|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 7, 2018 23:24:48 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 23:27:05 GMT
You seem to have intimate knowledge of little kids. No surprise. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 7, 2018 23:27:30 GMT
tpfkar if you put him on ignore you will not get notified he has responded, I used ignore for the first time a couple of weeks ago, it is great. He is on ignore. But his unwanted replies to my posts are so ubiquitous that I can't help but run into them. Look through the threads. No matter what thread I post in, he's right there with his head up my ass. Again, pick a post and we'll go over it.  And learn how message boards work. 
What's your thing? Making strange people fall in love with you? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 23:38:03 GMT
tpfkar He is on ignore. But his unwanted replies to my posts are so ubiquitous that I can't help but run into them. Look through the threads. No matter what thread I post in, he's right there with his head up my ass. Again, pick a post and we'll go over it. And learn how message boards work.
What's your thing? Making strange people fall in love with you?I don't want to go over a post with you. I don't want anything to do with you and your contagion. I understand perfectly fine how message boards work. Scourges like you drill it home. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 7, 2018 23:38:09 GMT
This was one of the last posts that hat remotely anything to do with the original topic. And it contains a strawman. In this case, lowtacks never said that acorn, sapling or tree were not the same species. And what does the fact that a fetus is of the species "Homo Sapiens" have to do with abortion? I'm not really expecting an honest answer. Sorry, I don't mean to take your post lightly, but I can only laugh at the congruence of the ideas that: 1.) it's been far too long since the thread was derailed and 2.) the way to get it back on track is to bring up straw men. If you did that intentionally, I give you serious laugh-meter props and will put a like on your post. If you were serious, it's still funny. Or maybe it was both. The choice how you interpret it is yours. Regardless of all of the above, I will respond. Technically speaking, I suppose it was a strawman since lowtacks never overtly stated what I credited him for. Do I think he was trying to imply that? Yes. Could I be wrong? Yes. As for what a fetus being homo sapien has to do anything, it has everything to do with what he originally said: "calling a fetus a human being is s bit of a stretch." This is why the tried and true acorn atheist position was raised by him in the first place, and thus, while technically speaking, he never overtly declared that rooted, sapling and mature tree were not the same species, his argument pattern indicated the inherent fallacy. The point is (at least from my point of view), that it might be a bit of a stretch to call every member of the species "Homo Sapiens" a human being. Is a fetus homo sapiens? Yes. Is is a human being? That's debatable. One could argue that a human being has to be a person, or at least an organism living independently. And it still doesn't say anything about right to life. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 7, 2018 23:40:23 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 23:48:06 GMT
Or maybe it was both. The choice how you interpret it is yours.So, "no," you didn't intend it to be tongue in cheek. That's too bad. It would have been an awesome post if that's how you'd meant it. Not based on any standard definition of "human being." A fetus meets all the requirements of said definition. You could, but why would you unless you had a preconceived point to prove? Besides, second trimester babies can survive outside the womb and without the symbiotic help of their mothers, so surely you at least admit that - even by your definition of personhood - people who abort homo sapien organisms after the first trimester should be jailed for murder. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 7, 2018 23:48:48 GMT
tpfkar He is on ignore. But his unwanted replies to my posts are so ubiquitous that I can't help but run into them. Look through the threads. No matter what thread I post in, he's right there with his head up my ass. You might not have your IGNORE settings set right... You seem to be directly responding to him... You wouldn't be able to do that.. if they were set right. The only way I see anything that he writes is if somebody quotes him... I believe you! 
Just like a N-- to worry about somebody else's spare change. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 23:50:17 GMT
No, we are just adept at discerning it when we see it. You're a perv and it's obvious. Your hatred for everyone around you is projection for how much you hate yourself for all the grotesque things you do to yourself and others. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 7, 2018 23:51:00 GMT
tpfkar I don't want to go over a post with you. I don't want anything to do with you and your contagion. I understand perfectly fine how message boards work. Scourges like you drill it home. I understand that you know it would show your raw hypocrisy even more.  Even before you let your inner core creepiness overtake your outer nastiness.
Just playing down to my self-pleasuring, self-hating, self-abusive competition |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 23:53:15 GMT
tpfkar I don't want to go over a post with you. I don't want anything to do with you and your contagion. I understand perfectly fine how message boards work. Scourges like you drill it home. I understand that you know it would show your raw hypocrisy even more. Even before you let your inner core creepiness overtake your outer nastiness.
Just playing down to my self-pleasuring, self-hating, self-abusive competitionI'm 40, so you might try not fucking with me. I'm 30 years older than your target demographic. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 7, 2018 23:53:27 GMT
tpfkar No, we are just adept at discerning it when we see it. You're a perv and it's obvious. Your hatred for everyone around you is projection for how much you hate yourself for all the grotesque things you do to yourself and others. It's sick stuff rolling around in your mind that you're spilling all over your posts. Or did you get it in a dream as well?
What's your thing? Making strange people fall in love with you? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 23:54:39 GMT
tpfkar No, we are just adept at discerning it when we see it. You're a perv and it's obvious. Your hatred for everyone around you is projection for how much you hate yourself for all the grotesque things you do to yourself and others. It's sick stuff rolling around in your mind that you're spilling all over your posts. Or did you get it in a dream as well?
What's your thing? Making strange people fall in love with you?If I'm sick, why are you so attracted to me? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 7, 2018 23:55:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 7, 2018 23:57:28 GMT
You could, but why would you unless you had a preconceived point to prove? Besides, second trimester babies can survive outside the womb and without the symbiotic help of their mothers, so surely you at least admit that - even by your definition of personhood - people who abort homo sapien organisms after the first trimester should be jailed for murder. My definition of person is: A being that has a sense of self and time, and plans and/or expectations for the future. I didn't make it up, but it's the definition I use when I mean "person". Members of the species Homo Sapiens meet this requirement when they are on average 18 months old, as far as I know. So in my opinion killing a human being, or member of the species Homo Sapiens, that has not reached personhood, should not be treated differently than the killing of a grown animal. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 8, 2018 0:05:05 GMT
if you put him on ignore you will not get notified he has responded, I used ignore for the first time a couple of weeks ago, it is great. He is on ignore. But his unwanted replies to my posts are so ubiquitous that I can't help but run into them. Look through the threads. No matter what thread I post in, he's right there with his head up my ass. If he was on ignore, you would not be able to see, or respond to his posts. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 8, 2018 0:11:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 8, 2018 2:54:49 GMT
RE Straw man controversy: This seriously isn't that complicated. When CoolJGS☺ presents a statement like "To think that abortion is some kind of champion for the human race" and people accuse him of a straw man, they're basically saying: "pro-choicers don't make that argument." Yeah... But they are doing it in a way that shuts down the argument.. In stead of trying to clarify what Smithy meant, they just pronounce sentence with a "STRAWMAN!!" as if what he said can't be questioned and that's the end of it. Just ask "Do you really know of any one who makes that argument?".. and wait for an answer... Then, the conversation can move forward based on that answer. I don't see how it's "shutting down the argument." Smithy is perfectly capable of responding that he was reiterating the argument that so-and-so and so-and-so made and thus refute the accusation of straw man. If he can't do that, then the accusation was likely accurate. If it were me, I'd probably respond with "I've never/almost never heard that argument made for abortion, so it's a pretty dishonest representation of what most pro-choicers argue." |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 8, 2018 3:14:08 GMT
Not based on any standard definition of "human being." A fetus meets all the requirements of said definition. More semantics, but this one is not as clear-cut as you make it: Oxford: a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens... Merrium Webster: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : a person Dictionary.com: 1. any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens. 2. a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species Clearly a fetus wouldn't qualify under Oxford (it's not a man, woman, or child). Both MW and Dictionary.com use the "person" definition that's under debate. Only the first Dictionary.com and first part of MW makes the equivalency between human and the species Homo sapiens (and even under MW, fetuses aren't bipedal until much later). So even in this instance it really depends on which definition you choose. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 8, 2018 4:55:48 GMT
I don't see how it's "shutting down the argument." Well... I think the 12 extra pages of SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
....kinda speaks for itself. It's more of a call of "What you just said breaks this made up rule of arguing so your entire argument is now void" than demonstrating a willingness to continue the debate with open questioning or a genuine call for clarity... I mean it has already been demonstrated that any plea of innocence or claim of misinterpretation is categorically denied simply because the accusation has been already been made.... and there ain't no "take backsies" in the mind of those that desperately and pathetically cling to this rule. But... It does seem to give those sad and pathetic souls a sense of purpose. |
|
