|
On November 16 2012 05:56 419 wrote:
you are seriously complaining about people using terminology that is self-consistent with someone's ideology?
you are surprised that the people who make arguments assume that their arguments are correct?
(if you're really going to go down the road of blacklisting terms like that, I'll start by suggesting "fair")
He made no argument for his own use of the word; he simply repeatedly used it as though that sort of strategy trumps the necessity of clarifying terminology. That is the essence of the problem; there was no argumentation on his part, only repeated declaration.
|
United States41979 Posts
On November 16 2012 05:48 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +'Baby' is not precise. You're the only person who seems to think it is. The implication should be obvious, yes, but it's not at all a precise term. You and KwarK seem to be the only people who think that in the context of the abortion debate it isn't precise. Which, of course, has been said over and over again, yet you and KwarK seem to have some trouble comprehending precisely what is being said by others. Over and over again. And over. And over.
If someone attempted to make the "you're baby killers" 'argument' while actually using precise terms, such as "you kill babies in the womb" then the response from a pro-choice advocate would simply be "yes, I do". That's what is wrong with the argument, it is utterly meaningless once you subtract the rhetoric that what they are doing is bad because they murder babies. There's no argument there without the vagueness of the word. There is simply no substance. They haven't proven the worth of the prebirth baby nor challenged the circumstances under which the freedom of the mother comes first or anything. All they have done is stated what abortion entails and then defined bad into existence through their own definitions of the words they chose to use.
It is literally the ontological argument.
|
And forgive me JD, but all I read from your posts is exactly that. Which brings us back to arguing a case for intentionally being imprecise. Which has no place in a debate, and I think we've all agreed on that. Except for elem.
I apologize if I'm missing your point.
|
On November 16 2012 06:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 05:48 DeepElemBlues wrote:'Baby' is not precise. You're the only person who seems to think it is. The implication should be obvious, yes, but it's not at all a precise term. You and KwarK seem to be the only people who think that in the context of the abortion debate it isn't precise. Which, of course, has been said over and over again, yet you and KwarK seem to have some trouble comprehending precisely what is being said by others. Over and over again. And over. And over. If someone attempted to make the "you're baby killers" 'argument' while actually using precise terms, such as "you kill babies in the womb" then the response from a pro-choice advocate would simply be "yes, I do". That's what is wrong with the argument, it is utterly meaningless once you subtract the rhetoric that what they are doing is bad because they murder babies. There's no argument there without the vagueness of the word. There is simply no substance. They haven't proven the worth of the prebirth baby nor challenged the circumstances under which the freedom of the mother comes first or anything. All they have done is stated what abortion entails and then defined bad into existence through their own definitions of the words they chose to use. It is literally the ontological argument.
wait, are you banning the word to prevent them from giving that opinion/argument?
|
United States41979 Posts
On November 16 2012 05:56 419 wrote:
you are seriously complaining about people using terminology that is self-consistent with someone's ideology?
you are surprised that the people who make arguments assume that their arguments are correct? and that this somehow critically drags down the quality of a discussion?
(if you're really going to go down the road of blacklisting terms like that, I'll start by suggesting "fair")
When they resort to an ontological argument, yes. It has no place in debate because the conclusion is built into the subjective definitions of the word used and the failure to establish a common language prevents any meaningful communication. That's why the ontological argument fails. If everybody everywhere agreed that the word God referred to a being that existed then the question of whether God existed would become a nonsense because it'd be no different to asking whether a triangle has three sides. It is not a valid argument and has no logical underpinning.
|
Unless you actually get to the bit where you explain why a prebirth baby is the same a postbirth baby then all you have done is failed to communicate. Saying "the explanation for why they are the same is that I use the same word" does not cut it because the other side doesn't agree with that premise (and it's not an argument in any sense of the word), all you have done is shown that the word is vague because two sides can take a different meaning from it.
No one is saying that, for Pete's sake.
Of course the other side doesn't agree with that premise; that is the debate! You're just declaring one side the winner because you personally agree with their arguments.
Let's try this for the 400th time: pro-life people believe that the unborn child and the born child are morally indistinguishable, and express this by calling it a baby. Their arguments as to why morally they are indistinguishable are not based upon "we call it a baby so it is." It is, "we believe it is a baby in a moral sense because of [X, Y, Z] so we call it a baby because that's what we believe and as a way to differentiate our stance form those who believe it is not a baby in a moral sense and demonstrate doing so by calling it a 'fetus.'"
Why is this so hard to understand?
When they resort to an ontological argument, yes. It has no place in debate because the conclusion is built into the subjective definitions of the word used and the failure to establish a common language prevents any meaningful communication. That's why the ontological argument fails. If everybody everywhere agreed that the word God referred to a being that existed then the question of whether God existed would become a nonsense because it'd be no different to asking whether a triangle has three sides. It is not a valid argument and has no logical underpinning.
They are not resorting to an ontological argument, but you don't have the honesty to acknowledge that.
And your repeated references to common terminology and meaningful communication are as wrong now as they were the first time you blathered them. Your example here is so mind-numbingly stupid that it is hard to believe that you actually believe in it. God is a word embodying a concept. In the abortion debate, so does baby. No one tries to say "God exists because he's called God;" and no one has tried to say that "it's a baby because I call it a baby."
Instead, the key point that you have failed to grasp - at this point and long beforehand, obviously because of an unwillingness to do so - it is "I call it a baby because I believe it is," hopefully followed by "here's why."
Keep on shooting down arguments no one has made KwarK, it makes you look really convincing.
|
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument.
|
United States41979 Posts
On November 16 2012 06:02 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:00 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 05:48 DeepElemBlues wrote:'Baby' is not precise. You're the only person who seems to think it is. The implication should be obvious, yes, but it's not at all a precise term. You and KwarK seem to be the only people who think that in the context of the abortion debate it isn't precise. Which, of course, has been said over and over again, yet you and KwarK seem to have some trouble comprehending precisely what is being said by others. Over and over again. And over. And over. If someone attempted to make the "you're baby killers" 'argument' while actually using precise terms, such as "you kill babies in the womb" then the response from a pro-choice advocate would simply be "yes, I do". That's what is wrong with the argument, it is utterly meaningless once you subtract the rhetoric that what they are doing is bad because they murder babies. There's no argument there without the vagueness of the word. There is simply no substance. They haven't proven the worth of the prebirth baby nor challenged the circumstances under which the freedom of the mother comes first or anything. All they have done is stated what abortion entails and then defined bad into existence through their own definitions of the words they chose to use. It is literally the ontological argument. wait, are you banning the word to prevent them from giving that opinion/argument?
You are more than welcome to say "I believe that a prebirth baby has the same value as a postbirth baby" or any variant upon that. You are not allowed to say "they are the same thing purely because I subjectively linguistically define them as the same thing". That's the issue we're running into here. You can explain why they're the same thing but you can't just call them the same thing and be done with it.
|
On November 16 2012 06:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument.
I agree with this; the problem is that the poster in question made no attempt to "argue" anything. Wegandi simply repeatedly continued using the word "baby" without any acknowledgement of its problematic status in meaning as it pertains to the abortion debate. I guarantee that if he had acknowledged the possible confusion of his use of the word "baby" and taken the time to couch his use within his personal viewpoint, using the sorts of arguments that help a discussion along, we would not be having this discussion.
Edit: I love how people continue to make long, extended arguments on behalf of Wegandi in order to defend his word use. Had he done the same, like I said above, we would not be having this discussion.
|
United States41979 Posts
On November 16 2012 06:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Unless you actually get to the bit where you explain why a prebirth baby is the same a postbirth baby then all you have done is failed to communicate. Saying "the explanation for why they are the same is that I use the same word" does not cut it because the other side doesn't agree with that premise (and it's not an argument in any sense of the word), all you have done is shown that the word is vague because two sides can take a different meaning from it. No one is saying that, for Pete's sake.Of course the other side doesn't agree with that premise; that is the debate! You're just declaring one side the winner because you personally agree with their arguments. Let's try this for the 400th time: pro-life people believe that the unborn child and the born child are morally indistinguishable, and express this by calling it a baby. Their arguments as to why morally they are indistinguishable are not based upon "we call it a baby so it is." It is, "we believe it is a baby in a moral sense because of [X, Y, Z] so we call it a baby because that's what we believe and as a way to differentiate our stance form those who believe it is not a baby in a moral sense and demonstrate doing so by calling it a 'fetus.'" Why is this so hard to understand? Show nested quote +When they resort to an ontological argument, yes. It has no place in debate because the conclusion is built into the subjective definitions of the word used and the failure to establish a common language prevents any meaningful communication. That's why the ontological argument fails. If everybody everywhere agreed that the word God referred to a being that existed then the question of whether God existed would become a nonsense because it'd be no different to asking whether a triangle has three sides. It is not a valid argument and has no logical underpinning. They are not resorting to an ontological argument, but you don't have the honesty to acknowledge that.
Nobody is stopping anybody from making the argument over why they personally feel that the two are morally indistinguishable. However I am stopping people from making that argument by using the word baby and not adding the rest of it because it is an ontological argument, the other side disagree with the underlying premise. Simply saying "they're both babies" does not make the argument for why they are morally indistinguishable, it simply makes the argument for why we need more specific language that both sides can agree upon. You are more than welcome to make the morally indistinguishable argument.
|
On November 16 2012 06:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument.
You can argue that an unborn baby and a born baby, most call them infants, are the same. You cannot say "I believe killing babies is immoral". You can say "killing unborn babies is immoral". Are you telling me using this language hinders your argument as well?
Your argument is essentially that unborn babies and infants are the same thing. Which is a legitimate argument. I fail to see why saying tacking on unborn undermines your argument.
|
On November 16 2012 06:10 Gene wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument. You can argue that an unborn baby and a born baby, most call them infants, are the same. You cannot say "I believe killing babies is immoral". You can say "killing unborn babies is immoral". Are you telling me using this language hinders your argument as well?
Forcing someone to make a distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby is indeed hindering the argument that no distinction should be made morally speaking.
|
You are more than welcome to say "I believe that a prebirth baby has the same value as a postbirth baby" or any variant upon that. You are not allowed to say "they are the same thing purely because I subjectively linguistically define them as the same thing". That's the issue we're running into here. You can explain why they're the same thing but you can't just call them the same thing and be done with it.
The only reason we're running into it is that you have created a fantasy world where this issue actually exists to be run into.
Wegandi simply repeatedly continued using the word "baby" without any acknowledgement of its problematic status in meaning as it pertains to the abortion debate.
Sorry, but why should pro-life people be bothered that pro-choice people find the use of that term "problematic"? Why should pro-choice people be bothered that pro-life people find their use of the term "fetus" to deny the humanity of the unborn child as problematic?
That is what I've been trying to pound through KwarK's incredibly thick skull, that terms that are "problematic" to one side are always used by the other side in a debate, and that is at least partially why the debate exists in the first place, regardless of what the debate is!
Nobody is stopping anybody from making the argument over why they personally feel that the two are morally indistinguishable. However I am stopping people from making that argument by using the word baby and not adding the rest of it because it is an ontological argument, the other side disagree with the underlying premise. Simply saying "they're both babies" does not make the argument for why they are morally indistinguishable, it simply makes the argument for why we need more specific language that both sides can agree upon. You are more than welcome to make the morally indistinguishable argument.
Oh bullshit. It is not an ontological argument, no matter how many times you say it is.
You are adding an unreasonable burden to one side of the debate because you disagree with and for no other reason and you should be ashamed of yourself for doing so.
It is a ridiculous and unreasonable burden that someone should have to explain every time they say "baby" why they are saying so. That is just ludicrous. They are already making that argument when outlining why they are pro-life.
|
United States41979 Posts
On November 16 2012 06:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:10 Gene wrote:On November 16 2012 06:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument. You can argue that an unborn baby and a born baby, most call them infants, are the same. You cannot say "I believe killing babies is immoral". You can say "killing unborn babies is immoral". Are you telling me using this language hinders your argument as well? Forcing someone to make a distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby is indeed hindering the argument that no distinction should be made morally speaking.
Not really. I think men and women have the same moral value and killing both is murder, I don't think distinguishing between them gets in the way of this.
|
The baby is unborn. That is a fact. It's not me morally twisting anything. You've argued that they are the same. We'll say effectively as I'm sure was done in the thread. This conversation literally leaves me confused. I don't know why we're back here again.
It sounds like your argument for the debate is that it's wrong because I think it is. That's not an effective argument.
|
On November 16 2012 06:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:10 Gene wrote:On November 16 2012 06:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument. You can argue that an unborn baby and a born baby, most call them infants, are the same. You cannot say "I believe killing babies is immoral". You can say "killing unborn babies is immoral". Are you telling me using this language hinders your argument as well? Forcing someone to make a distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby is indeed hindering the argument that no distinction should be made morally speaking. Not really. I think men and women have the same moral value and killing both is murder, I don't think distinguishing between them gets in the way of this.
But that's not how the debate is framed, people are already suggesting in this analogy that killing one is ok and killing the other isn't.
If one side was arguing that it's ok to kill men and not to kill women, then you would certainly refer to them with a general term such as "human beings" or "people" to show that no distinction should be made when it comes to killing people.
|
United States41979 Posts
On November 16 2012 06:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +You are more than welcome to say "I believe that a prebirth baby has the same value as a postbirth baby" or any variant upon that. You are not allowed to say "they are the same thing purely because I subjectively linguistically define them as the same thing". That's the issue we're running into here. You can explain why they're the same thing but you can't just call them the same thing and be done with it. The only reason we're running into it is that you have created a fantasy world where this issue actually exists to be run into. Show nested quote +Wegandi simply repeatedly continued using the word "baby" without any acknowledgement of its problematic status in meaning as it pertains to the abortion debate. Sorry, but why should pro-life people be bothered that pro-choice people find the use of that term "problematic"? Why should pro-choice people be bothered that pro-life people find their use of the term "fetus" to deny the humanity of the unborn child as problematic? That is what I've been trying to pound through KwarK's incredibly thick skull, that terms that are "problematic" to one side are always used by the other side in a debate, and that is at least partially why the debate exists in the first place, regardless of what the debate is!
No. Terms that are defined differently by one side than the other are never used in debates because they always render the debate meaningless. That's why you don't allow personal revelation in "does God exist" arguments. That's why the ontological argument fails. A common terminology is essential for the communication to avoid one side defining themselves to the finish while skipping the argument.
Referring to both using the same term while skipping the bit where you explain why you think they have the same value is not a valid argument unless your opponent accepts the starting premise that they're both the same.
|
United States41979 Posts
On November 16 2012 06:15 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:13 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 06:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:10 Gene wrote:On November 16 2012 06:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument. You can argue that an unborn baby and a born baby, most call them infants, are the same. You cannot say "I believe killing babies is immoral". You can say "killing unborn babies is immoral". Are you telling me using this language hinders your argument as well? Forcing someone to make a distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby is indeed hindering the argument that no distinction should be made morally speaking. Not really. I think men and women have the same moral value and killing both is murder, I don't think distinguishing between them gets in the way of this. But that's not how the debate is framed, people are already suggesting in this analogy that killing one is ok and killing the other isn't. If one side was arguing that it's ok to kill men and not to kill women, then you would certainly refer to them with a general term such as "human beings" or "people" to show that no distinction should be made when it comes to killing people.
No because that would be a nonsense argument. I would explain how both sexes have value and contribute equally and why putting one above the other would be absurd. I'd explain how there was no good biological or social reason to lead to a moral code that judged them differently. I wouldn't just go "they're both people, clearly they're the same" because if I'm having a discussion with a guy who thinks it's okay to kill men then that isn't going to mean anything to him.
|
No. Terms that are defined differently by one side than the other are never used in debates because they always render the debate meaningless. That's why you don't allow personal revelation in "does God exist" arguments. That's why the ontological argument fails. A common terminology is essential for the communication to avoid one side defining themselves to the finish while skipping the argument.
Keep saying this dumb shit all you want, it doesn't get any less dumber or shitty. I've explained half a dozen times why this is not an accurate assessment of the situation of the abortion debate, and I'll keep doing it as many times as necessary.
Also, terms that are defined differently are used all the time and defining the terms and whether they are being rightly used make up a great part of many debates, you should know this. Different definition of terms is the cause, all on its own, of many debates.
Referring to both using the same term while skipping the bit where you explain why you think they have the same value is not a valid argument unless your opponent accepts the starting premise that they're both the same.
Point out where people are doing this please. Explain how articulating the pro-life position that the baby inside the womb is morally indistinguishable from the baby outside the womb is an ontological argument. Point to people saying "I call it a baby so it is a baby" as opposed to "I think it is a baby so I call it that."
No one has "skipped the bit."
That is the foundation of your entire argument, people are "skipp[ing] the bit." Okay, give us some examples. Because that is not what people are doing.
You just put an undue burden on one side because you disagree with it, not because of totally unbelievable assertions that you are concerned about meaningful discussion. This entire discussion has been mostly meaningless and you are the cause of that.
If your beef is that people are saying "baby" without explaining why, that does not jive at all with the mod note. Not one bit. The mod note said that saying "baby" is just wrong because it's a fetus and it's not acceptable to call it a baby because that isn't right. That is vastly different from what you're saying now.
You can't keep anything consistent, every post there is some new twist, the goalpost gets shifted another few inches, it never ends.
|
On November 16 2012 06:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:15 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:13 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 06:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:10 Gene wrote:On November 16 2012 06:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument. You can argue that an unborn baby and a born baby, most call them infants, are the same. You cannot say "I believe killing babies is immoral". You can say "killing unborn babies is immoral". Are you telling me using this language hinders your argument as well? Forcing someone to make a distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby is indeed hindering the argument that no distinction should be made morally speaking. Not really. I think men and women have the same moral value and killing both is murder, I don't think distinguishing between them gets in the way of this. But that's not how the debate is framed, people are already suggesting in this analogy that killing one is ok and killing the other isn't. If one side was arguing that it's ok to kill men and not to kill women, then you would certainly refer to them with a general term such as "human beings" or "people" to show that no distinction should be made when it comes to killing people. No because that would be a nonsense argument. I would explain how both sexes have value and contribute equally and why putting one above the other would be absurd. I'd explain how there was no good biological or social reason to lead to a moral code that judged them differently. I wouldn't just go "they're both people, clearly they're the same" because if I'm having a discussion with a guy who thinks it's okay to kill men then that isn't going to mean anything to him.
So what you're saying is we are forced to first accept the premises of one side and then argue against them, instead of starting with premises of our own?
Why is the burden of proof on one party over the other? Why doesn't the person who favors killing men have to prove to us first that men and women are different in some moral sense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
