FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

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
Old 05-06-2003, 11:06 AM   #451
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 5,393
Talking 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:
Originally posted by dk
Everyone appears to agree the UN DoHR applies to people not monkeys, and that the human family used in the DoHR by the UN pertains to everyone in the human family, not chimps, orgs, or gorillas.
BTW, dk is also wrong when he claims that "everyone appears to agree" on what the UNDHR applies to; we all agree that it doesn't apply to monkeys, but disagree about its applicability to fetuses. LWF's, and apparently now dk's absurd arguement that attempts to re-define the term human family would force the inclusion of both chimpanzees and fetuses.

Quote:
The argument commits the fallacy of Converse Accident.
No, no; it's much more basic than that; try re-reading the foolishness you just posted.

Rick
Dr Rick is offline  
Old 05-06-2003, 11:16 AM   #452
dk
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,774
Default Re: Can dk spot yet another of his fallacies?

Quote:
Originally posted by Dr Rick
...It's in this sentence, and the pertinent parts are even highlighted to help him out:


BTW, dk is also wrong in that we don't agree on what the UNDHR applies to; we all agree that it doesn't apply to monkeys, but disagree about its applicability to fetuses. LWF's, and apparently now dk's absurd arguement that attempts to re-define the term human family would force the inclusion of both chimpanzees and fetuses.

No, no; it's much more basic than that; try re-reading the foolishness you just posted.

Rick
You seem to be convinced the UN included monkeys in the "human family". You now hold to this wide eyed conviction against all reason with what can only be described as abject fanaticism. Cool, you the man.
dk is offline  
Old 05-06-2003, 12:31 PM   #453
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 2,113
Default Re: Can dk spot yet another of his fallacies?

Quote:
Originally posted by Dr Rick
BTW, dk is also wrong when he claims that "everyone appears to agree" on what the UNDHR applies to; we all agree that it doesn't apply to monkeys, but disagree about its applicability to fetuses. LWF's, and apparently now dk's absurd arguement that attempts to re-define the term human family would force the inclusion of both chimpanzees and fetuses.
Rick
So you think "All members of the human family" refers to all born humans and no unborn humans. Care to tell us why? You have already wisely admitted that the first article "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" 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" 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.
long winded fool is offline  
Old 05-06-2003, 12:59 PM   #454
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 5,393
Smile And now here's a repeat of one of lwfs many fallacies:

Quote:
Originally posted by long winded fool
"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...
It's been pointed-out to him several times before, but his memory ain't so good, so the pertinent part has been re-posted to give the poor guy a little help.

sssshh... no hints from anyone else now; let's see if he can get it all by himself.
Dr Rick is offline  
Old 05-06-2003, 01:44 PM   #455
dk
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,774
Default

Quote:
Man is born free, and everywhere he is in shackles. ---- Jacques Rousseau
A contrarian might argue without a Right to Life people have no right to be born at all, more like a driving priveldge.
Quote:
"It's all about choice, It's just like abortion."
-----said Ruthe Steinberg, vice president of the Tucson chapter of Arizonans for Death with Dignity.
Interesting,,, how one solution conceives of another. Mind you I don't mean to imply a slippery slope, I'll leave that to people that believe true freedom means a right to die, not a right to life. I myself am part of the inconspicuous under reported minority that advocates mortician assisted suicide. It would be so much more cost effective and convenient if depressed people could be escorted to their favorite mortuary, crematory or embalming parlor, you know like one stop shopping.
dk is offline  
Old 05-06-2003, 03:14 PM   #456
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 2,113
Default Re: And now here's a repeat of one of lwfs many fallacies:

Quote:
Originally posted by Dr Rick
It's been pointed-out to him several times before, but his memory ain't so good, so the pertinent part has been re-posted to give the poor guy a little help.

sssshh... no hints from anyone else now; let's see if he can get it all by himself.
Aha. A textbook example of a strawman. You have selectively chosen parts of my argument out of context, assembled them into a completely different argument than mine and refuted it.

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?
long winded fool is offline  
Old 05-06-2003, 03:54 PM   #457
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 5,393
Talking maybe he really is baffled...nah, no one is that clueless, are they?

Quote:
Originally posted by long winded fool
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" 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" 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.
...is no less an "obvious non sequitur" than...

Quote:
"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...
How pathetic.

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
Dr Rick is offline  
Old 05-06-2003, 04:02 PM   #458
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 2,113
Default Re: maybe he really is baffled...nah, no one is that clueless, are they?

Quote:
Originally posted by Dr Rick
Originally posted by long winded fool
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" 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" 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



...is no less an "obvious non sequitur" than...


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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...

Rick
Would you care to explain? I can't wait to hear it, since apparently I've been using some other kind of logic, rather than the regular kind. Maybe you can enlighten me. Please do me a favor and explain the non sequitur here.

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?
long winded fool is offline  
Old 05-06-2003, 05:10 PM   #459
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 5,393
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally posted by long winded fool
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?
Don't bother; the argument you first introduced (contrary to your repeated assertions, you first brought it in) has already been found and reposted for you:

Quote:
Originally posted by long winded fool Human being (noun): Any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae.
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.

Rick
Dr Rick is offline  
Old 05-06-2003, 07:44 PM   #460
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 2,113
Default

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.
long winded fool is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:02 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.