
23/08/2012 10:28:50 PM
- 473 Views
Re: Yes, I saw that.
23/08/2012 11:04:40 PM
- 501 Views
Re: Yes, I saw that.
23/08/2012 11:08:46 PM
- 477 Views
Science sometimes produces shocking discoveries.
23/08/2012 11:28:47 PM
- 502 Views
And sometimes one doctor with an agenda pulls "facts" out of the air
23/08/2012 11:37:37 PM
- 545 Views
This
23/08/2012 08:50:43 PM
- 549 Views
Eh
23/08/2012 10:37:15 PM
- 494 Views
I read it the same way Jen did
23/08/2012 08:49:16 PM
- 461 Views
Why?
23/08/2012 08:51:59 PM
- 539 Views
See your reply here - the bit before the comma then the bit after it.
23/08/2012 09:06:20 PM
- 527 Views
You can see where there's room for doubt in that though, surely.
23/08/2012 09:20:19 PM
- 502 Views
I accept there are exceptions under some circumstances - but they are exceptions, not the rule.
23/08/2012 09:44:36 PM
- 513 Views
Well, I have to clarify...
23/08/2012 10:28:13 PM
- 487 Views
Re: Well, I have to clarify...
23/08/2012 10:50:59 PM
- 454 Views
Re: Well, I have to clarify...
23/08/2012 11:15:50 PM
- 458 Views
Re: Well, I have to clarify...
23/08/2012 11:28:56 PM
- 557 Views
couple things
24/08/2012 01:57:04 AM
- 465 Views
Re: couple things
24/08/2012 02:26:23 PM
- 498 Views
You may be talking about Galloway and not Assange, but Galloway was talking about Assange.
24/08/2012 06:28:00 PM
- 472 Views
I can
23/08/2012 11:05:05 PM
- 434 Views
OK
23/08/2012 09:35:35 PM
- 477 Views
Bullshit.
23/08/2012 10:00:54 PM
- 446 Views
Re: Bullshit.
23/08/2012 10:52:02 PM
- 638 Views
I don't know about Galloway but Akin is being made to pay for his commnets
23/08/2012 04:37:12 PM
- 554 Views
Um, I'm not sure about that last bit
23/08/2012 10:43:15 PM
- 474 Views
this issue has been discussed none stop for two days and this almost never mentioned
24/08/2012 12:28:25 PM
- 472 Views
Yeah, I'm curious about that last point as well.
24/08/2012 02:53:43 AM
- 526 Views
McCaskills campaign ran ads during the GOP primary calling Akin the "most conservative" candidate.
24/08/2012 03:33:18 AM
- 673 Views
Interesting.
24/08/2012 04:49:51 AM
- 464 Views
Yeah, that about covers it; personally, I am developing a grudging respect for Akin.
24/08/2012 06:30:43 AM
- 520 Views
no it isn't kinda true
24/08/2012 12:50:53 PM
- 443 Views
The MO GOP voters who nominated him for being "most conservative" think it is.
25/08/2012 10:52:02 PM
- 478 Views