|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 20, 2017 13:14:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 20, 2017 13:26:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 20, 2017 19:06:46 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:I'm pretty sure I just didn't care about your further distracting bilge. We were supposedly doing this as an analogous exercise to match the "choice to have sex with 4 year-olds", so choice was built into it. And there is no "leaving out" of "the woman's right to choose" from pro-choice, in any case. It is part of the definition and normal people in good faith discussions don't try to monkey with it. I wasn't not getting the distinction, you're just not getting that there is no "leaving out" of "pro choice" just because it is not explicitly spelled out. In any case, speaking of communication issues: So you "didn't care for my distracting bilge" so you ignored what I said and continued to answer in a way that made it seem you were indeed advocating for killing fetuses instead of advocating for a woman's right to choose even in response to a post where I was making the distinction between them? Makes sense. No, YOU'VE been trying to make this analogy-game match the "choice to have sex with 4-year-olds" and I've been explaining ad nauseam that the analogy is: "advocate woman's right to choose" = "advocate anyone's right to have sex if they can & do consent" and that "fetuses are subject to abortion" = "4-year-olds are subject to abuse" are consequences, not what's being advocated. You keep wanting to try to make Eddie's "consent-only approach" a "choose-to-have-sex-with-4-year-olds approach" and that's not what it is, just as a pro-choice approach is not an "advocate killing unborn babies" approach, and it never will be no matter how much you try to make it into one. So you weren't not getting the distinction, which is why when I asked you the question, intentionally left "mother's choice" out, and ASKED you if leaving mother's choice out was dishonest you said it wasn't. Gotcha. Many antinatalists who are not pro-choice would advocate the killing, but most pro-choice antinatalists would not? Many antinatalists* would advocate the killing, but most of all* pro-choice, would not? Firstly, I'm not sure what most antinatalists think, but I'm assuming many, if not most, would advocate aborting fetuses. It would seem to be a contradiction to have a pro-life antinatalist. Right, many antinatalists would advocate killing fetuses, but most who are pro-choice (but not antinatalists) would not. Here's another communication issue - "Here's a quick lesson for you" is where your screeds get dismissed. That's only a communication issue for you, not for me. It's not my fault if you stop reading my posts at that point yet keep responding as if you've read them while making claims that seem to double-down on your previous claims even after I was trying to make the distinctions between those claims. tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:I can only guess either 1. that's not how that went or 2. I was blowing off more of your continuous stream of epithets and irrelevancies. 1. That's most certainly how that went as I've linked to and quoted it about a dozen times in this thread. 2. If you "blow off" what I say, but respond as if you aren't, it's not my fault if in your "blowing it off" you end up saying something you didn't really mean. Again, I can only respond to what you say assuming you mean what the words actually mean, not what you think they mean in your head. "But of course, that the "pro-choice", including me, are advocating the killing of fetuses", is true. No, rabbit, that's not true. Again, this thread is full of people telling you it's not true and explaining in painstaking detail why it's not true. For the billionth time: advocating a position does not mean advocating all of its consequences. Advocating a woman's right to choose (position) does not mean advocating that women abort babies (consequence), just as advocating a consent-only approach to sex (position) does not mean advocating that 4-year-olds get abused by predators (consequence). Further, when someone opposed to the position phrases it as someone advocating for the consequence (while not mentioning the actual position), you get people (rightly) reacting like Cine when he said: "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." and he's absolutely right. It's why it's crucially important for anyone discussing the issue to understand that what someone's advocating is always the woman's right to choose, and it's why you were wrong every single time you said that supporting that position meant advocating killing fetuses. The former does not necessitate the latter. It simply doesn't. Almost every single person in this thread agrees, including a ton of posters whom you respect. If you want learn from my lessons, then learn from theirs.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 20, 2017 19:06:57 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:Does the phrasing "advocating that murderers be subject to grievous bodily harm nor death" change anything for you? No. Why do you think it would?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 20, 2017 19:08:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 20, 2017 19:23:06 GMT
Yes, and your response was "(it's not misrepresentation/dishonest) in a post about abortion." The OP/poll was about abortion, so even by your own admission THERE it's not dishonest. The topic is "abortion", not antinatalism, nor feticide fetishers. Exactly, so it's not dishonest by your own admission. I seriously can't figure out what you're trying to argue here with that post: 1. I ask if leaving out "mother's choice" is misrepresentation/dishonest 2. First, you say it's "only misrepresentation in Arlonverse" (or whatever), and then you say it's not misrepresentation/dishonest "in a post about abortion." 3. My OP/Poll is about abortion 4. Therefore, by your own criteria, my OP/poll is not dishonest. If this was brought up in in some pro-choice/pro-life debate, then the technical answer would be "yes, that's technically true, but ...". That's not actually feasible in the bad-faith world of abortion debate. But it remains an unassailable basic that is is not false nor unknown. What's the "that's" in "that's technically true" referring to? If it's referring to "advocating killing fetuses," then, no, it's not technically true. It's not true as I and half-a-dozen people have explained to you countless times. Not true as this poll result shows. The analogous line for deezen's plan would be that deezen advocates adults having sex with children. Also technically true, but the "choice" explication with it is not the mitigation that it is with "pro-choice". No, it's not technically true, as I and half-a-dozen people have explained to you countless times. Not true as this poll result shows.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 20, 2017 19:31:59 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said: Was this where you mislabeled the "Person"s identification? Are you saying I agreed that the mother had no choice? It was both times. First time I mixed up pro-life/pro-choice and you responded with "of course Person A advocates the termination of pregnancies, and it is 'misrepresentation' only in the Arlonsphere." Second time I asked when I corrected the pro-life/pro-choice mix-up you said: "(it's not misrepresentation/dishonest) in a reply to posts about abortion." Further, you even said: "I've known what you meant since the first time you posted it." So you knew what I meant and you responded the same way twice. So how in the world are you trying to argue now that my poll/OP is dishonest when you claimed TWICE the way I phrased it wasn't dishonest and claimed to know what I meant both times? What you disagreed with was this: 1. Someone who is pro-choice is not advocating killing fetuses, because advocating the mother's choice isn't advocating what choice they make (in general, advocating a position isn't necessarily advocating any of its consequences). 2. Someone who isn't pro-choice claiming that someone who is pro-choice is advocating killing fetuses is misrepresenting the position and being dishonest about it, especially when they do not make it clear that the person is pro-choice and that they value the mother's decision more than the life of the fetus. ^ THAT'S what you disagreed with. THAT'S what my OP/Poll was designed to show you were wrong about. Everyone in this thread has said you're wrong about the first and explained why, and many people have noted how dishonest it is to phrase the pro-choice position as "advocating for killing fetuses" as well. Now, if you take this and apply it to the other thread it becomes this: 1. Someone who is pro-consent-only is not advocating for 4-year-olds being abused (in general, advocating for a position is not advocating any of its consequences). 2. Someone who isn't pro-consent-only claiming that someone who is pro-consent-only is advocating 4-year-olds being abused is misrepresenting the position and being dishonest about it, especially when they do not make it clear that the person is pro-consent-only and that they value the freedom to choose to have sex more than the potential harm done to 4-year-olds.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 20, 2017 19:34:59 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. phludowin said:Surely there was a reason that language was chosen. Exactly; it's the same reason you chose "Eddie is advocating 4-year-olds be abused by predators." The reason is: moral outrage.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 20, 2017 19:35:23 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo Does Speaking of Research advocate animal testing? Errr, no.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 20, 2017 19:52:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 20, 2017 19:54:36 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:I see again why you're often led astray. You truly believe that this poll "shows " that "The analogous line for deezen's plan would be that deezen advocates adults having sex with children. Also technically true, but the 'choice' explication with it is not the mitigation that it is with 'pro-choice'" is not true? I thought you pursued education? What the poll shows is exactly what I stated here: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/689244/thread
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 20, 2017 19:59:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 20, 2017 20:12:41 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:Does the NRA advocate the right to posses firearms? Yes, AFAIK. But they don't necessarily advocate owning firearms, just the right to do so (though I'm guessing many/most would also advocate owning them).
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 20, 2017 20:13:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 20, 2017 20:17:08 GMT
Eva Yojimbo said:I know, but you stated "Not true as this poll result shows." Do truly believe that this poll "shows" that "The analogous line for deezen's plan would be that deezen advocates adults having sex with children. Also technically true, but the 'choice' explication with it is not the mitigation that it is with 'pro-choice'" is not true? The poll result shows that advocating for a position is different than advocating its consequences, so by extension it shows that Eddie is not advocating adults having sex with children. Pro-choicers advocate mother's choice, Eddie advocates consent-only; Pro-choicers don't advocate killing fetuses, Eddie doesn't (necessarily) advocate adults having sex with children.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 20, 2017 20:18:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 20, 2017 20:19:24 GMT
Eva Yojimbo said:Ok, you propose that "the NRA advocate the right to posses firearms", with certain restrictions? They advocate the right to possess firearms in general, but the addendum "with certain restrictions" would vary between members. Some might advocate no restrictions, others might advocate quite stringent restrictions.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 20, 2017 20:24:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 20, 2017 20:37:12 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:Do they advocate the right to possess your neighbors firearms contrary to their desires? No.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 20, 2017 20:54:54 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:Do the not "pro-choice" advocate the termination of fetuses "with certain restrictions", from none to quite stringent?
|
|