Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You we're the only one to use the word superior. And you've still failed to define racist. You've merely stated an assumption. A false one at that. Nor have you demonstrated its effect upon the validity of a given outcome on this exersize.Shall I post your admission for you?See. There you go again with your own "facts". Easily demonstrated by your inability to define my "racism". Forgetting for the moment that demonstrable facts are the way I've arrived at my conclusions.You are a self proclaimed racist. That alone disqualifies you from the ability to employ logic, or reason.Ohhh, but you did. You see... Others including myself are bringing logic, and reasoning to bear on this issue. And many are coming up with a much different answer than you.See what I mean?No I didn't. you are lying again. Logic, and reason is the arbiter of moral equivalency. That is the beauty of facts. Kinda like the fact that you are an ignorant, racist troll. Your own admission is the evidence of your racism. Your inability to comprehend hyperbole is the evidence of your ignorance.
You prove my own case for me.
BTW... There's a difference between a persons "statement of fact", and hyperbole.
As far as race goes... Of course I'm a racist. You should be too.
Don't need to define dick. Everyone knows what a racist is - someone who believes that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others. No matter how you want to parse that, it i9s not a good thing you racist fuck.
No... You misunderstand. We don't need you to quantify "dick". We need you to quantify "racist", and " racism".I don't have to qualify dick to a self proclaimed racist fuck.Then your entire premise is fatally flawed. Just like the last one you plagiarized. In order for it to make any sense; you'd have to quantify a "racist" and explain how said racism invalidated an otherwise legitamite conclusion. You haven't been able to do so. Nor were these conditions or reasons laid out, at the outset.Yeah, I don't have nutually agree to anything with an ignorant racist. You keep responding as if you expect me to respect any bullshit that you spout. Yoiu still don't get that i do consider myself morally superior to anyone who admits to being a racist.True in many endeavors i suppose... But when one ordains themselves to be the arbiter of moral equivalence (which I Haven't) One must demand a higher standard. Or at the very least, establish a mutually agreed upon baseline, and work from there.You bring what you PERCEIVE to be logic and facts ... when, in fact, it carries no more credence than your opinion.Ohhh, but you did. You see... Others including myself are bringing logic, and reasoning to bear on this issue. And many are coming up with a much different answer than you.
BTW... There's a difference between a persons "statement of fact", and hyperbole.
Whereby changing the rules and format now, completely invalidated any previous information gleaned on this topic...
You're a mess... You don't really seem to good at this kind of thing. Its somewhat suggestive of why you had to abandon the other thread and start over. Now that you've managed to ruin this one too; should we expect another attempt tomorrow?
No. It ends the viability of a fetus. That's kind of the point. The two are not morally equivalent. The evidence in this is the thought experiment: The crux of which is this: You find yourself in a position where a phial of 1,000 frozen ready embryos, and a child are in mortal jeopardy. You can only save one. Which do you save.I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.
I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.
I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".
Abortion doesn't end the life of a baby/child/person?
That is the definition of a racist. Someone who practices racism - the belief that one's own racial group is superior to another. Now you are just trying to equivocate over your own admission.You we're the only one to use the word superior. And you've still failed to define racist. You've merely stated an assumption. A false one at that. Nor have you demonstrated its effect upon the validity of a given outcome on this exersize.Shall I post your admission for you?See. There you go again with your own "facts". Easily demonstrated by your inability to define my "racism". Forgetting for the moment that demonstrable facts are the way I've arrived at my conclusions.You are a self proclaimed racist. That alone disqualifies you from the ability to employ logic, or reason.Ohhh, but you did. You see... Others including myself are bringing logic, and reasoning to bear on this issue. And many are coming up with a much different answer than you.See what I mean?
You prove my own case for me.
BTW... There's a difference between a persons "statement of fact", and hyperbole.
As far as race goes... Of course I'm a racist. You should be too.
Don't need to define dick. Everyone knows what a racist is - someone who believes that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others. No matter how you want to parse that, it i9s not a good thing you racist fuck.
No. It ends the viability of a fetus. That's kind of the point. The two are not morally equivalent. The evidence in this is the thought experiment: The crux of which is this: You find yourself in a position where a phial of 1,000 frozen ready embryos, and a child are in mortal jeopardy. You can only save one. Which do you save.I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.
I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.
I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".
Abortion doesn't end the life of a baby/child/person?
If you answer with anything other than I save the embryos, then you are confirming that a single embryo is not equivalent to a child. Because otherwise, 1,000 embryos would have a thousand times the moral value of a single child, and you would be saving them, and letting the child perish.
Now you're boring. I will not allow a racist to pretend that being a racist doesn't really mean he is a racist. Goodbye.No... You misunderstand. We don't need you to quantify "dick". We need you to quantify "racist", and " racism".I don't have to qualify dick to a self proclaimed racist fuck.Then your entire premise is fatally flawed. Just like the last one you plagiarized. In order for it to make any sense; you'd have to quantify a "racist" and explain how said racism invalidated an otherwise legitamite conclusion. You haven't been able to do so. Nor were these conditions or reasons laid out, at the outset.Yeah, I don't have nutually agree to anything with an ignorant racist. You keep responding as if you expect me to respect any bullshit that you spout. Yoiu still don't get that i do consider myself morally superior to anyone who admits to being a racist.True in many endeavors i suppose... But when one ordains themselves to be the arbiter of moral equivalence (which I Haven't) One must demand a higher standard. Or at the very least, establish a mutually agreed upon baseline, and work from there.You bring what you PERCEIVE to be logic and facts ... when, in fact, it carries no more credence than your opinion.
Whereby changing the rules and format now, completely invalidated any previous information gleaned on this topic...
You're a mess... You don't really seem to good at this kind of thing. Its somewhat suggestive of why you had to abandon the other thread and start over. Now that you've managed to ruin this one too; should we expect another attempt tomorrow?
Except I didn't expect that the false equivalency was the only argument that anti-abortionists had. I admit I should have. It had just never occurred to me that they were basing their entire position on an intellectually dishonest premise."I've had an epiphany"
No, you haven't. An epiphany is a sudden and unexpected realisation of a previously unconsidered profound truth.
Imagined confirmation of you own bias isn't an epiphany. It's stroking your own ego.
You did lie. I never claimed to be the arbiter of dick. And you're a racist fuck, so anything else you might think is meaningless, after that.Not lying. If so it could be readily demonstrated. And you didn't. Because I'm not. While its clear that we operate under very different moral hierarchies, any debate will be fruitless while you are operating off of your own "facts".No I didn't. you are lying again. Logic, and reason is the arbiter of moral equivalency. That is the beauty of facts. Kinda like the fact that you are an ignorant, racist troll. Your own admission is the evidence of your racism. Your inability to comprehend hyperbole is the evidence of your ignorance.Hardly trolling. You deemed yourself as the arbiter of moral equivalence. So relevant background regarding your moral hierarchy is as relevant as it gets.Please don't. I think this topic is worthy of discussion, and I refuse to let a racist troll every thread I am involved in, and force it closed. just so he can succeed as a troll.Mods, please close the thread after this. I also think Cerzhog might be able to charge Vastator with mental cruelty, assault and battery
Good news then! According to your definition; I'm not a racist after all. Cool! Turns out I'm merely a familist. However... What about the other posters? Did they know about how racism invalidated a position of moral equivalence between a child who is one week old; and a child who is one year old? And since we're making headway here... How does racism invalidate the results?That is the definition of a racist. Someone who practices racism - the belief that one's own racial group is superior to another. Now you are just trying to equivocate over your own admission.You we're the only one to use the word superior. And you've still failed to define racist. You've merely stated an assumption. A false one at that. Nor have you demonstrated its effect upon the validity of a given outcome on this exersize.Shall I post your admission for you?See. There you go again with your own "facts". Easily demonstrated by your inability to define my "racism". Forgetting for the moment that demonstrable facts are the way I've arrived at my conclusions.You are a self proclaimed racist. That alone disqualifies you from the ability to employ logic, or reason.Ohhh, but you did. You see... Others including myself are bringing logic, and reasoning to bear on this issue. And many are coming up with a much different answer than you.
BTW... There's a difference between a persons "statement of fact", and hyperbole.
As far as race goes... Of course I'm a racist. You should be too.
Don't need to define dick. Everyone knows what a racist is - someone who believes that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others. No matter how you want to parse that, it i9s not a good thing you racist fuck.
Apparently you never got past the first sentence in my response? Tell you what. Go back, and read the entire response, then you decide if you still need to ask that question.No. It ends the viability of a fetus. That's kind of the point. The two are not morally equivalent. The evidence in this is the thought experiment: The crux of which is this: You find yourself in a position where a phial of 1,000 frozen ready embryos, and a child are in mortal jeopardy. You can only save one. Which do you save.I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.
I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.
I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".
Abortion doesn't end the life of a baby/child/person?
If you answer with anything other than I save the embryos, then you are confirming that a single embryo is not equivalent to a child. Because otherwise, 1,000 embryos would have a thousand times the moral value of a single child, and you would be saving them, and letting the child perish.
It ends the viability of a fetus
Ends the viability? You mean kills it.
Is the fetus a baby/child/person?
Apparently you never got past the first sentence in my response? Tell you what. Go back, and read the entire response, then you decide if you still need to ask that question.No. It ends the viability of a fetus. That's kind of the point. The two are not morally equivalent. The evidence in this is the thought experiment: The crux of which is this: You find yourself in a position where a phial of 1,000 frozen ready embryos, and a child are in mortal jeopardy. You can only save one. Which do you save.I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.
I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.
I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".
Abortion doesn't end the life of a baby/child/person?
If you answer with anything other than I save the embryos, then you are confirming that a single embryo is not equivalent to a child. Because otherwise, 1,000 embryos would have a thousand times the moral value of a single child, and you would be saving them, and letting the child perish.
It ends the viability of a fetus
Ends the viability? You mean kills it.
Is the fetus a baby/child/person?
1,000 frozen ready embryos, and a child are in mortal jeopardy
Except I didn't expect that the false equivalency was the only argument that anti-abortionists had. I admit I should have. It had just never occurred to me that they were basing their entire position on an intellectually dishonest premise.
Except I didn't expect that the false equivalency was the only argument that anti-abortionists had. I admit I should have. It had just never occurred to me that they were basing their entire position on an intellectually dishonest premise.
So you are going to be intentionally dishonest, and pretend that you don't know the answer to your question? You find yourself in a position where a phial of 1,000 frozen ready embryos, and a child are in mortal jeopardy. You can only save one. Which do you save?Apparently you never got past the first sentence in my response? Tell you what. Go back, and read the entire response, then you decide if you still need to ask that question.No. It ends the viability of a fetus. That's kind of the point. The two are not morally equivalent. The evidence in this is the thought experiment: The crux of which is this: You find yourself in a position where a phial of 1,000 frozen ready embryos, and a child are in mortal jeopardy. You can only save one. Which do you save.I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.
I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.
I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".
Abortion doesn't end the life of a baby/child/person?
If you answer with anything other than I save the embryos, then you are confirming that a single embryo is not equivalent to a child. Because otherwise, 1,000 embryos would have a thousand times the moral value of a single child, and you would be saving them, and letting the child perish.
It ends the viability of a fetus
Ends the viability? You mean kills it.
Is the fetus a baby/child/person?
apparently you never got past the first sentence in my response?
The part where you killed a fetus?
Is the fetus a baby/child/person?
If not, what is it?
Well, yeah. But I actually expected the Anti-abortionists to have some other argument against legal abortion they could follow with. It never occurred to me that was the entirety of their argument.Except I didn't expect that the false equivalency was the only argument that anti-abortionists had. I admit I should have. It had just never occurred to me that they were basing their entire position on an intellectually dishonest premise.
You got the answer you knew you were going to get and you interpreted it in precisely the way you wanted.
So you are going to be intentionally dishonest, and pretend that you don't know the answer to your question? You find yourself in a position where a phial of 1,000 frozen ready embryos, and a child are in mortal jeopardy. You can only save one. Which do you save?Apparently you never got past the first sentence in my response? Tell you what. Go back, and read the entire response, then you decide if you still need to ask that question.No. It ends the viability of a fetus. That's kind of the point. The two are not morally equivalent. The evidence in this is the thought experiment: The crux of which is this: You find yourself in a position where a phial of 1,000 frozen ready embryos, and a child are in mortal jeopardy. You can only save one. Which do you save.Abortion doesn't end the life of a baby/child/person?
If you answer with anything other than I save the embryos, then you are confirming that a single embryo is not equivalent to a child. Because otherwise, 1,000 embryos would have a thousand times the moral value of a single child, and you would be saving them, and letting the child perish.
It ends the viability of a fetus
Ends the viability? You mean kills it.
Is the fetus a baby/child/person?
apparently you never got past the first sentence in my response?
The part where you killed a fetus?
Is the fetus a baby/child/person?
If not, what is it?
No. It is not a baby/child/person. It is an embryo, or a non-viable fetus. And you know this to be true, or you would have answered the question posed before pretending that you think they are the same thing.So you are going to be intentionally dishonest, and pretend that you don't know the answer to your question? You find yourself in a position where a phial of 1,000 frozen ready embryos, and a child are in mortal jeopardy. You can only save one. Which do you save?Apparently you never got past the first sentence in my response? Tell you what. Go back, and read the entire response, then you decide if you still need to ask that question.No. It ends the viability of a fetus. That's kind of the point. The two are not morally equivalent. The evidence in this is the thought experiment: The crux of which is this: You find yourself in a position where a phial of 1,000 frozen ready embryos, and a child are in mortal jeopardy. You can only save one. Which do you save.
If you answer with anything other than I save the embryos, then you are confirming that a single embryo is not equivalent to a child. Because otherwise, 1,000 embryos would have a thousand times the moral value of a single child, and you would be saving them, and letting the child perish.
It ends the viability of a fetus
Ends the viability? You mean kills it.
Is the fetus a baby/child/person?
apparently you never got past the first sentence in my response?
The part where you killed a fetus?
Is the fetus a baby/child/person?
If not, what is it?
So you are going to be intentionally dishonest, and pretend that you don't know the answer to your question?
I want to know YOUR answer to my question.
Well, yeah. But I actually expected the Anti-abortionists to have some other argument against legal abortion they could follow with. It never occurred to me that was the entirety of their argument.
No. It is not a baby/child/person. It is an embryo, or a non-viable fetus. And you know this to be true, or you would have answered the question posed before pretending that you think they are the same thing.So you are going to be intentionally dishonest, and pretend that you don't know the answer to your question? You find yourself in a position where a phial of 1,000 frozen ready embryos, and a child are in mortal jeopardy. You can only save one. Which do you save?Apparently you never got past the first sentence in my response? Tell you what. Go back, and read the entire response, then you decide if you still need to ask that question.It ends the viability of a fetus
Ends the viability? You mean kills it.
Is the fetus a baby/child/person?
apparently you never got past the first sentence in my response?
The part where you killed a fetus?
Is the fetus a baby/child/person?
If not, what is it?
So you are going to be intentionally dishonest, and pretend that you don't know the answer to your question?
I want to know YOUR answer to my question.
