bro, I minored in philosophy bro, let's see you actually demonstrate what I said was fallacious, rather than cut/paste some fallacies you read off wikipedia.
A philosophy minor, eh? I never would have guessed, given how poor your reasoning is here.
"As for the rape-baby, imagine if instead of sperm, he had a syringe and had tied her up and injected her with a parasite or virus, would you not want to get rid of it and take her to the hospital to do so, or would you accept your lot?"
How would YOU like to explain how a virus, a non-living thing, shares enough similarities to a baby for your analogy to be apt? Keep in mind, superficial similarities alone are not enough for two things to be considered analogous. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a pro-lifer certainly, but to equivocate having an abortion to curing a disease is simply ignorant.
"Imagine how life would be for the baby-to know it was a product of rape. If you give it up, it's life will be hellish, going from state care to who knows what-it will become depressed or mentally ill, or could become a future rapist."
That's a lot of "what-ifs" there. The problem here is I could just as easily say "what if this baby is adopted by a loving family and grow up to live a long and happy life, and by aborting it, you are denying it that?" Or, "what if this baby will grow up to be a great person who will change the world and touch the lives of many others?" Why don't we stay out of the realm of nebulous hypotheticals and stick to reality, all right?
"Do everything in your power to make her have the abortion. If she refuses then leave her"
This is HER decision to make. Not his, and certainly not yours. He might want to get her to consider all the factors at play here, but to suggest that he try to coerce her into aborting it against her wishes with threats of abandonment is just... Honestly, I can't think of any other word to describe it than evil.
"If someone left an 8 yr old boy in a wheelchair with downs syndrome at your door, are you obligated to take care of it, because it was left in front of your home?"
Again, false equivalency, for two reasons: One, part of the reason you would not be obligated is because that 8-year-old boy is someone else's child. That child is not your family, he is a stranger, and not your responsibility. This reasoning does not apply to this particular case. That baby IS family, it is HER child she is carrying, and she is its de facto guardian. And two, since your argument is that because you say it is not her responsibility she is justified in aborting it, does that mean the person in your scenario is justified in shooting the 8-year-old boy in the head, since he's not that person's responsibility?
"She wants to keep it because of biology, the hormones are keeping her from thinking rationally."
[...]
"If she refuses then leave her-if she's going to be irrational about this, then you can expect such behavior on other important decisions."
[...]
"I just can't believe that people here would seriously consider raising this child."
[...]
"Lol at the retarded logic."
And this right here is why I mocked you. If you had just presented your poorly thought out arguments and left it at that, I wouldn't have said anything. But to take it a step further and attack both her and anyone with a differing viewpoint was just too dickish to ignore. You seem to think that this is a black and white issue, that abortion is the right choice here and anyone who thinks differently is either irrational or using "retarded logic." This is not a clear-cut case, with a "right" decision and a "wrong" decision. We all hold our different opinions on the subject, and while I personally think that I would carry it to term were I in that situation, I wouldn't pass judgement on her if she did decide to have an abortion. But to think that your opinion is the only "right" one and then back up that stance with poorly thought out reasoning while attacking those who disagree is pompous in the highest degree.
And here, I thought I'd actually get some kind of critique based on reason. Instead I get the whining of a pro-lifer who disagrees with my view. LOL
Please don't try to pretend you're actually an intellectual when really you're just another dumb schmuck with a biased opinion-thanks for the laughs though. Now to shred your shoddy points:
"How would YOU like to explain how a virus, a non-living thing, shares enough similarities to a baby for your analogy to be"
I didn't compare the virus to a baby, but to a sperm, learn to read. Secondly viruses behave as living organisms when they enter a cell, you're out of your depth here.
A zygote is essentially a parasite which clings to the lining of a uterus and turns into a baby, so my analogy was perfectly apt.
But the general point, which your tiny mind failed to grasp here is that if someone does something unwanted to you and it can be reversed, you don't have to live with those consequences-as I'm sure you're suggesting, otherwise why argue with me?
"or what if this baby will grow up to be a great person who will change the world and touch the lives of many others?" Why don't we stay out of the realm of nebulous hypotheticals and stick to reality, all right?"
Probably one of your stupidest statements so far. You present me with another hypothetical, then tell me to stick to reality. lol Actually statistically a person who has a bad life is more likely to become a rapist/serial killer than another Einstein. So in fact reality is on my side not yours.
"but to suggest that he try to coerce her into aborting it against her wishes with threats of abandonment is just...evil."
Obviously it's her decision, which is why I told him to try to convince her to abort and leave her if she doesn't. Did I tell him to punch her in the gut and cause a miscarriage?
What is truly disgusting is you trying to force her to keep a child that resulted from non-consensual sex, ie-rape. So you're supporting the rapist's actions by forcing her to keep the baby, you're the evil one here, you rapist lover.
"That baby IS family, it is HER child she is carrying, and she is its de facto guardian"
You have a very sick and demented idea of what constitutes a family. Next thing you'll be telling us is that she has no choice but to marry the rapist, since he's part of the family too-is he not the father by rape, does he not have rights? Mind you, this is what the psychotic Islamic states do to women-congrats, you're as fucked up as they are.
While half the genes are the mother's the other half come from the rapist-that were unwanted and were literally forced into her body. I'm assuming this how you hope to be impregnated yourself? If not then stfu.
"This is not a clear-cut case, with a "right" decision and a "wrong" decision."
Actually it is. This isn't like moving the furniture around the house. Having a baby is gigantic, life-changing decision. It's a whole other ball-game when that baby was forced on you and no you don't have to carry the baby of a rapist around, just because it happens to be in your body.
"And here, I thought I'd actually get some kind of critique based on reason. Instead I get the whining of a pro-lifer who disagrees with my view. LOL"
[...]
"I'm not a pro-lifer"
[...]
"I wouldn't pass judgement on her if she did decide to have an abortion."
[...]
"This is HER decision to make."
Do pro-lifers typically advocate allowing women to choose whether or not they should have an abortion? Because I always thought those were characteristics of someone who was in favour or pro-choice... Tell me, were you legitimately confused with regards to my stance or were you merely being disingenuous and think that framing me as a pro-lifer would somehow help your argument?
"why argue with me?"
I understood the point, and I agree with it. What you failed to understand is that the similarities between a sperm/zygote and a virus are too slim for your analogy to be apt. A virus is not a living creature. A virus will not grow into a sapient being. Most people would not have moral qualms with destroying a virus, whereas many would (and do) with a zygote. These are all things your analogy fails to take into account, and hence why it is a poor analogy.
"Probably one of your stupidest statements so far. You present me with another hypothetical, then tell me to stick to reality. lol"
Once again, you argue against a misinterpretation. I was not using nebulous hypothetical scenarios to construct an argument, as you have done, I was demonstrating WHY they are not a good way to construct an argument. Of course, had you actually quoted me fully rather than cherry-picking, that would have been apparent.
"Actually statistically a person who has a bad life is more likely to become a rapist/serial killer than another Einstein. So in fact reality is on my side not yours."
So you have somehow managed to definitively determine that this child will have a bad life, and thus, statistics show that you are more likely correct? Would you care to explain how you managed to do that?
"Obviously it's her decision, which is why I told him to try to convince her to abort and leave her if she doesn't."
Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding here. What I believe the correct thing to do, as I stated, is "to get her to consider all the factors at play here [so that she may make an informed decision]" Would you agree with this? You said "Do everything in your power to make her have the abortion." I would assume that entails the above, but would you advocate going beyond that? If so, in what way?
"What is truly disgusting is you trying to force her to keep a child that resulted from non-consensual sex, ie-rape. So you're supporting the rapist's actions by forcing her to keep the baby, you're the evil one here, you rapist lover."
Would you like to point out precisely where I did any of those things you mentioned? Or are you going to stick to making stuff up and resorting to childish name-calling?
"You have a very sick and demented idea of what constitutes a family. Next thing you'll be telling us is that she has no choice but to marry the rapist, since he's part of the family too-is he not the father by rape, does he not have rights? Mind you, this is what the psychotic Islamic states do to women-congrats, you're as fucked up as they are."
Since you seem to be well-informed with regards to my ideas of family based on one post, would you care to explain in detail what they are and show why they are wrong? (Oh, and by the way: When arguing against someone who claims you have been making slippery slope arguments, try not to include that very fallacy in your rebuttal. Just trust me on this one.)
"Actually it is."
Explain. Saying it is so does not make it so.
"This isn't like moving the furniture around the house. Having a baby is gigantic, life-changing decision. It's a whole other ball-game when that baby was forced on you and no you don't have to carry the baby of a rapist around, just because it happens to be in your body."
I agree 100%.
What seems to be the core of our disagreement in general is that even though we are apparently both essentially pro-choice, our interpretation of what that means exactly is different. My stance is that in a case like this, the victim has the choice to decide whether or not she should carry the baby to term. It is her decision to make, and no one else's and forcing her to do something she doesn't want to (with regards to having an abortion) is immoral. Your stance, and please (and I mean this sincerely), correct me if I am wrong, is that in a case like this, the victim should have an abortion, regardless of her personal feelings on the matter, because that is what you feel you would do in that situation, and that those close to her should do everything in their power to make her think the way you do. The problem I have with this is that you are not really giving her full freedom to choose here. In theory, she has a choice. But if she makes the "wrong" choice (wrong, in this case being "the choice lufa doesn't agree with"), she should be shunned and ridiculed. Thus, if she feels differently than you, she is being unfairly coerced into making a decision that she doesn't agree with to avoid the negative consequences she is being threatened with.
Lastly, I don't care if you were taught that it was proper to use strawmen, personal attacks and name-calling in an argument when you were being taught philosophy, but I would repectfully ask that you try to restrain yourself from doing those things in the future with me. I feel that they add nothing constructive to the argument at hand and only serve to distract from the issues.
If your girlfriend got raped, what would you do in this situation?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
>lols at "retarded logic."
>Uses both slippery slope and false equivalency fallacies to justify his viewpoint.
--
lufa
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
bro, I minored in philosophy bro, let's see you actually demonstrate what I said was fallacious, rather than cut/paste some fallacies you read off wikipedia.
--
Charmo
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
A philosophy minor, eh? I never would have guessed, given how poor your reasoning is here.
"As for the rape-baby, imagine if instead of sperm, he had a syringe and had tied her up and injected her with a parasite or virus, would you not want to get rid of it and take her to the hospital to do so, or would you accept your lot?"
How would YOU like to explain how a virus, a non-living thing, shares enough similarities to a baby for your analogy to be apt? Keep in mind, superficial similarities alone are not enough for two things to be considered analogous. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a pro-lifer certainly, but to equivocate having an abortion to curing a disease is simply ignorant.
"Imagine how life would be for the baby-to know it was a product of rape. If you give it up, it's life will be hellish, going from state care to who knows what-it will become depressed or mentally ill, or could become a future rapist."
That's a lot of "what-ifs" there. The problem here is I could just as easily say "what if this baby is adopted by a loving family and grow up to live a long and happy life, and by aborting it, you are denying it that?" Or, "what if this baby will grow up to be a great person who will change the world and touch the lives of many others?" Why don't we stay out of the realm of nebulous hypotheticals and stick to reality, all right?
"Do everything in your power to make her have the abortion. If she refuses then leave her"
This is HER decision to make. Not his, and certainly not yours. He might want to get her to consider all the factors at play here, but to suggest that he try to coerce her into aborting it against her wishes with threats of abandonment is just... Honestly, I can't think of any other word to describe it than evil.
"If someone left an 8 yr old boy in a wheelchair with downs syndrome at your door, are you obligated to take care of it, because it was left in front of your home?"
Again, false equivalency, for two reasons: One, part of the reason you would not be obligated is because that 8-year-old boy is someone else's child. That child is not your family, he is a stranger, and not your responsibility. This reasoning does not apply to this particular case. That baby IS family, it is HER child she is carrying, and she is its de facto guardian. And two, since your argument is that because you say it is not her responsibility she is justified in aborting it, does that mean the person in your scenario is justified in shooting the 8-year-old boy in the head, since he's not that person's responsibility?
"She wants to keep it because of biology, the hormones are keeping her from thinking rationally."
[...]
"If she refuses then leave her-if she's going to be irrational about this, then you can expect such behavior on other important decisions."
[...]
"I just can't believe that people here would seriously consider raising this child."
[...]
"Lol at the retarded logic."
And this right here is why I mocked you. If you had just presented your poorly thought out arguments and left it at that, I wouldn't have said anything. But to take it a step further and attack both her and anyone with a differing viewpoint was just too dickish to ignore. You seem to think that this is a black and white issue, that abortion is the right choice here and anyone who thinks differently is either irrational or using "retarded logic." This is not a clear-cut case, with a "right" decision and a "wrong" decision. We all hold our different opinions on the subject, and while I personally think that I would carry it to term were I in that situation, I wouldn't pass judgement on her if she did decide to have an abortion. But to think that your opinion is the only "right" one and then back up that stance with poorly thought out reasoning while attacking those who disagree is pompous in the highest degree.
--
lufa
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
And here, I thought I'd actually get some kind of critique based on reason. Instead I get the whining of a pro-lifer who disagrees with my view. LOL
Please don't try to pretend you're actually an intellectual when really you're just another dumb schmuck with a biased opinion-thanks for the laughs though. Now to shred your shoddy points:
"How would YOU like to explain how a virus, a non-living thing, shares enough similarities to a baby for your analogy to be"
I didn't compare the virus to a baby, but to a sperm, learn to read. Secondly viruses behave as living organisms when they enter a cell, you're out of your depth here.
A zygote is essentially a parasite which clings to the lining of a uterus and turns into a baby, so my analogy was perfectly apt.
But the general point, which your tiny mind failed to grasp here is that if someone does something unwanted to you and it can be reversed, you don't have to live with those consequences-as I'm sure you're suggesting, otherwise why argue with me?
"or what if this baby will grow up to be a great person who will change the world and touch the lives of many others?" Why don't we stay out of the realm of nebulous hypotheticals and stick to reality, all right?"
Probably one of your stupidest statements so far. You present me with another hypothetical, then tell me to stick to reality. lol Actually statistically a person who has a bad life is more likely to become a rapist/serial killer than another Einstein. So in fact reality is on my side not yours.
"but to suggest that he try to coerce her into aborting it against her wishes with threats of abandonment is just...evil."
Obviously it's her decision, which is why I told him to try to convince her to abort and leave her if she doesn't. Did I tell him to punch her in the gut and cause a miscarriage?
What is truly disgusting is you trying to force her to keep a child that resulted from non-consensual sex, ie-rape. So you're supporting the rapist's actions by forcing her to keep the baby, you're the evil one here, you rapist lover.
"That baby IS family, it is HER child she is carrying, and she is its de facto guardian"
You have a very sick and demented idea of what constitutes a family. Next thing you'll be telling us is that she has no choice but to marry the rapist, since he's part of the family too-is he not the father by rape, does he not have rights? Mind you, this is what the psychotic Islamic states do to women-congrats, you're as fucked up as they are.
While half the genes are the mother's the other half come from the rapist-that were unwanted and were literally forced into her body. I'm assuming this how you hope to be impregnated yourself? If not then stfu.
"This is not a clear-cut case, with a "right" decision and a "wrong" decision."
Actually it is. This isn't like moving the furniture around the house. Having a baby is gigantic, life-changing decision. It's a whole other ball-game when that baby was forced on you and no you don't have to carry the baby of a rapist around, just because it happens to be in your body.
--
Charmo
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
"And here, I thought I'd actually get some kind of critique based on reason. Instead I get the whining of a pro-lifer who disagrees with my view. LOL"
[...]
"I'm not a pro-lifer"
[...]
"I wouldn't pass judgement on her if she did decide to have an abortion."
[...]
"This is HER decision to make."
Do pro-lifers typically advocate allowing women to choose whether or not they should have an abortion? Because I always thought those were characteristics of someone who was in favour or pro-choice... Tell me, were you legitimately confused with regards to my stance or were you merely being disingenuous and think that framing me as a pro-lifer would somehow help your argument?
"why argue with me?"
I understood the point, and I agree with it. What you failed to understand is that the similarities between a sperm/zygote and a virus are too slim for your analogy to be apt. A virus is not a living creature. A virus will not grow into a sapient being. Most people would not have moral qualms with destroying a virus, whereas many would (and do) with a zygote. These are all things your analogy fails to take into account, and hence why it is a poor analogy.
"Probably one of your stupidest statements so far. You present me with another hypothetical, then tell me to stick to reality. lol"
Once again, you argue against a misinterpretation. I was not using nebulous hypothetical scenarios to construct an argument, as you have done, I was demonstrating WHY they are not a good way to construct an argument. Of course, had you actually quoted me fully rather than cherry-picking, that would have been apparent.
"Actually statistically a person who has a bad life is more likely to become a rapist/serial killer than another Einstein. So in fact reality is on my side not yours."
So you have somehow managed to definitively determine that this child will have a bad life, and thus, statistics show that you are more likely correct? Would you care to explain how you managed to do that?
"Obviously it's her decision, which is why I told him to try to convince her to abort and leave her if she doesn't."
Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding here. What I believe the correct thing to do, as I stated, is "to get her to consider all the factors at play here [so that she may make an informed decision]" Would you agree with this? You said "Do everything in your power to make her have the abortion." I would assume that entails the above, but would you advocate going beyond that? If so, in what way?
"What is truly disgusting is you trying to force her to keep a child that resulted from non-consensual sex, ie-rape. So you're supporting the rapist's actions by forcing her to keep the baby, you're the evil one here, you rapist lover."
Would you like to point out precisely where I did any of those things you mentioned? Or are you going to stick to making stuff up and resorting to childish name-calling?
"You have a very sick and demented idea of what constitutes a family. Next thing you'll be telling us is that she has no choice but to marry the rapist, since he's part of the family too-is he not the father by rape, does he not have rights? Mind you, this is what the psychotic Islamic states do to women-congrats, you're as fucked up as they are."
Since you seem to be well-informed with regards to my ideas of family based on one post, would you care to explain in detail what they are and show why they are wrong? (Oh, and by the way: When arguing against someone who claims you have been making slippery slope arguments, try not to include that very fallacy in your rebuttal. Just trust me on this one.)
"Actually it is."
Explain. Saying it is so does not make it so.
"This isn't like moving the furniture around the house. Having a baby is gigantic, life-changing decision. It's a whole other ball-game when that baby was forced on you and no you don't have to carry the baby of a rapist around, just because it happens to be in your body."
I agree 100%.
What seems to be the core of our disagreement in general is that even though we are apparently both essentially pro-choice, our interpretation of what that means exactly is different. My stance is that in a case like this, the victim has the choice to decide whether or not she should carry the baby to term. It is her decision to make, and no one else's and forcing her to do something she doesn't want to (with regards to having an abortion) is immoral. Your stance, and please (and I mean this sincerely), correct me if I am wrong, is that in a case like this, the victim should have an abortion, regardless of her personal feelings on the matter, because that is what you feel you would do in that situation, and that those close to her should do everything in their power to make her think the way you do. The problem I have with this is that you are not really giving her full freedom to choose here. In theory, she has a choice. But if she makes the "wrong" choice (wrong, in this case being "the choice lufa doesn't agree with"), she should be shunned and ridiculed. Thus, if she feels differently than you, she is being unfairly coerced into making a decision that she doesn't agree with to avoid the negative consequences she is being threatened with.
Lastly, I don't care if you were taught that it was proper to use strawmen, personal attacks and name-calling in an argument when you were being taught philosophy, but I would repectfully ask that you try to restrain yourself from doing those things in the future with me. I feel that they add nothing constructive to the argument at hand and only serve to distract from the issues.
--
lufa
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
I neither have the time, patience or interest to continue to straighten you out.
Continue holding on to your weird ideas, I'm sure you'll drive any man you're with to insanity and want to run away screaming from you.