|
United States41976 Posts
On November 15 2012 08:58 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 08:54 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 08:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 08:42 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 08:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Distinctions can be opinions too. Distinctions between what is homophobic and what isn't, distinctions between what gender and sex actually mean, distinctions between what a baby and a fetus is. Just because these are all settled in your own mind doesn't mean everyone else holds the same views, nor does it mean the discussion should be forced to conform to your views. You are making this entirely a semantic argument to avoid the obvious fact that opinions are indeed being stifled and restricted. There is no opinion being stifled. You are more that welcome to say that the bit before birth is no less valuable than the bit after birth. You are just not allowed to say that it is the same thing because it is not. One of them lives in a womb, that's how you tell. Definition: baby An unborn child; a fetus. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/babya human fetus. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/babyThe first few I googled, I'm sure I can find more. This distinction may be settled in your own mind, but it is not settled in everyone's. Mandating that we conform to your definitions is also stifling opinion. Your argument is that because the dictionary definition is vague then we must be vague also? I maintain that vagueness helps nobody and clarifying what it is you are talking about doesn't in any way stifle an opinion. its not vague. people call fetuses babies. the dictionary refers to fetuses as babies. he is saying that you (or whomever) creating a mod note that says you cant call fetuses baby is "stifling opinions." its a trivial point, but its correct. plus, seriously, have you ever heard anyone use the term fetus in common parlance. "oh dear, the fetus is kicking." "i think i will call my fetus bob." "how is your fetus doing today?" using fetus instead of baby has the (i would argue sole) purpose of dehumanizing the child, which is the whole debate when it comes to pro-lifer's arguments.
Then make the argument that a foetus is a human instead of referring to it as something not a foetus which everyone agrees is a human. Nobody is saying you can't have the opinion that a foetus is a human. If you believe that then you can make your point by going "I believe that a foetus is a human because". You just can't deliberately use vague terms which imply that it is a post birth human over and over without ever doing the "I believe that a foetus is a human because" stage. I'm only asking that people make clear arguments that refer to the issue.
|
On November 15 2012 09:02 Sermokala wrote:I'm on the (lets just say conservative for the sake of understanding) side of things and I agree with kwark. You can easily express your opinions and ideas without being insulting or coming off like a complete dick about things. taking your talking point from propaganda from fox news isn't going to get you anywhere the same way as it wouldn't get you anywhere by getting them from msnbc. The problem you get on forums is a really hard case of the backfire effect. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backfire_effect ) which makes people emotional about their arguments instead of always thinking logically about them. The guy we're all talking about clearly went over the line of just over emotional arguing and became a dickish elitist prick that he probably thought kwark was being. You can say that you believe that life begins at conception and not box yourself into a ideological corner that you end up with your back to. Also Kwark 2016. I'm not going to let facts dictate my fantasy.
In the context of abortion debates, "fetus" is every bit the propaganda term that "baby" is.
|
On November 15 2012 08:59 Gene wrote:
the argument that defining a word stifles an opinion merely indicates a persons unwillingness to separate an argument from a connotation of a term.
The counter argument to that is usings terms like prebirth and post birth. In my eyes, and clearly Kwarks eyes, the difference is literally semantics. Getting caught up in this debate is precisely what defining, unilaterally, the words we choose to use in our argument attempts to avoid.
That being said, I don't mean to undermine this discussion, only to help make it clearer. It is clearly a worthwhile topic outside of the other thread.
I can concede that people, despite being told exactly the definition of a word, will subconsciously assign their own learned connotations anyway. However, that is not a failing or criticism of the practice of defining the words one should be using in a debate.
connotations of terms is like 90% of the battle though in rhetoric. i am working on a class action in New York right now, and the putative class plaintiff is complaining about the use of ascorbic acid, retnyl palmitate, etc. in the food products. they used those terms specifically because they sound awful, but in reality they are Vitamin C and Vitamin A. by classifying the language, you control the debate.
|
On November 15 2012 09:04 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 09:02 Sermokala wrote:I'm on the (lets just say conservative for the sake of understanding) side of things and I agree with kwark. You can easily express your opinions and ideas without being insulting or coming off like a complete dick about things. taking your talking point from propaganda from fox news isn't going to get you anywhere the same way as it wouldn't get you anywhere by getting them from msnbc. The problem you get on forums is a really hard case of the backfire effect. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backfire_effect ) which makes people emotional about their arguments instead of always thinking logically about them. The guy we're all talking about clearly went over the line of just over emotional arguing and became a dickish elitist prick that he probably thought kwark was being. You can say that you believe that life begins at conception and not box yourself into a ideological corner that you end up with your back to. Also Kwark 2016. I'm not going to let facts dictate my fantasy. In the context of abortion debates, "fetus" is every bit the propaganda term that "baby" is.
Its really not. People believing that is the problem right there. You can't tie your opinions to buzzwords and phrase's and expect them to have any logical play for you.
|
On November 15 2012 09:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 08:58 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 08:54 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 08:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 08:42 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 08:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Distinctions can be opinions too. Distinctions between what is homophobic and what isn't, distinctions between what gender and sex actually mean, distinctions between what a baby and a fetus is. Just because these are all settled in your own mind doesn't mean everyone else holds the same views, nor does it mean the discussion should be forced to conform to your views. You are making this entirely a semantic argument to avoid the obvious fact that opinions are indeed being stifled and restricted. There is no opinion being stifled. You are more that welcome to say that the bit before birth is no less valuable than the bit after birth. You are just not allowed to say that it is the same thing because it is not. One of them lives in a womb, that's how you tell. Definition: baby An unborn child; a fetus. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/babya human fetus. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/babyThe first few I googled, I'm sure I can find more. This distinction may be settled in your own mind, but it is not settled in everyone's. Mandating that we conform to your definitions is also stifling opinion. Your argument is that because the dictionary definition is vague then we must be vague also? I maintain that vagueness helps nobody and clarifying what it is you are talking about doesn't in any way stifle an opinion. its not vague. people call fetuses babies. the dictionary refers to fetuses as babies. he is saying that you (or whomever) creating a mod note that says you cant call fetuses baby is "stifling opinions." its a trivial point, but its correct. plus, seriously, have you ever heard anyone use the term fetus in common parlance. "oh dear, the fetus is kicking." "i think i will call my fetus bob." "how is your fetus doing today?" using fetus instead of baby has the (i would argue sole) purpose of dehumanizing the child, which is the whole debate when it comes to pro-lifer's arguments. Then make the argument that a foetus is a human instead of referring to it as something not a foetus which everyone agrees is a human. Nobody is saying you can't have the opinion that a foetus is a human. If you believe that then you can make your point by going "I believe that a foetus is a human because". You just can't deliberately use vague terms which imply that it is a post birth human over and over without ever doing the "I believe that a foetus is a human because" stage. I'm only asking that people make clear arguments that refer to the issue.
i actually think the whole thing is trivial. regardless, let them call them babies, but clarify that they are unborn. then everyone is happy. you get your clarity, they get to say you're murdering babies (unborn). i dont even know why people care about this issue so much.
|
United States41976 Posts
On November 15 2012 09:04 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 09:02 Sermokala wrote:I'm on the (lets just say conservative for the sake of understanding) side of things and I agree with kwark. You can easily express your opinions and ideas without being insulting or coming off like a complete dick about things. taking your talking point from propaganda from fox news isn't going to get you anywhere the same way as it wouldn't get you anywhere by getting them from msnbc. The problem you get on forums is a really hard case of the backfire effect. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backfire_effect ) which makes people emotional about their arguments instead of always thinking logically about them. The guy we're all talking about clearly went over the line of just over emotional arguing and became a dickish elitist prick that he probably thought kwark was being. You can say that you believe that life begins at conception and not box yourself into a ideological corner that you end up with your back to. Also Kwark 2016. I'm not going to let facts dictate my fantasy. In the context of abortion debates, "fetus" is every bit the propaganda term that "baby" is.
As long as you're happy to clarify that whether it's before birth or after birth that you're making your point about then you can come up with your own words. Just be check that the word you decide upon doesn't also mean something completely different.
|
On November 15 2012 09:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 09:04 HULKAMANIA wrote:On November 15 2012 09:02 Sermokala wrote:I'm on the (lets just say conservative for the sake of understanding) side of things and I agree with kwark. You can easily express your opinions and ideas without being insulting or coming off like a complete dick about things. taking your talking point from propaganda from fox news isn't going to get you anywhere the same way as it wouldn't get you anywhere by getting them from msnbc. The problem you get on forums is a really hard case of the backfire effect. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backfire_effect ) which makes people emotional about their arguments instead of always thinking logically about them. The guy we're all talking about clearly went over the line of just over emotional arguing and became a dickish elitist prick that he probably thought kwark was being. You can say that you believe that life begins at conception and not box yourself into a ideological corner that you end up with your back to. Also Kwark 2016. I'm not going to let facts dictate my fantasy. In the context of abortion debates, "fetus" is every bit the propaganda term that "baby" is. As long as you're happy to clarify that whether it's before birth or after birth that you're making your point about then you can come up with your own words. Just be check that the word you decide upon doesn't also mean something completely different.
We've established several times in this thread that baby can mean a child in the womb. Words have meanings, KwarK!
|
On November 15 2012 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 09:04 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 08:58 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 08:54 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 08:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 08:42 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 08:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Distinctions can be opinions too. Distinctions between what is homophobic and what isn't, distinctions between what gender and sex actually mean, distinctions between what a baby and a fetus is. Just because these are all settled in your own mind doesn't mean everyone else holds the same views, nor does it mean the discussion should be forced to conform to your views. You are making this entirely a semantic argument to avoid the obvious fact that opinions are indeed being stifled and restricted. There is no opinion being stifled. You are more that welcome to say that the bit before birth is no less valuable than the bit after birth. You are just not allowed to say that it is the same thing because it is not. One of them lives in a womb, that's how you tell. Definition: baby An unborn child; a fetus. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/babya human fetus. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/babyThe first few I googled, I'm sure I can find more. This distinction may be settled in your own mind, but it is not settled in everyone's. Mandating that we conform to your definitions is also stifling opinion. Your argument is that because the dictionary definition is vague then we must be vague also? I maintain that vagueness helps nobody and clarifying what it is you are talking about doesn't in any way stifle an opinion. its not vague. people call fetuses babies. the dictionary refers to fetuses as babies. he is saying that you (or whomever) creating a mod note that says you cant call fetuses baby is "stifling opinions." its a trivial point, but its correct. plus, seriously, have you ever heard anyone use the term fetus in common parlance. "oh dear, the fetus is kicking." "i think i will call my fetus bob." "how is your fetus doing today?" using fetus instead of baby has the (i would argue sole) purpose of dehumanizing the child, which is the whole debate when it comes to pro-lifer's arguments. Then make the argument that a foetus is a human instead of referring to it as something not a foetus which everyone agrees is a human. Nobody is saying you can't have the opinion that a foetus is a human. If you believe that then you can make your point by going "I believe that a foetus is a human because". You just can't deliberately use vague terms which imply that it is a post birth human over and over without ever doing the "I believe that a foetus is a human because" stage. I'm only asking that people make clear arguments that refer to the issue. i actually think the whole thing is trivial. regardless, let them call them babies, but clarify that they are unborn. then everyone is happy. you get your clarity, they get to say you're murdering babies (unborn). i dont even know why people care about this issue so much.
Because no one actually wants to kill babies or be labeled that they do. Pro life people believe that fetus's are babies and pro choice people don't. Thats the core of the argument between them if you can frame it away from that black or white thing to your advantage your going to either knowingly or unknowingly.
|
United States41976 Posts
On November 15 2012 09:25 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 09:18 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 09:04 HULKAMANIA wrote:On November 15 2012 09:02 Sermokala wrote:I'm on the (lets just say conservative for the sake of understanding) side of things and I agree with kwark. You can easily express your opinions and ideas without being insulting or coming off like a complete dick about things. taking your talking point from propaganda from fox news isn't going to get you anywhere the same way as it wouldn't get you anywhere by getting them from msnbc. The problem you get on forums is a really hard case of the backfire effect. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backfire_effect ) which makes people emotional about their arguments instead of always thinking logically about them. The guy we're all talking about clearly went over the line of just over emotional arguing and became a dickish elitist prick that he probably thought kwark was being. You can say that you believe that life begins at conception and not box yourself into a ideological corner that you end up with your back to. Also Kwark 2016. I'm not going to let facts dictate my fantasy. In the context of abortion debates, "fetus" is every bit the propaganda term that "baby" is. As long as you're happy to clarify that whether it's before birth or after birth that you're making your point about then you can come up with your own words. Just be check that the word you decide upon doesn't also mean something completely different. We've established several times in this thread that baby can mean a child in the womb. Words have meanings, KwarK!
So don't use it because it can also mean something else according to an online dictionary and makes certain people very confused. Instead come up with terms which precisely refer to the thing you want to refer to and nothing else.
|
On November 15 2012 09:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 09:25 HULKAMANIA wrote:On November 15 2012 09:18 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 09:04 HULKAMANIA wrote:On November 15 2012 09:02 Sermokala wrote:I'm on the (lets just say conservative for the sake of understanding) side of things and I agree with kwark. You can easily express your opinions and ideas without being insulting or coming off like a complete dick about things. taking your talking point from propaganda from fox news isn't going to get you anywhere the same way as it wouldn't get you anywhere by getting them from msnbc. The problem you get on forums is a really hard case of the backfire effect. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backfire_effect ) which makes people emotional about their arguments instead of always thinking logically about them. The guy we're all talking about clearly went over the line of just over emotional arguing and became a dickish elitist prick that he probably thought kwark was being. You can say that you believe that life begins at conception and not box yourself into a ideological corner that you end up with your back to. Also Kwark 2016. I'm not going to let facts dictate my fantasy. In the context of abortion debates, "fetus" is every bit the propaganda term that "baby" is. As long as you're happy to clarify that whether it's before birth or after birth that you're making your point about then you can come up with your own words. Just be check that the word you decide upon doesn't also mean something completely different. We've established several times in this thread that baby can mean a child in the womb. Words have meanings, KwarK! So don't use it because it can also mean something else according to an online dictionary and makes certain people very confused. Instead come up with terms which precisely refer to the thing you want to refer to and nothing else.
That's not really how the language works. And it's not necessarily a principle of effective communication, which relies on commonly accepted and widespread definitions of the words more often than it relies on definitions of the words specialized for a particular discipline.
That's the point. We don't get to micromanage how other people express themselves.
|
On November 15 2012 09:25 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 09:04 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 08:58 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 08:54 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 08:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 08:42 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 08:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Distinctions can be opinions too. Distinctions between what is homophobic and what isn't, distinctions between what gender and sex actually mean, distinctions between what a baby and a fetus is. Just because these are all settled in your own mind doesn't mean everyone else holds the same views, nor does it mean the discussion should be forced to conform to your views. You are making this entirely a semantic argument to avoid the obvious fact that opinions are indeed being stifled and restricted. There is no opinion being stifled. You are more that welcome to say that the bit before birth is no less valuable than the bit after birth. You are just not allowed to say that it is the same thing because it is not. One of them lives in a womb, that's how you tell. Definition: baby An unborn child; a fetus. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/babya human fetus. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/babyThe first few I googled, I'm sure I can find more. This distinction may be settled in your own mind, but it is not settled in everyone's. Mandating that we conform to your definitions is also stifling opinion. Your argument is that because the dictionary definition is vague then we must be vague also? I maintain that vagueness helps nobody and clarifying what it is you are talking about doesn't in any way stifle an opinion. its not vague. people call fetuses babies. the dictionary refers to fetuses as babies. he is saying that you (or whomever) creating a mod note that says you cant call fetuses baby is "stifling opinions." its a trivial point, but its correct. plus, seriously, have you ever heard anyone use the term fetus in common parlance. "oh dear, the fetus is kicking." "i think i will call my fetus bob." "how is your fetus doing today?" using fetus instead of baby has the (i would argue sole) purpose of dehumanizing the child, which is the whole debate when it comes to pro-lifer's arguments. Then make the argument that a foetus is a human instead of referring to it as something not a foetus which everyone agrees is a human. Nobody is saying you can't have the opinion that a foetus is a human. If you believe that then you can make your point by going "I believe that a foetus is a human because". You just can't deliberately use vague terms which imply that it is a post birth human over and over without ever doing the "I believe that a foetus is a human because" stage. I'm only asking that people make clear arguments that refer to the issue. i actually think the whole thing is trivial. regardless, let them call them babies, but clarify that they are unborn. then everyone is happy. you get your clarity, they get to say you're murdering babies (unborn). i dont even know why people care about this issue so much. Because no one actually wants to kill babies or be labeled that they do. Pro life people believe that fetus's are babies and pro choice people don't. Thats the core of the argument between them if you can frame it away from that black or white thing to your advantage your going to either knowingly or unknowingly.
well, nobody wants to be called a baby killer, but i dont think the debate is over whether you can classify a fetus as a baby. its whether a fetus/unborn child is truly alive since it cannot survive on its own. i dont want to put words in pro-choicer's mouths though. the whole abortion debate is kind of stupid to me. Supreme Court has ruled; stare decisis governs; U.S. is gradually becoming more liberal; further debate is a waste of time.
|
Wow, this thread exploded.
What were talking about again? Not fetuses iirc
|
On November 15 2012 09:32 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 09:25 Sermokala wrote:On November 15 2012 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 09:04 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 08:58 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 08:54 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 08:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 08:42 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 08:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Distinctions can be opinions too. Distinctions between what is homophobic and what isn't, distinctions between what gender and sex actually mean, distinctions between what a baby and a fetus is. Just because these are all settled in your own mind doesn't mean everyone else holds the same views, nor does it mean the discussion should be forced to conform to your views. You are making this entirely a semantic argument to avoid the obvious fact that opinions are indeed being stifled and restricted. There is no opinion being stifled. You are more that welcome to say that the bit before birth is no less valuable than the bit after birth. You are just not allowed to say that it is the same thing because it is not. One of them lives in a womb, that's how you tell. Definition: baby An unborn child; a fetus. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/babya human fetus. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/babyThe first few I googled, I'm sure I can find more. This distinction may be settled in your own mind, but it is not settled in everyone's. Mandating that we conform to your definitions is also stifling opinion. Your argument is that because the dictionary definition is vague then we must be vague also? I maintain that vagueness helps nobody and clarifying what it is you are talking about doesn't in any way stifle an opinion. its not vague. people call fetuses babies. the dictionary refers to fetuses as babies. he is saying that you (or whomever) creating a mod note that says you cant call fetuses baby is "stifling opinions." its a trivial point, but its correct. plus, seriously, have you ever heard anyone use the term fetus in common parlance. "oh dear, the fetus is kicking." "i think i will call my fetus bob." "how is your fetus doing today?" using fetus instead of baby has the (i would argue sole) purpose of dehumanizing the child, which is the whole debate when it comes to pro-lifer's arguments. Then make the argument that a foetus is a human instead of referring to it as something not a foetus which everyone agrees is a human. Nobody is saying you can't have the opinion that a foetus is a human. If you believe that then you can make your point by going "I believe that a foetus is a human because". You just can't deliberately use vague terms which imply that it is a post birth human over and over without ever doing the "I believe that a foetus is a human because" stage. I'm only asking that people make clear arguments that refer to the issue. i actually think the whole thing is trivial. regardless, let them call them babies, but clarify that they are unborn. then everyone is happy. you get your clarity, they get to say you're murdering babies (unborn). i dont even know why people care about this issue so much. Because no one actually wants to kill babies or be labeled that they do. Pro life people believe that fetus's are babies and pro choice people don't. Thats the core of the argument between them if you can frame it away from that black or white thing to your advantage your going to either knowingly or unknowingly. well, nobody wants to be called a baby killer, but i dont think the debate is over whether you can classify a fetus as a baby. its whether a fetus/unborn child is truly alive since it cannot survive on its own. i dont want to put words in pro-choicer's mouths though. the whole abortion debate is kind of stupid to me. Supreme Court has ruled; stare decisis governs; U.S. is gradually becoming more liberal; further debate is a waste of time.
It's not about simply calling it life or not life. People have no trouble at all swatting a mosquito knowing full well it's alive. It's about establishing the emotional connection which we call empathy, and using emotionally connected words is crucial to that aim.
I'm not here to debate abortion in either case. I just think people should be allowed to express their opinions without fear of moderation, which includes of course the opinion that an unborn fetus is a baby.
|
On November 15 2012 09:35 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Wow, this thread exploded.
What were talking about again? Not fetuses iirc
It all comes back to the fetuses.
Or foetuses.
|
On November 15 2012 09:35 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Wow, this thread exploded.
What were talking about again? Not fetuses iirc
It was never about fetus it was about the usage of words when debating or arguing about things. Some guy got banned because they thought kwark was talking down to them when he was just clarifying what the guy was saying. You can argue that a fetus is a person but you can't call a fetus a baby.
|
On November 15 2012 09:41 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 09:35 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Wow, this thread exploded.
What were talking about again? Not fetuses iirc It was never about fetus it was about the usage of words when debating or arguing about things. Some guy got banned because they thought kwark was talking down to them when he was just clarifying what the guy was saying. You can argue that a fetus is a person but you can't call a fetus a baby.
You better alert the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary!
|
|
|
On November 15 2012 09:47 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 09:41 Sermokala wrote:On November 15 2012 09:35 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Wow, this thread exploded.
What were talking about again? Not fetuses iirc It was never about fetus it was about the usage of words when debating or arguing about things. Some guy got banned because they thought kwark was talking down to them when he was just clarifying what the guy was saying. You can argue that a fetus is a person but you can't call a fetus a baby. You better alert the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary!
My teacher no tought me the englishess well enough to know some fansy tansy oxford dictionary any more then the regular words one.
|
On November 15 2012 09:37 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 09:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 09:25 Sermokala wrote:On November 15 2012 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 09:04 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 08:58 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 08:54 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 08:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 08:42 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 08:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Distinctions can be opinions too. Distinctions between what is homophobic and what isn't, distinctions between what gender and sex actually mean, distinctions between what a baby and a fetus is. Just because these are all settled in your own mind doesn't mean everyone else holds the same views, nor does it mean the discussion should be forced to conform to your views. You are making this entirely a semantic argument to avoid the obvious fact that opinions are indeed being stifled and restricted. There is no opinion being stifled. You are more that welcome to say that the bit before birth is no less valuable than the bit after birth. You are just not allowed to say that it is the same thing because it is not. One of them lives in a womb, that's how you tell. Definition: baby An unborn child; a fetus. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/babya human fetus. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/babyThe first few I googled, I'm sure I can find more. This distinction may be settled in your own mind, but it is not settled in everyone's. Mandating that we conform to your definitions is also stifling opinion. Your argument is that because the dictionary definition is vague then we must be vague also? I maintain that vagueness helps nobody and clarifying what it is you are talking about doesn't in any way stifle an opinion. its not vague. people call fetuses babies. the dictionary refers to fetuses as babies. he is saying that you (or whomever) creating a mod note that says you cant call fetuses baby is "stifling opinions." its a trivial point, but its correct. plus, seriously, have you ever heard anyone use the term fetus in common parlance. "oh dear, the fetus is kicking." "i think i will call my fetus bob." "how is your fetus doing today?" using fetus instead of baby has the (i would argue sole) purpose of dehumanizing the child, which is the whole debate when it comes to pro-lifer's arguments. Then make the argument that a foetus is a human instead of referring to it as something not a foetus which everyone agrees is a human. Nobody is saying you can't have the opinion that a foetus is a human. If you believe that then you can make your point by going "I believe that a foetus is a human because". You just can't deliberately use vague terms which imply that it is a post birth human over and over without ever doing the "I believe that a foetus is a human because" stage. I'm only asking that people make clear arguments that refer to the issue. i actually think the whole thing is trivial. regardless, let them call them babies, but clarify that they are unborn. then everyone is happy. you get your clarity, they get to say you're murdering babies (unborn). i dont even know why people care about this issue so much. Because no one actually wants to kill babies or be labeled that they do. Pro life people believe that fetus's are babies and pro choice people don't. Thats the core of the argument between them if you can frame it away from that black or white thing to your advantage your going to either knowingly or unknowingly. well, nobody wants to be called a baby killer, but i dont think the debate is over whether you can classify a fetus as a baby. its whether a fetus/unborn child is truly alive since it cannot survive on its own. i dont want to put words in pro-choicer's mouths though. the whole abortion debate is kind of stupid to me. Supreme Court has ruled; stare decisis governs; U.S. is gradually becoming more liberal; further debate is a waste of time. It's not about simply calling it life or not life. People have no trouble at all swatting a mosquito knowing full well it's alive. It's about establishing the emotional connection which we call empathy, and using emotionally connected words is crucial to that aim. I'm not here to debate abortion in either case. I just think people should be allowed to express their opinions without fear of moderation, which includes of course the opinion that an unborn fetus is a baby.
i agree as to the baby/fetus thing, but think its trivial. i agree that people should be allowed to express opinions (in a reasonable manner) without fear of moderation. i find moderating ambiguous language silly, and i have had this discussion before (also in relation to kwark oddly enough).
|
That's because kwark is the only mod courageaous enough to regularly dwell into those threads.
What he's asking is perfectly reasonnable. He's asking that people have a debate instead of throwing mud at each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
