|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 19, 2017 19:30:16 GMT
You are hereby granted permission to substitute "one" for "PD", and to append the statement with, "Is this true or false". One is advocating a justice system of the world today whereby the families of murder victims are given carte blanche in dealing with the offender. One is not, however, advocating subjecting murderers to grievous bodily harm nor death. Is this true or false?The answer is: It depends on the person. One can advocate a revenge justice system without advocating bodily harm to offenders; one can also advocate a revenge justice system while hoping that the victims will practice revenge in a brutal way. If Rabbit had phrased it like this: "One is advocating a justice system of the world today whereby the families of murder victims are given carte blanche in dealing with the offender. One is not, however, necessarily advocating subjecting murderers to grievous bodily harm nor death. Is this true or false?" THAT statement would be true. When one advocates a system one may or may not advocate for any of its consequences, but advocating a system does not necessitate that they advocate for all its consequences. Rabbit can't seem to grasp this. To use his own analogy there are numerous possibilities for why someone is advocating that system and what they think about its consequences: 1. One might feel the rights of the offended outweigh the rights of the offender, even though they advocate the offended be merciful. 2. One might feel that offenders deserve harsh punishment, thus they advocate both the system and that the punishments be harsh. 3. One might feel the rights of the offended outweigh the rights of the offender, and are neutral on whatever punishments the offended decide upon. From the very beginning rabbit tried to shoehorn the discussion into the ridiculously simple-minded notion that if you advocate a system you necessarily, without any shades of grey or exception or alternatives, are advocating its consequences, and that it's perfectly acceptable for someone opposed to that system to claim that someone is advocating its consequences without even mentioning the actual system they're advocating. He's been called out on this BS by half the board, including the results of this poll, and he still doesn't get it.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 19, 2017 19:32:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 19, 2017 19:32:41 GMT
The main argument that I was making is this: 1. If you advocate a system you do so because you feel its virtues outweigh its consequences. 2. In advocating a system you are not necessarily advocating any of its consequences (advocating people having the right to drink isn't advocating that people drink) 3. It is dishonest for Person A, who is opposed to that system, to claim that Person B, who is for that system, is advocating its consequences, especially when they leave out that Person B is advocating for its virtues. Rabbit disagrees with 2. and 3. This thread was my attempt at allowing the rest of the forum to explain to him why he's wrong. I tried to do it for 28 pages and failed. Nobody here has had any better luck. The analogy for 2 doesn't work. You can disagree with drinking while understanding people have a right to do it if they want to. Pro-choicers are not saying "You have the right to have an abortion but I don't agree with abortion". They are saying "you have the right to have an abortion and I agree with your decision to have one in certain circumstances." It does work. I don't like abortion. I don't like the notion of killing what will eventually be a human life. This doesn't mean that I put my dislike of it above the right of any woman to choose an abortion if they feel it's best for them. There aren't many circumstances where I would actually advocate that a pregnant woman get an abortion, especially when there are alternatives like adoption where so many who can't have children desperately want them. I'm guessing I'm not alone among pro-choicers in feeling this way.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 19, 2017 19:34:05 GMT
It's funny how you link to posts I've already responded to, especially when my responses definitively prove what BS your post was.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 19, 2017 19:36:59 GMT
The analogy for 2 doesn't work. You can disagree with drinking while understanding people have a right to do it if they want to. Pro-choicers are not saying "You have the right to have an abortion but I don't agree with abortion". They are saying "you have the right to have an abortion and I agree with your decision to have one in certain circumstances." It does work. I don't like abortion. I don't like the notion of killing what will eventually be a human life. This doesn't mean that I put my dislike of it above the right of any woman to choose an abortion if they feel it's best for them. There aren't many circumstances where I would actually advocate that a pregnant woman get an abortion, especially when there are alternatives like adoption where so many who can't have children desperately want them. I'm guessing I'm not alone among pro-choicers in feeling this way. You don't think a woman should have an abortion if she has a chance of dieing or in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities? I am sure there are some circumstances were you would agree a foetus should be terminated. Regardless based on my experience you are unique. I could easily be wrong though.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jul 19, 2017 19:38:15 GMT
Not at all. I think it's a tragedy. I just don't think my views on it trump a woman's right to make that choice herself. My wife feels the same.
"I think it's a bad decision, but it's your decision to make" isn't a terribly complicated position.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 19, 2017 19:39:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 19, 2017 19:40:24 GMT
It does work. I don't like abortion. I don't like the notion of killing what will eventually be a human life. This doesn't mean that I put my dislike of it above the right of any woman to choose an abortion if they feel it's best for them. There aren't many circumstances where I would actually advocate that a pregnant woman get an abortion, especially when there are alternatives like adoption where so many who can't have children desperately want them. I'm guessing I'm not alone among pro-choicers in feeling this way. You don't think a woman should have an abortion if she has a chance of dieing or in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities? I am sure there are some circumstances were you would agree a foetus should be terminated. Right, I said "there aren't MANY (not "any") circumstances." Circumstances that threaten the mother's life would certainly be one such circumstance where I'd recommend it. But, again, this is still a far cry away from Rabbit's "if you are a pro-choice advocate you advocate fetuses being aborted."
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 19, 2017 19:41:00 GMT
"I think it's a bad decision, but it's your decision to make" isn't a terribly complicated position. Tell that to Rabbit.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 19, 2017 19:42:21 GMT
tpfkar Of course you would think if you post the exact same thing typed again it gains some extra powers. From the guy who obsessively compulsively types the exact same thing in post after post either in the header or as footnotes, the irony of this burns sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 19, 2017 19:48:43 GMT
You don't think a woman should have an abortion if she has a chance of dieing or in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities? I am sure there are some circumstances were you would agree a foetus should be terminated. Right, I said "there aren't MANY (not "any") circumstances." Circumstances that threaten the mother's life would certainly be one such circumstance where I'd recommend it. But, again, this is still a far cry away from Rabbit's "if you are a pro-choice advocate you advocate fetuses being aborted." I don't know why you wrote that first sentence considering I never contradicted it. What Rabbit says is technically true. You agree that the right decision is to abort a fetus when a mother's life is in danger. Would you not recommend that a female friend of yours abort her fetus if she had a chance of dieing? How is that not advocating aborting a fetus?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 19, 2017 19:51:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 19, 2017 19:53:26 GMT
Pretty much dead on. You might also add: 6) Has made dead wrong and dead stupid statements and refuses to accept their wrongness and stupidity even after it's been explained. As an example of the latter, he accused Bryce of dismissing the anonymous experts cited in the other thread because Bryce questioned who the anonymous experts were. As an example of the former, he's basically said that anyone advocating a cause must want to partake in that cause (he later added an "or they're lacking in sympathy" alternative, only after it was pointed out to him by multiple people how wrong it was; he never actually admitted to being wrong). Do you remember on the old board when he totally misread what Ruth had said and we both , along with several others pointed out why he was wrong and he just talked shit for 20 pages, even after Ruth had clarified what she meant? Baffling individual. I vaguely remember that. It may have been the first time that I encountered rabbit stuck in the "loop" you mentioned, but I don't think I participated in it so I don't remember the particular details of what it was about. I mentioned it in the other thread, but I seriously wonder if rabbit has some kind of autism spectrum disorder. He seems to have a real disability when it comes to both communicating and understanding what's being communicated, especially when discussions get beyond the most basic, superficial level. Of course, autism isn't anything to be made fun of, but it would explain a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 19, 2017 19:57:12 GMT
Right, I said "there aren't MANY (not "any") circumstances." Circumstances that threaten the mother's life would certainly be one such circumstance where I'd recommend it. But, again, this is still a far cry away from Rabbit's "if you are a pro-choice advocate you advocate fetuses being aborted." I don't know why you wrote that first sentence considering I never contradicted it. What Rabbit says is technically true. You agree that the right decision is to abort a fetus when a mother's life is in danger. Would you not recommend that a female friend of yours abort her baby if she had a chance of dieing? How is that not advocating aborting a baby? What rabbit says isn't technically true at all. Rabbit didn't say "if you are pro-choice you advocate abortions in some circumstances but not others." He completely left out the part in italics, which would make a pretty crucial distinction in what the sentence means. Plus, you can be pro-something and still not advocate it any circumstance. I'm an advocate for keeping alcohol legal, but I wouldn't advocate people drinking in any circumstance, and I would strongly advocate against it in many.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 19, 2017 19:58:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 19, 2017 19:58:30 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:It's not advocating abortion, it's advocating the option of the mother to have the abortion... That's not what you originally said you abject liar.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 19, 2017 20:01:05 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: Not just consequences; optional consequences. What difference do you think the "optional" is making in what I said?
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 19, 2017 20:02:38 GMT
I don't know why you wrote that first sentence considering I never contradicted it. What Rabbit says is technically true. You agree that the right decision is to abort a fetus when a mother's life is in danger. Would you not recommend that a female friend of yours abort her baby if she had a chance of dieing? How is that not advocating aborting a baby? What rabbit says isn't technically true at all. Rabbit didn't say "if you are pro-choice you advocate abortions in some circumstances but not others." He completely left out the part in italics, which would make a pretty crucial distinction in what the sentence means. Plus, you can be pro-something and still not advocate it any circumstance. I'm an advocate for keeping alcohol legal, but I wouldn't advocate people drinking in any circumstance, and I would strongly advocate against it in many. I don't think what he said implies pro-choicers advocate abortion in all circumstances. I could be wrong about the conventional usage of English though and if rabbit meant in all circumstances then obviously he is wrong. I never denied you can be pro something and still not advocate it btw.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 19, 2017 20:02:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 19, 2017 20:13:16 GMT
What rabbit says isn't technically true at all. Rabbit didn't say "if you are pro-choice you advocate abortions in some circumstances but not others." He completely left out the part in italics, which would make a pretty crucial distinction in what the sentence means. Plus, you can be pro-something and still not advocate it any circumstance. I'm an advocate for keeping alcohol legal, but I wouldn't advocate people drinking in any circumstance, and I would strongly advocate against it in many. I don't think what he said implies pro-choicers advocate abortion in all circumstances. I could be wrong about the conventional usage of English though and if rabbit meant in all circumstances then obviously he is wrong. I never denied you can be pro something and still not advocate it btw. It's hard to know what rabbit means because he's pretty bad at communicating most of the time, but when he said: "Of course (pro-choice person) advocates the termination of pregnancies," he didn't qualify it in any way. Of course, what one advocates in any system will vary with the person and will often vary with the circumstance. It should be obvious that this isn't a black-and-white issue, and it was, again, rabbit's attempt to make it black-and-white without qualifications that I was always objecting to.
|
|