Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
|
View Poll Results: Abortion, terminate when? | |||
Never | 19 | 12.18% | |
Up to one month | 5 | 3.21% | |
Up to two months | 7 | 4.49% | |
Up to three months | 42 | 26.92% | |
Up to four months | 14 | 8.97% | |
up to five months | 7 | 4.49% | |
Up to six months | 25 | 16.03% | |
Up to seven months | 1 | 0.64% | |
Up to eight months | 17 | 10.90% | |
Infanticide is OK | 19 | 12.18% | |
Voters: 156. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
05-06-2003, 11:06 AM | #451 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 5,393
|
Can dk spot yet another of his fallacies?
...It's in this sentence, and the pertinent parts are even highlighted to help him out:
Quote:
Quote:
Rick |
||
05-06-2003, 11:16 AM | #452 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,774
|
Re: Can dk spot yet another of his fallacies?
Quote:
|
|
05-06-2003, 12:31 PM | #453 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 2,113
|
Re: Can dk spot yet another of his fallacies?
Quote:
|
|
05-06-2003, 12:59 PM | #454 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 5,393
|
And now here's a repeat of one of lwfs many fallacies:
Quote:
sssshh... no hints from anyone else now; let's see if he can get it all by himself. |
|
05-06-2003, 01:44 PM | #455 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,774
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
05-06-2003, 03:14 PM | #456 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 2,113
|
Re: And now here's a repeat of one of lwfs many fallacies:
Quote:
You quote me: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" can neither specifically include nor exclude fetuses...They can only logically be specifically included..." Obviously this is a non sequitur. Why? Because you failed to include the entire quotation. You've eliminated my necessary premise which quotes the preamble. You've totally misrepresented what I said. While I did use the words you posted, I never argued this point, yet you claim I did. You've conveniently left out the "pertinent part" and constructed a strawman argument with out of context quote mining. This is proof that you know that you are wrong and are arguing solely to save face. To repeat my argument: The presence of the phrase "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" in the first article of the UDHR can neither specifically include nor exclude fetuses. You cannot then say that fetuses are specifically excluded in the phrase "All members of the humans family" in the preamble of the UDHR because of the first article. They can only logically be specifically included since fetuses are members of the human family, or the set of animals which are human, being of the taxonomic family Hominidae and the genus homo. Why don't you just admit that you cannot refute this without changing the premises? |
|
05-06-2003, 03:54 PM | #457 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 5,393
|
maybe he really is baffled...nah, no one is that clueless, are they?
Quote:
Quote:
Is it really possible that lwf can't see this, or is he just trying to save face and so won't admit the obvious? It can't be the latter, because he's not saving face by making a fool of himself, but the level of cluelessness necessary for the former is almost too terrible to contemplate. Irrespective, it appears that lwf is denying/ignoring/miscomprehending that what holds true for the literal interpretation of the the preamble is no different than that of the articles. In other words, the preamble is no more or less inclusive or exclusive of fetuses than the articles. To argue otherwise, and insist on a literal interpetation either forces inclusion of chimpanzees (the human family) or exclusion of fetuses (born). lwf has gone full circle; he has attempted and magnificently failed to argue that the UNDHR must logically include fetuses; in the process he has lied or at least forgotten about his prior arguements and has committed logical fallacies, several of them over and over again, so often that I've lost count. Maybe he should go back to trying to tell us that he wasn't the one that started arguing about taxonomy... Rick |
||
05-06-2003, 04:02 PM | #458 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 2,113
|
Re: maybe he really is baffled...nah, no one is that clueless, are they?
Quote:
BTW, You were the one who insisted that "all members of the human family" refered to the taxonomic family of Hominidae. My argument is and has always been that "All members of the human family" refers to the set of all animals that are human beings. Do you concur, or shall I go find the exact quotes? |
|
05-06-2003, 05:10 PM | #459 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 5,393
|
Quote:
Quote:
Rick |
||
05-06-2003, 07:44 PM | #460 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 2,113
|
Again you dodge. I assume it is clear to you that there is no non sequitur present in my statement.
If you are insinuating that I am mistaken in my belief that chimpanzees are being human beings, then I can only say that I never claimed or believed this. This is yet another strawman. I agree with you that chimpanzees are not human beings. I agree with you that abortion is legal. Both of these were premises in my argument. You dispute that not all members of the family Hominidae are human beings. Now, how about if I "change" the definition of human which you have stated to: any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae and of the genus homo. (homo of course being latin for man.) Keep in mind that chopping off the latter part of this definition is unacceptable, since the genus homo is and always was specified in my definition. Now, chimpanzees are excluded, right? If you dispute that all living or extinct members of the family Hominidae and of the group homo are not human beings, what do you base this on? Opinion? My argument is based on fact. A fact that is easily verifiable to any who care to pick up a dictionary or a book on basic anthropology. That you've also argued "All members of the human family refers to the set of all animals that are human beings" is just another example of how you fallaciously equivocate when the obvious irrationality (obvious to rational people, not to you, it seems) of your argument is pointed-out to you. The fact that you continuously fail to explain your accusations shows that you've been argued into a corner and are merely attempting to retain whatever authority you may have had by being dogmatic. Do you honestly believe I'm not a rational person? I have systematically and logically addressed all of your concerns. You still use them as though I haven't addressed them at all and they are applicable. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|