|
Lalalaland34491 Posts
On November 16 2012 04:29 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Are you saying that we should not strive for perfect clarity?
There is a reason that they are extremely careful with how laws are written and stated, clarifying every single possible angle to prevent people from misunderstanding, misinterpreting the law, or abusing any loophole. This is no different.
|
Lalalaland34491 Posts
On November 16 2012 04:32 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 04:26 Firebolt145 wrote: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.
Because people don't generally misuse these legal terms in situations that are highly charged or controversial. If they are, then you should definitely point them out.
|
You're very wrong. The simple point remains that if you think foeticide (killing a baby in the womb in your terms) is wrong then you should be able to argue that specific point without accusing the other side of infanticide (killing a baby outside of the womb). Explaining what it is you are talking about without resorting to vague rhetoric that completely mischaracterises the opposing argument is not too much to ask.
If you think that a baby inside the womb has the same value as a baby outside of the womb (again putting it in your terms) then you can think that and then go on to explain why killing a baby inside of the womb is wrong. At no point is it necessary, relevant or helpful to bring babies outside of the womb (which the use of the word baby implies) into the argument because nobody anywhere is aborting them.
So first the problem was simply that the term was inaccurate. Except it isn't, except in the mind of KwarK.
Then the problem was that it was vague. Except it isn't, except in the mind of KwarK.
Then the problem was that people were using the term to make ad hominem attacks on people that in addition to being ad hominem also made no sense. Except that not all people do that, and it is not a problem rising to the level where we have to circumscribe what people say to avoid it.
Can KwarK stop shifting the goalposts?
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"?
You're really hung up on this "vague" thing, aren't you?
You, KwarK, are intellectually incapable of honestly engaging people who disagree with you. You have a constitutional inability to reply to what people actually say: instead, you prefer to construct strawmen and blaze them down with righteous fury.
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.
But I thought the goalposts weren't supposed to move... oh wait KwarK is doing the moving so it must be okay. The problem at first was just using the word baby, now it's calling people baby murderers.
The word is not vague, everyone knows what is meant, and if they don't, they are retarded. Are you retarded, KwarK? Does people using the word "baby" confuse you? Are you incapable of understanding what they mean?
Your terminology assertion is equally as laughable as the rest of the garbage you've been spewing. People understand perfectly what is meant by a pro-choice person saying "fetus" and a pro-life person saying "baby." You simply have ants crawling up your ass because you're an egotistical asshole and you cannot stand people not bowing down to your self-evident superiority. You don't like people saying "baby" in this context so it is not allowed. That's it. There's no reasoning behind it; every argument you've advanced has been stupid to an incredible degree.
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 is not vague. Keep saying that it is, it's really making you look like you're confident and doing well.
Also, really? People say "baby" in order to "avoid actually having to demonstrate that killing a foetus is comparable to killing an infant"? People say "baby" because they believe that it is comparable. They advance arguments for that belief. No one, no one, says "baby" to avoid demonstrating their belief. It is a demonstration of their belief.
How do you know people say "baby" for that reason? Can you read minds? Can you really be this stupidly arrogant?
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.
To skip the stage where the actual argument is found?
That is the actual argument!
Your arguments would be more pathetic if they weren't so damn funny. You can't maintain a single one consistently save for your idiotic assertion of vagueness over and over again, like a broken record player with no one to shut off the incredibly bad line that keeps being played.
|
Regardless of the subject matter, that you can say you are arguing for being intentionally indirect in a legitimate debate is incomprehensible.
|
On November 16 2012 04:35 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 04:29 dAPhREAk wrote: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. Are you saying that we should not strive for perfect clarity? There is a reason that they are extremely careful with how laws are written and stated, clarifying every single possible angle to prevent people from misunderstanding, misinterpreting the law, or abusing any loophole. This is no different.
i am against censoring certain words when there is no confusion. i also find your idea of "perfect clarity" in an abortion debate laughable at best.
|
Lalalaland34491 Posts
The term is vague. Even dAPhREAk admits it. Jesus christ.
|
On November 16 2012 04:41 Gene wrote:
Regardless of the subject matter, that you can say you are arguing for being intentionally indirect in a legitimate debate is incomprehensible.
using "baby" to refer to fetuses is not invalid. its supported by dictionary definitions and common parlance. so, censoring a word's legitimate use when nobody is confused by its inherent vagueness is incomprehensible. censorship is not the norm, its the extreme. why would anyone support it except in extraordinary circumstances? seriously, wtf?
|
Lalalaland34491 Posts
I personally don't give a shit about getting involved in an abortion debate. What I am saying here is that there is no reason to use vague terms, and I'm showing why the term 'baby' is vague in this situation.
Gene says it perfectly. Quoting once again:
Regardless of the subject matter, that you can say you are arguing for being intentionally indirect in a legitimate debate is incomprehensible.
|
Lalalaland34491 Posts
On November 16 2012 04:43 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 04:41 Gene wrote:
Regardless of the subject matter, that you can say you are arguing for being intentionally indirect in a legitimate debate is incomprehensible. using "baby" to refer to fetuses is not invalid. its supported by dictionary definitions and common parlance. so, censoring a word's legitimate use when nobody is confused by its inherent vagueness is incomprehensible. censorship is not the norm, its the extreme. why would anyone support it except in extraordinary circumstances? seriously, wtf?
No one is censoring the word 'baby'. We are explaining why it shouldn't be used. That has nothing to do with censorship. How did it even come to this?
|
Anyone who thinks that the term "baby" is vague is either dumb as a stump or being dishonest. You cannot seriously claim that any reasonable, intelligent person would misunderstand the use of the word "baby" in an abortion debate. It boggles the mind to think that anyone would be confused.
The word "baby" as used in an abortion debate is not vague, and you cannot credibly claim that it is.
No one is censoring the word 'baby'. We are explaining why it shouldn't be used. That has nothing to do with censorship. How did it even come to this?
Because KwarK does censor it?
Do you read what you write before you hit post?
Your explanation as to why it shouldn't be used makes absolutely no sense as the word is not vague and cannot honestly be construed as vague as everyone knows exactly what is meant when it is used.
|
On November 16 2012 04:44 Firebolt145 wrote:I personally don't give a shit about getting involved in an abortion debate. What I am saying here is that there is no reason to use vague terms, and I'm showing why the term 'baby' is vague in this situation. Gene says it perfectly. Quoting once again: Show nested quote +Regardless of the subject matter, that you can say you are arguing for being intentionally indirect in a legitimate debate is incomprehensible.
sigh.
the term "baby" is vague.
the term "baby" when used in an abortion debate is not vague. abortion necessarily refers to pre-birth.
|
dont get dragged into this fb, its a complete waste of your time.
|
On November 16 2012 04:45 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 04:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 04:41 Gene wrote:
Regardless of the subject matter, that you can say you are arguing for being intentionally indirect in a legitimate debate is incomprehensible. using "baby" to refer to fetuses is not invalid. its supported by dictionary definitions and common parlance. so, censoring a word's legitimate use when nobody is confused by its inherent vagueness is incomprehensible. censorship is not the norm, its the extreme. why would anyone support it except in extraordinary circumstances? seriously, wtf? No one is censoring the word 'baby'. We are explaining why it shouldn't be used. That has nothing to do with censorship. How did it even come to this?
kwark said people cant use the term "baby" in the abortion thread to refer to pre-birth; they are required to use "fetus." so, he is censoring the use of the word.
personally, i would use fetus because its more accurate, but i dont feel kwark should tell people that they cant use baby.
|
On November 16 2012 04:47 PassiveAce wrote:
dont get dragged into this fb, its a complete waste of your time.
as long as its interesting, its not a waste of time. if you are referring to actually changing tl.net modding activities, then yes, its a waste of time.
|
Lalalaland34491 Posts
On November 16 2012 04:48 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 04:45 Firebolt145 wrote:On November 16 2012 04:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 04:41 Gene wrote:
Regardless of the subject matter, that you can say you are arguing for being intentionally indirect in a legitimate debate is incomprehensible. using "baby" to refer to fetuses is not invalid. its supported by dictionary definitions and common parlance. so, censoring a word's legitimate use when nobody is confused by its inherent vagueness is incomprehensible. censorship is not the norm, its the extreme. why would anyone support it except in extraordinary circumstances? seriously, wtf? No one is censoring the word 'baby'. We are explaining why it shouldn't be used. That has nothing to do with censorship. How did it even come to this? kwark said people cant use the term "baby" in the abortion thread to refer to pre-birth; they are required to use "fetus." so, he is censoring the use of the word. personally, i would use fetus because its more accurate, but i dont feel kwark should tell people that they cant use baby.
He's ARGUING that they should use baby instead of foetus. He never censored it and no one was ever banned about it.
The person that was banned was banned because he was ignorant about the spelling of fetus/foetus and was calling a moderator out on it. Regarding the actual ban, I also felt that 2 weeks was far too long and even mentioned it to Kwark on teamspeak. But that's not what this discussion is about any more.
|
To be honest I wasn't ever really putting this argument in context of the abortion thread. It does necessarily dictate pre birth. I'm still uncomfortable with the whole imprecision thing but it does sound more like censorship in context. I would go on to argue if you want to say baby you should need to qualify it with unborn in acceptance of the fact that the word vague and being used intentionally to conjure subconscious thoughts of a toddler.
I expect you would call me an idiot.
|
On November 16 2012 04:51 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 04:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 04:45 Firebolt145 wrote:On November 16 2012 04:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 04:41 Gene wrote:
Regardless of the subject matter, that you can say you are arguing for being intentionally indirect in a legitimate debate is incomprehensible. using "baby" to refer to fetuses is not invalid. its supported by dictionary definitions and common parlance. so, censoring a word's legitimate use when nobody is confused by its inherent vagueness is incomprehensible. censorship is not the norm, its the extreme. why would anyone support it except in extraordinary circumstances? seriously, wtf? No one is censoring the word 'baby'. We are explaining why it shouldn't be used. That has nothing to do with censorship. How did it even come to this? kwark said people cant use the term "baby" in the abortion thread to refer to pre-birth; they are required to use "fetus." so, he is censoring the use of the word. personally, i would use fetus because its more accurate, but i dont feel kwark should tell people that they cant use baby. He's ARGUING that they should use baby instead of foetus. He never censored it and no one was ever banned about it. The person that was banned was banned because he was ignorant about the spelling of fetus/foetus and was calling a moderator out on it. Regarding the actual ban, I also felt that 2 weeks was far too long and even mentioned it to Kwark on teamspeak. But that's not what this discussion is about any more.
this is the modnote, which i read as requiring use of fetus for pre-birth and not baby.
Usual abortion topic rule of using baby to mean baby and foetus to mean foetus applies. These words have meaning. - KwarK
if Kwark is saying that you can still use baby for pre-birth then i have no problems because the modnote is meaningless as it requires nothing. but i highly doubt that kwark would allow people to use baby for pre-birth as he is abundantly made clear in this thread. nobody was banned because the thread was closed.
|
On November 16 2012 04:54 Gene wrote:
To be honest I wasn't ever really putting this argument in context of the abortion thread. It does necessarily dictate pre birth. I'm still uncomfortable with the whole imprecision thing but it does sound more like censorship in context. I would go on to argue if you want to say baby you should need to qualify it with unborn in acceptance of the fact that the word vague and being used intentionally to conjure subconscious thoughts of a toddler.
I expect you would call me an idiot.
no, i wouldnt call you an idiot. ;-) i am perfectly fine with people saying you should use fetus for pre-birth and baby for post-birth (although infant would be better in my mind). i only have a problem with people saying you have to or you will be warned/banned/moderated.
|
Give an example of a single instance where someone actually thought that "baby" in an abortion debate referred to a child already born, and that this confusion was long-lasting and detrimental to the discussion. I'd love to see that.
being used intentionally to conjure subconscious thoughts of a toddler.
Of course it is, as pro-lifers believe that morally there is no difference between the two. There is nothing wrong with advancing that belief or trying to provoke that thought in another. That's the point. Morally, the two are the same, the argument goes.
|
On November 16 2012 04:59 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 04:54 Gene wrote:
To be honest I wasn't ever really putting this argument in context of the abortion thread. It does necessarily dictate pre birth. I'm still uncomfortable with the whole imprecision thing but it does sound more like censorship in context. I would go on to argue if you want to say baby you should need to qualify it with unborn in acceptance of the fact that the word vague and being used intentionally to conjure subconscious thoughts of a toddler.
I expect you would call me an idiot. no, i wouldnt call you an idiot. ;-) i am perfectly fine with people saying you should use fetus for pre-birth and baby for post-birth (although infant would be better in my mind). i only have a problem with people saying you have to or you will be warned/banned/moderated.
Arguing for one and against the other only leaves room for bad discourse, and eventually the argument we are having right here. Which is clearly not an abortion argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
