Active Users:560 Time:18/03/2026 07:54:55 PM
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.
Reply to message
Rape - British left wing politician takes on American right wing politician in stupidest comment off - 22/08/2012 11:03:50 PM 1132 Views
Galloway - I'll always remember him for being a Cat to be honest. - 22/08/2012 11:14:58 PM 716 Views
Erm... what on earth is that? - 22/08/2012 11:19:13 PM 520 Views
Celebrity Big Brother in the UK - 22/08/2012 11:22:17 PM 572 Views
People who support abortion only for rape are the most retarded in the whole debate - 23/08/2012 01:05:17 AM 668 Views
Bullshit - 23/08/2012 05:01:24 AM 570 Views
That's an interesting variation with some legitimacy, though not compelling, to me anyway - 23/08/2012 07:25:50 AM 614 Views
That is a dangerous line of logic. - 23/08/2012 09:26:25 PM 887 Views
Okay, that really wasn't connected to my comments - 24/08/2012 02:39:21 AM 527 Views
Sure it was, but we can do it your way. - 24/08/2012 04:10:37 AM 598 Views
Yet you don't, you jump the gun here too - 24/08/2012 04:37:02 AM 611 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 690 Views
Disliking the conclusion doesn't invalidate the logic, and stop veering out of the debate boundary - 24/08/2012 06:43:43 AM 638 Views
No, the logics invalidity does that, though you do not seem to like its conclusion either. - 24/08/2012 07:48:21 AM 818 Views
I'm not even sure what that means - 25/08/2012 12:38:56 AM 537 Views
The logic is invalid because invalid, however either of us feels about where it leads. - 25/08/2012 10:37:34 PM 598 Views
Okay, we're done here - 26/08/2012 05:36:28 AM 575 Views
Quotes are not my opinion. - 26/08/2012 06:37:19 AM 537 Views
You'd really benefit from post-secondary education. - 26/08/2012 12:14:02 PM 643 Views
Further post-secondary education, you mean; probably so, though not for the reasons you stated. - 26/08/2012 08:20:45 PM 584 Views
Haven't you and Joel had about the same amount of post-secondary education, actually? - 27/08/2012 01:31:43 AM 663 Views
T^T - 27/08/2012 04:39:33 AM 587 Views
Is that the emoticon for perky titties? *NM* - 27/08/2012 11:07:06 PM 283 Views
He is an absolute berk. *NM* - 23/08/2012 01:08:58 AM 483 Views
To be honest, I think people MIGHT be overreacting to both comments. - 23/08/2012 01:33:54 AM 655 Views
Really? *NM* - 23/08/2012 06:33:46 AM 358 Views
Yeah. - 23/08/2012 06:40:05 AM 597 Views
I expect it is more of a "stating the obvious" response. - 23/08/2012 02:01:18 PM 595 Views
Heh, I didn't think so. - 23/08/2012 05:44:55 PM 632 Views
I said Akins comments needed MORE context. - 23/08/2012 08:50:09 PM 733 Views
Yes, I saw that. - 23/08/2012 10:28:50 PM 541 Views
Re: Yes, I saw that. - 23/08/2012 11:04:40 PM 572 Views
Re: Yes, I saw that. - 23/08/2012 11:08:46 PM 551 Views
Science sometimes produces shocking discoveries. - 23/08/2012 11:28:47 PM 577 Views
And sometimes one doctor with an agenda pulls "facts" out of the air - 23/08/2012 11:37:37 PM 631 Views
No argument there. - 23/08/2012 11:46:01 PM 605 Views
This - 23/08/2012 08:50:43 PM 624 Views
Okay. I misunderstood. Sorry. *NM* - 23/08/2012 09:58:20 PM 327 Views
Eh - 23/08/2012 10:37:15 PM 573 Views
Well, I didn't take it that way. - 23/08/2012 10:42:01 PM 693 Views
Good - 24/08/2012 02:20:27 AM 652 Views
Ah, I can understand if that is the case. - 23/08/2012 07:46:38 PM 600 Views
I read it the same way Jen did - 23/08/2012 08:49:16 PM 552 Views
Why? - 23/08/2012 08:51:59 PM 612 Views
See your reply here - the bit before the comma then the bit after it. - 23/08/2012 09:06:20 PM 609 Views
You can see where there's room for doubt in that though, surely. - 23/08/2012 09:20:19 PM 572 Views
I accept there are exceptions under some circumstances - but they are exceptions, not the rule. - 23/08/2012 09:44:36 PM 593 Views
Well, I have to clarify... - 23/08/2012 10:28:13 PM 569 Views
Re: Well, I have to clarify... - 23/08/2012 10:50:59 PM 541 Views
Re: Well, I have to clarify... - 23/08/2012 11:15:50 PM 539 Views
Re: Well, I have to clarify... - 23/08/2012 11:28:56 PM 632 Views
couple things - 24/08/2012 01:57:04 AM 537 Views
Re: couple things - 24/08/2012 02:26:23 PM 567 Views
Re: couple things - 24/08/2012 02:45:38 PM 519 Views
Re: couple things - 25/08/2012 12:11:03 AM 567 Views
You may be talking about Galloway and not Assange, but Galloway was talking about Assange. - 24/08/2012 06:28:00 PM 555 Views
Ew. - 24/08/2012 06:56:27 PM 581 Views
Yes, that about covers it. - 24/08/2012 07:42:13 PM 550 Views
Yes, I was talking about Galoway and what he said - 25/08/2012 12:15:15 AM 688 Views
Re: Well, I have to clarify... - 23/08/2012 11:34:51 PM 638 Views
I can - 23/08/2012 11:05:05 PM 506 Views
I gotta say I am with Paul - 24/08/2012 12:27:44 AM 605 Views
Hm. - 24/08/2012 02:08:33 AM 524 Views
OK - 23/08/2012 09:35:35 PM 559 Views
Bullshit. - 23/08/2012 10:00:54 PM 515 Views
Re: Bullshit. - 23/08/2012 10:52:02 PM 708 Views
To start again then Joel - 23/08/2012 11:14:07 PM 541 Views
My mistake then, sorry. - 23/08/2012 11:32:34 PM 573 Views
Agreeing without agreeing. - 23/08/2012 12:24:10 PM 653 Views
I have gotten used to you being right for the wrong reasons. - 23/08/2012 07:42:32 PM 559 Views
Yes - 23/08/2012 06:34:38 AM 702 Views
Indeed - 23/08/2012 08:47:40 PM 528 Views
I don't know about Galloway but Akin is being made to pay for his commnets - 23/08/2012 04:37:12 PM 626 Views
Um, I'm not sure about that last bit - 23/08/2012 10:43:15 PM 563 Views
this issue has been discussed none stop for two days and this almost never mentioned - 24/08/2012 12:28:25 PM 547 Views
well, that is where I'm confused. - 24/08/2012 07:03:16 PM 579 Views
Maybe I watch to much CNN - 24/08/2012 07:30:23 PM 520 Views
Yeah, I'm curious about that last point as well. - 24/08/2012 02:53:43 AM 592 Views
McCaskills campaign ran ads during the GOP primary calling Akin the "most conservative" candidate. - 24/08/2012 03:33:18 AM 755 Views
Interesting. - 24/08/2012 04:49:51 AM 537 Views
no it isn't kinda true - 24/08/2012 12:50:53 PM 516 Views

Reply to Message