|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 17, 2017 21:35:19 GMT
This is an experiment inspired by another thread. If you vote, it would be nice if you'd share your vote and reasons why you voted for what you did.
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jul 17, 2017 21:41:00 GMT
Pro-choice, disagree. "Advocate for the killing of unborn babies" is an ambiguous and loaded term, making it sound like one who is pro-choice wants to systematically hunt down and kill any unborn babies he or she can find.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 17, 2017 21:41:53 GMT
This is an experiment inspired by another thread. If you vote, it would be nice if you'd share your vote and reasons why you voted for what you did. I am pro-choice and I disagree, I would not advocate nor would I get an abortion (of course my partner but you know what I mean), but at the end of the day what I decide is not what other people have the right to decide, moreover when abortion goes underground injuries occur. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
 
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 17, 2017 21:42:00 GMT
first option. it seems obvious to me that some fetuses could be called babies and that taking their life is killing. I dont usually use this type of language though because lesswrong.com/lw/it/semantic_stopsigns/ |
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jul 17, 2017 21:44:10 GMT
Prochoice, disagree - supporting the ability to choose between two outcomes doesn't in any way equate to recommending one over the other.
It's rather like saying people who think you should have the right to drink alcohol or not are recommending you drink alcohol. Silly.
The "you want to kill babies" type spin is something Ada used to sell, if it gives you any indication of the mental type that gravitates towards that sort of language-mangling.
Mind you, the woman behind planned parenthood had a not-to-subtle sub-mission if seeing abortions happen within a particular sub-group... I think that's where a lot of the nonsense starts.
|
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Jul 17, 2017 21:56:07 GMT
Historically, abortion was promulgated for eugenic purposes. How many times have we heard the argument that we should be required to buy abortion insurance because it's cheaper that way? I'd call that advocacy. The principle is financial expediency. More abortions, more money saved. I think many of the people who are strongly in favor of this would even go a few steps further. Obama's Science Czar wanted to put sterilants in the water supply, a kind of proactive abortion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 17, 2017 22:05:40 GMT
Pro-choice, disagree. "Advocate for the killing of unborn babies" is an ambiguous and loaded term, making it sound like one who is pro-choice wants to systematically hunt down and kill any unborn babies he or she can find. I am pro-choice and I disagree, I would not advocate nor would I get an abortion (of course my partner but you know what I mean), but at the end of the day what I decide is not what other people have the right to decide, moreover when abortion goes underground injuries occur. Prochoice, disagree - supporting the ability to choose between two outcomes doesn't in any way equate to recommending one over the other. It's rather like saying people who think you should have the right to drink alcohol or not are recommending you drink alcohol. Silly. The "you want to kill babies" type spin is something Ada used to sell, if it gives you any indication of the mental type that gravitates towards that sort of language-mangling. Agree with these. Apparently I'm NOT losing my mind when it comes to what "advocate" means. |
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Jul 17, 2017 22:12:47 GMT
Pro-choice, disagree. "Advocate for the killing of unborn babies" is an ambiguous and loaded term, making it sound like one who is pro-choice wants to systematically hunt down and kill any unborn babies he or she can find. I am pro-choice and I disagree, I would not advocate nor would I get an abortion (of course my partner but you know what I mean), but at the end of the day what I decide is not what other people have the right to decide, moreover when abortion goes underground injuries occur. Prochoice, disagree - supporting the ability to choose between two outcomes doesn't in any way equate to recommending one over the other. It's rather like saying people who think you should have the right to drink alcohol or not are recommending you drink alcohol. Silly. The "you want to kill babies" type spin is something Ada used to sell, if it gives you any indication of the mental type that gravitates towards that sort of language-mangling. Agree with these. Apparently I'm NOT losing my mind when it comes to what "advocate" means. Do white supremacists advocate lynching black people? No. White supremacy just means that whites are supreme. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 22:16:19 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:And so it begins. Pro-choicers don't favor abortions for those who choose them (within some time period)?  I utterly refuse to respond to rabbit in this thread.
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Jul 17, 2017 22:18:26 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:And so it begins. Pro-choicers don't favor abortions for those who choose them (within some time period)? I utterly refuse to respond to rabbit in this thread.
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years oldDo feminists hate men? No. Feminism just means the radical notion that women are human beings too. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 17, 2017 22:20:40 GMT
Agree with these. Apparently I'm NOT losing my mind when it comes to what "advocate" means. Do white supremacists advocate lynching black people? That would depend on the white supremacist. White supremacy may not, by itself, mean advocating lynching black people, but it's easy to see how that belief could lead to many that would advocate for such lynching. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 22:22:16 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. general313 said:  Well ok then. But on a serious note, does having a pro-choice position not "advocate" that unborn babies be subject to abortion?
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 22:25:10 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. gadreel said:The relevant analogy is do you advocate fetuses being subject to abortion. If available, they are subject to it. 
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 17, 2017 22:26:38 GMT
tpfkar Pro-choicers don't favor abortions for those who choose them (within some time period)? Gee, I can't help notice you phrased that radically differently here than you did in the other thread. Let me find the quotes: Me to rabbit: "Person A is pro-choice. Person B says that Person A advocates for the killing of unborn babies without mentioning that Person A is pro-choice, or that they value the mother's decision more than the life of the fetus. Is Person B misrepresenting the position of Person A by only saying they advocate for the consequence? " Rabbit to me: "Of course Person A advocates the termination of pregnancies, and it is 'misrepresentation' only in the Arlonsphere." imdb2.freeforums.net/post/671726 |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 22:30:36 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Cinemachinery said: If drinking alcohol is legal, the beverage is subject to be drunk. If illegal, it is not. Don't know how you get around it just because someone disingenuously tries to use it to say those who advocate a system that subjects 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults don't advocate subjecting 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Trading on the inflamed nature of the abortion debate.
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 22:38:57 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:Person A, who is pro-choice, advocates for the killing of unborn babies. To pretend that implies that Person A wants all babies killed is the height of semantical disingenuity. Tell me, do you think I meant that deezen wanted all 4 year-olds to be boned? Or just that they available if they met deezen's criteria, as stated from the very beginning? How anyone can fall your your game isn't to surprising I guess, but it keeps things lively.  I utterly refuse to respond to rabbit in this thread.
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2017 22:45:38 GMT
Pro-life and disagree
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 17, 2017 22:48:39 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:Person A, who is pro-choice, advocates for the killing of unborn babies. To pretend that implies that Person A wants all babies killed is the height of semantical disingenuity. See Cham's post, which echoes one of the very first posts I made to you in the other thread. I guess cham is disingenuous too? Now who's diverting? I made the analogy and initially asked the question the exact same way I phrased it in this thread. You did not object to the analogy but immediately jumped on the "pro-choicers advocate for the killing of unborn babies" bandwagon. So don't pretend now like you have some grievance with the relevancy of the analogy. And even then, you have no right because that is, in no way shape or form, how the post that I first responded to in the other thread (that you first responded to me about) was phrased. So your rephrasing is irrelevant to what started the discussion to begin with. Yes, here's the "game" they're falling for: to illustrate they know what the fuck the word "advocacy" means and you do not, and that a good chunk of our "disagreement" in that other thread is because you don't know the meanings of words and refuse to learn when someone tries to explain them to you. You now have a thread full of (at the very least) three respectable posters making the exact same arguments I made in the other thread. How surprising. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 22:50:09 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:Why don't you word it as "advocate fetuses being subject to abortion by their mothers". 
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 17, 2017 22:54:07 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:Why don't you word it as "advocate fetuses being subject to abortion by their mothers". Because I worded it the exact same way I worded it when I first put the question to you. Why didn't you object to the "wording" then? Oh, I know, it's because then you didn't realize that so many posters here were "like-minded" to me on the issue. Now it's the wording that's the problem. Good luck selling that one. |
|
