|
On November 16 2012 03:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 03:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
everyone should just refer to abortion as "killing human life." or will you mod that out too?
so, instead of "you are okay with killing babies; you are a murderer!" everyone can say "you are okay with killing human life; you are a murderer!" Surely that's even more vague. Now we're suggesting pro-choicers not only want to kill your infant children but maybe grandma too? Would it be so much to ask that you say "human life currently in a womb"?
if someone goes into an abortion thread, sees a statement like "you kill babies, you are a murderer" and thinks they are referring to infants then they are stupid. it is as simple as that. the term "baby" is only vague when you ignore the context. now, is there any reason other than vagueness for why you think that the term "baby" shouldn't be used to refer to fetuses?
|
United States43570 Posts
On November 16 2012 03:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 03:41 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 03:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:
because I'm an idiot confirming When you post like this, you are displaying the same level of maturity with which you moderate these forums. It's very revealing imo.
You're a delusional, paranoid moron. You are on a site when we are literally empowered to kick you out for whatever reason and despite all of your bitching about how we're all out to get you there is nobody doing anything to you. If tl was half as bad as you think it is I could just ban you cause you called me immature and it upset me. The reason you're still around is because we try to let you spout your idiocy despite your immense personal flaws.
I treat you with no respect in website feedback because you don't merit any. But I don't ban you because you don't deserve it. That's the crux of the matter which you, for all your whining, have failed to realise.
|
Lalalaland34501 Posts
On November 16 2012 03:46 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 03:29 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 03:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
everyone should just refer to abortion as "killing human life." or will you mod that out too?
so, instead of "you are okay with killing babies; you are a murderer!" everyone can say "you are okay with killing human life; you are a murderer!" Surely that's even more vague. Now we're suggesting pro-choicers not only want to kill your infant children but maybe grandma too? Would it be so much to ask that you say "human life currently in a womb"? if someone goes into an abortion thread, sees a statement like "you kill babies, you are a murderer" and thinks they are referring to infants then they are stupid. it is as simple as that. the term "baby" is only vague when you ignore the context. now, is there any reason other than vagueness for why you think that the term "baby" shouldn't be used to refer to fetuses?
Because medical people (probably the people that come into contact with this stuff the most) don't use it to refer to foetuses.
|
Why not skip all the bullshit of calling people retarded in regards to picking up context and simply be specific? This discussion has come full circle and only gotten more ridiculous.
|
On November 16 2012 03:46 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 03:29 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 03:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
everyone should just refer to abortion as "killing human life." or will you mod that out too?
so, instead of "you are okay with killing babies; you are a murderer!" everyone can say "you are okay with killing human life; you are a murderer!" Surely that's even more vague. Now we're suggesting pro-choicers not only want to kill your infant children but maybe grandma too? Would it be so much to ask that you say "human life currently in a womb"? if someone goes into an abortion thread, sees a statement like "you kill babies, you are a murderer" and thinks they are referring to infants then they are stupid. it is as simple as that. the term "baby" is only vague when you ignore the context. now, is there any reason other than vagueness for why you think that the term "baby" shouldn't be used to refer to fetuses?
I believe he's already explained that he doesn't like the ambiguity being used as, essentially, an emotional blunt object, with the intent of using emotional undertones as an alternative to real debate.
It's actually not really different from an ad hominem attack. Avoiding the real debate to score points on an emotional level.
For the record, the real reason it matters aside from that is simple. If you are debating whether abortion is equivalent to infanticide, your starting argument can not be that abortion is equivalent to infanticide. But that's exactly the reason people use things like "killing babies" in abortion debates.
|
United States43570 Posts
On November 16 2012 03:46 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 03:29 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 03:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
everyone should just refer to abortion as "killing human life." or will you mod that out too?
so, instead of "you are okay with killing babies; you are a murderer!" everyone can say "you are okay with killing human life; you are a murderer!" Surely that's even more vague. Now we're suggesting pro-choicers not only want to kill your infant children but maybe grandma too? Would it be so much to ask that you say "human life currently in a womb"? if someone goes into an abortion thread, sees a statement like "you kill babies, you are a murderer" and thinks they are referring to infants then they are stupid. it is as simple as that. the term "baby" is only vague when you ignore the context. now, is there any reason other than vagueness for why you think that the term "baby" shouldn't be used to refer to fetuses?
The point of the rhetoric in saying baby and murderer is the implicit assumption that what they are doing is wrong because it is the same as killing a post birth baby and therefore is murder. This is a false implication, the pro-choice side distinguishes between the two (as does the law for that matter, it isn't murder). It is no more useful or relevant to the debate than going up to an atheist and saying "you're wrong because God said so", the assumptions on which the rhetoric is based simply do not translate because there is no common language.
For any debate to take place a common terminology must be established. If you don't feel comfortable using the language of the enemy then feel free to use any other term which refers specifically to the issue at hand but using vague words in place of actually framing an argument does not suffice. If you think a prebirth baby should be treated in the same way as a postbirth baby then the way to make that argument is not to simply call them both the same thing and hope nobody notices because the other side will always notice and you are wasting everyone's time.
|
On November 16 2012 03:49 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 03:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 03:29 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 03:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
everyone should just refer to abortion as "killing human life." or will you mod that out too?
so, instead of "you are okay with killing babies; you are a murderer!" everyone can say "you are okay with killing human life; you are a murderer!" Surely that's even more vague. Now we're suggesting pro-choicers not only want to kill your infant children but maybe grandma too? Would it be so much to ask that you say "human life currently in a womb"? if someone goes into an abortion thread, sees a statement like "you kill babies, you are a murderer" and thinks they are referring to infants then they are stupid. it is as simple as that. the term "baby" is only vague when you ignore the context. now, is there any reason other than vagueness for why you think that the term "baby" shouldn't be used to refer to fetuses? Because medical people (probably the people that come into contact with this stuff the most) don't use it to refer to foetuses.
if people with medical degrees cant figure out the context, they also are stupid. the point stands that the term isnt vague when used in certain contexts. i would expect people who can get through medical school could figure it out if they put their minds to it.
|
The fact that you need to qualify that sentence with "in contexts" directly implies it is vague.
|
On November 16 2012 03:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 03:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 03:29 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 03:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
everyone should just refer to abortion as "killing human life." or will you mod that out too?
so, instead of "you are okay with killing babies; you are a murderer!" everyone can say "you are okay with killing human life; you are a murderer!" Surely that's even more vague. Now we're suggesting pro-choicers not only want to kill your infant children but maybe grandma too? Would it be so much to ask that you say "human life currently in a womb"? if someone goes into an abortion thread, sees a statement like "you kill babies, you are a murderer" and thinks they are referring to infants then they are stupid. it is as simple as that. the term "baby" is only vague when you ignore the context. now, is there any reason other than vagueness for why you think that the term "baby" shouldn't be used to refer to fetuses? The point of the rhetoric in saying baby and murderer is the implicit assumption that what they are doing is wrong because it is the same as killing a post birth baby and therefore is murder. This is a false implication, the pro-choice side distinguishes between the two (as does the law for that matter, it isn't murder). It is no more useful or relevant to the debate than going up to an atheist and saying "you're wrong because God said so", the assumptions on which the rhetoric is based simply do not translate because there is no common language. For any debate to take place a common terminology must be established. If you don't feel comfortable using the language of the enemy then feel free to use any other term which refers specifically to the issue at hand but using vague words in place of actually framing an argument does not suffice. If you think a prebirth baby should be treated in the same way as a postbirth baby then the way to make that argument is not to simply call them both the same thing and hope nobody notices because the other side will always notice and you are wasting everyone's time.
you have conveniently avoided the point i made: when they use baby in an abortion debate, its not vague, everyone knows they are referring to pre-birth. also, can you even point to a single post in the abortion threads where you were legitimately confused as to the use of the term baby?
with respect to your other points, i know why you want them to use your terminology, but is it necessary to take the draconian step of censoring them when there is no actual confusion.
|
On November 16 2012 04:14 Gene wrote:
The fact that you need to qualify that sentence with "in contexts" directly implies it is vague.
nobody disputes that "baby" is vague as it can arguably refer to pre and post birth according to certain dictionaries. that is not the point i was making.
|
Lalalaland34501 Posts
On November 16 2012 04:16 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 04:14 Gene wrote:
The fact that you need to qualify that sentence with "in contexts" directly implies it is vague. nobody disputes that "baby" is vague as it can arguably refer to pre and post birth according to certain dictionaries. that is not the point i was making.
Arguably. Certain dictionaries, not all.
Do I really need to continue explaining why it is vague?
edit - misread your post. Fair enough, we seem to have come to an agreement.
So why are we still using it in such a controversial discussion?
|
United States43570 Posts
On November 16 2012 04:15 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 03:54 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 03:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 03:29 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 03:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
everyone should just refer to abortion as "killing human life." or will you mod that out too?
so, instead of "you are okay with killing babies; you are a murderer!" everyone can say "you are okay with killing human life; you are a murderer!" Surely that's even more vague. Now we're suggesting pro-choicers not only want to kill your infant children but maybe grandma too? Would it be so much to ask that you say "human life currently in a womb"? if someone goes into an abortion thread, sees a statement like "you kill babies, you are a murderer" and thinks they are referring to infants then they are stupid. it is as simple as that. the term "baby" is only vague when you ignore the context. now, is there any reason other than vagueness for why you think that the term "baby" shouldn't be used to refer to fetuses? The point of the rhetoric in saying baby and murderer is the implicit assumption that what they are doing is wrong because it is the same as killing a post birth baby and therefore is murder. This is a false implication, the pro-choice side distinguishes between the two (as does the law for that matter, it isn't murder). It is no more useful or relevant to the debate than going up to an atheist and saying "you're wrong because God said so", the assumptions on which the rhetoric is based simply do not translate because there is no common language. For any debate to take place a common terminology must be established. If you don't feel comfortable using the language of the enemy then feel free to use any other term which refers specifically to the issue at hand but using vague words in place of actually framing an argument does not suffice. If you think a prebirth baby should be treated in the same way as a postbirth baby then the way to make that argument is not to simply call them both the same thing and hope nobody notices because the other side will always notice and you are wasting everyone's time. you have conveniently avoided the point i made: when they use baby in an abortion debate, its not vague, everyone knows they are referring to pre-birth. also, can you even point to a single post in the abortion threads where you were legitimately confused as to the use of the term baby? with respect to your other points, i know why you want them to use your terminology, but is it necessary to take the draconian step of censoring them when there is no actual confusion.
It's not that the point they're trying to make is vague. The point they're trying to make is "you're in favour of aborting foetuses under certain conditions". It's that instead of making an argument they are exploiting the inherent vagueness of the word to avoid actually having to demonstrate that killing a foetus is comparable to killing an infant. By simply referring to the two using the same word they skip the bit where the actual argument happens and leap straight to their conclusion, instead relying upon the fact that they use the word baby to mean something different to what the other side does.
It's not that it isn't entirely transparent what pro-life advocates mean when they do it, it's that they are exploiting the vagueness of the word, and the fact that both sides use it to mean different things, to skip the stage where the actual argument is found. The "of course they're comparable, I'm using the same word for both, they're the same thing" is the problem, the word is vague.
|
We are all in agreement that it is vague. Why I don't understand is why we are arguing that it is acceptable to use in an abortion debate after we've clearly all agreed about its vagueness.
|
Lalalaland34501 Posts
On November 16 2012 04:22 Gene wrote:
We are all in agreement that it is vague. Why I don't understand is why we are arguing that it is acceptable to use in an abortion debate after we've clearly all agreed about its vagueness.
Because a few people seem to think it's either not vague, or still acceptable to use vague terms in a controversial debate. I have no idea why.
|
On November 16 2012 04:18 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 04:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 04:14 Gene wrote:
The fact that you need to qualify that sentence with "in contexts" directly implies it is vague. nobody disputes that "baby" is vague as it can arguably refer to pre and post birth according to certain dictionaries. that is not the point i was making. Arguably. Certain dictionaries, not all. Do I really need to continue explaining why it is vague?
i will stand on this point: if you go into an abortion debate thread, see the term "baby murderer," etc and think it refers to infanticide, you are an idiot.
|
Lalalaland34501 Posts
On November 16 2012 04:24 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 04:18 Firebolt145 wrote:On November 16 2012 04:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 04:14 Gene wrote:
The fact that you need to qualify that sentence with "in contexts" directly implies it is vague. nobody disputes that "baby" is vague as it can arguably refer to pre and post birth according to certain dictionaries. that is not the point i was making. Arguably. Certain dictionaries, not all. Do I really need to continue explaining why it is vague? i will stand on this point: if you go into an abortion debate thread, see the term "baby murderer," etc and think it refers to infanticide, you are an idiot.
Just because I can extrapolate and understand what you actually mean doesn't mean you should use the term. In such a charged controversial discussion, everyone should stick to precise terms so there is no misunderstanding. Not to mention the entire emotional charged nature of it all, saying 'you feel it's okay to kill babies' is definitely much heavier than saying 'you feel it's okay to kill foetuses'.
|
So you are arguing a case for being intentionally indirect on the grounds that your audience can figure it out if they are not idiots.
|
On November 16 2012 04:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 04:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 03:54 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 03:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 03:29 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 03:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
everyone should just refer to abortion as "killing human life." or will you mod that out too?
so, instead of "you are okay with killing babies; you are a murderer!" everyone can say "you are okay with killing human life; you are a murderer!" Surely that's even more vague. Now we're suggesting pro-choicers not only want to kill your infant children but maybe grandma too? Would it be so much to ask that you say "human life currently in a womb"? if someone goes into an abortion thread, sees a statement like "you kill babies, you are a murderer" and thinks they are referring to infants then they are stupid. it is as simple as that. the term "baby" is only vague when you ignore the context. now, is there any reason other than vagueness for why you think that the term "baby" shouldn't be used to refer to fetuses? The point of the rhetoric in saying baby and murderer is the implicit assumption that what they are doing is wrong because it is the same as killing a post birth baby and therefore is murder. This is a false implication, the pro-choice side distinguishes between the two (as does the law for that matter, it isn't murder). It is no more useful or relevant to the debate than going up to an atheist and saying "you're wrong because God said so", the assumptions on which the rhetoric is based simply do not translate because there is no common language. For any debate to take place a common terminology must be established. If you don't feel comfortable using the language of the enemy then feel free to use any other term which refers specifically to the issue at hand but using vague words in place of actually framing an argument does not suffice. If you think a prebirth baby should be treated in the same way as a postbirth baby then the way to make that argument is not to simply call them both the same thing and hope nobody notices because the other side will always notice and you are wasting everyone's time. you have conveniently avoided the point i made: when they use baby in an abortion debate, its not vague, everyone knows they are referring to pre-birth. also, can you even point to a single post in the abortion threads where you were legitimately confused as to the use of the term baby? with respect to your other points, i know why you want them to use your terminology, but is it necessary to take the draconian step of censoring them when there is no actual confusion. It's not that the point they're trying to make is vague. The point they're trying to make is "you're in favour of aborting foetuses under certain conditions". It's that instead of making an argument they are exploiting the inherent vagueness of the word to avoid actually having to demonstrate that killing a foetus is comparable to killing an infant. By simply referring to the two using the same word they skip the bit where the actual argument happens and leap straight to their conclusion, instead relying upon the fact that they use the word baby to mean something different to what the other side does. It's not that it isn't entirely transparent what pro-life advocates mean when they do it, it's that they are exploiting the vagueness of the word, and the fact that both sides use it to mean different things, to skip the stage where the actual argument is found. The "of course they're comparable, I'm using the same word for both, they're the same thing" is the problem, the word is vague.
so what? why do you feel you need to moderate a word when you understand exactly how they are using it? i have yet to see any real confusion.
|
On November 16 2012 04:27 Gene wrote:
So you are arguing a case for being intentionally indirect on the grounds that your audience can figure it out if they are not idiots.
censoring language is ridiculous when there is no real confusion. so, yes, in simple terms: the pro-choice people aren't confused (unless they are idiots), and thus, there is no reason to censor language, which is a draconian step.
|
On November 16 2012 04:26 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 04:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 04:18 Firebolt145 wrote:On November 16 2012 04:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 04:14 Gene wrote:
The fact that you need to qualify that sentence with "in contexts" directly implies it is vague. nobody disputes that "baby" is vague as it can arguably refer to pre and post birth according to certain dictionaries. that is not the point i was making. Arguably. Certain dictionaries, not all. Do I really need to continue explaining why it is vague? i will stand on this point: if you go into an abortion debate thread, see the term "baby murderer," etc and think it refers to infanticide, you are an idiot. Just because I can extrapolate and understand what you actually mean doesn't mean you should use the term. In such a charged controversial discussion, everyone should stick to precise terms so there is no misunderstanding. Not to mention the entire emotional charged nature of it all, saying 'you feel it's okay to kill babies' is definitely much heavier than saying 'you feel it's okay to kill foetuses'.
it would be nice if i could go through the forums and ban everyone who misuses legal terms even though i understand they are misusing them. but they dont because such draconian measures are ridiculous as is banning the term "baby" when nobody is confused. you guys are all arguing what we call "pretext." there is a possibility of confusion, thus, we should ban the word. in reality, however, nobody is confused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
