Real simple:

[Noah's Hammer]

Don't worry...I don't feel at all like a fool. I make one mistake and get something wrong, it's cool, I look it up, verify the fact, and learn from it. My mistake. That's the difference between PC and PL...we tend to learn and grow from information whereas a PL person, when faced with facts, tends to throw his fingers in his ears and scream "LALALALALALALALALA". The root of it is that PL has a fact and reality phobia while PC is about truthful and useful dissemination of information.

You can carry on with your hysterics now.

What you should learn is that the same arrogance that caused you to laugh at my statement about the 39th week of pregnancy is the same arrogance that causes you to haphazardly support the murder of human beings.

Humility would cause you to slow down and think through such a horrible reprehensible philosophy.

Arrogance causes you to remain in darkness.

You can't tell somebody something who already thinks they know everything.

The holocaust was born from arrogance and ignorance.

Such is the case with the origins of the slaughter of unborn babies- It finds its root system embedded deep in arrogance and ignorance.

 

[FutureIncoming]

It is hypercritical of you to tell someone to give up using the capacity argument and yet use it yourself as a counter argument.

NONSENSE. Were you aware of the details of the capacity argument? For anyone who wasn't aware of it, it is necessary for the argument to be presented before its flaws can be pointed out. And that is exactly what I did --and no more than that. I did not try to use that argument as an argument.

Only if I had done that last thing, could the word "hypocrisy" apply to what I wrote in Msg #885.

Bad practice.

Are you as ignorant of good practice as you appear to be ignorant regarding the meanings of the words "hypocrisy" and "genocide"?

Genocide:
‬The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial,political, ‬or ethnic group.

Well, I see you partly understand that word.

‬The unwanted unborn are included as an ethnic group since an ethnic group is a group of people who identify with one another, ‬or are so identified by others, on the basis of a boundary that distinguishes them from other groups.

PARTLY FALSE. Here, read this:
Ethnic group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An ethic group is defined by itself. It is not defined by outsiders. For example, when "whites" colonized the Western Hemisphere, they may have used such words as "Injuns" to designate the indigenous population as an overall group, but that is not an ethnic designation. The actual ethnic designations were such words as "Aztec", "Cherokee", "Iroquois", "Inca", "Apache", and so on. THEY decided which groups they were.

Thus, human fetuses cannot possibly belong to an ethnic group, because they don't have either the brainpower or any ability to interact, to form such a group.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Personally, I don't believe in human sacrifice. In ancient cultures people sacrificed their children in the open upon altars of stone to pagan idols. In today's world child sacrifice is performed more efficiently; before they are born and on the altar of self. In my opinion...it's the same ol' girl...just a different dress.

Ah another pro-lifer who cowardly ran away when questions were asked that should have been answered, and weren't. Why are you back, still not answering them? Here's a sample. Let's see your answers, please!

Meanwhile, if you think you can post obvious nonsense and not have it exposed as nonsense, think again! The concept of "sacrifice" always involves something valued. And human fetuses are aborted because they are unwanted and NOT valued, by those getting rid of them. Your opinion doesn't count, as explained here. The word "sacrifice" is not applicable, therefore.

 

[C Foster]

NONSENSE. Were you aware of the details of the capacity argument? For anyone who wasn't aware of it, it is necessary for the argument to be presented before its flaws can be pointed out. And that is exactly what I did --and no more than that. I did not try to use that argument as an argument.

Only if I had done that last thing, could the word "hypocrisy" apply to what I wrote in Msg #885.

Tell me the details.

Are you as ignorant of good practice as you appear to be ignorant regarding the meanings of the words "hypocrisy" and "genocide"?

Give me your definition of both of them.

Well, I see you partly understand that word.

Show me the rest.

PARTLY FALSE. Here, read this:
Ethnic group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An ethic group is defined by itself. It is not defined by outsiders. For example, when "whites" colonized the Western Hemisphere, they may have used such words as "Injuns" to designate the indigenous population as an overall group, but that is not an ethnic designation. The actual ethnic designations were such words as "Aztec", "Cherokee", "Iroquois", "Inca", "Apache", and so on. THEY decided which groups they were.

Thus, human fetuses cannot possibly belong to an ethnic group, because they don't have either the brainpower or any ability to interact, to form such a group.

Unwanted foetuses have survived abortions and have grown up to interact with other members of the group if you must know, not that it is a requirement of the term anyway. It is also true that there are other members of my ethnic group that I have never seen and never interacted with them, yet that doesn't stop me being a member, try again.

 

[jallman]

What you should learn is that the same arrogance that caused you to laugh at my statement about the 39th week of pregnancy is the same arrogance that causes you to haphazardly support the murder of human beings.

Humility would cause you to slow down and think through such a horrible reprehensible philosophy.

Arrogance causes you to remain in darkness.

You can't tell somebody something who already thinks they know everything.

The holocaust was born from arrogance and ignorance.

Such is the case with the origins of the slaughter of unborn babies- It finds its root system embedded deep in arrogance and ignorance.

The minute someone starts throwing around comparisons to Hitler and the Holocaust, it becomes obvious that there will be no reaching through their hysterics and histrionics. All credibility is pretty much gone with you, sir.

 

[Felicity]

NONSENSE. Were you aware of the details of the capacity argument? For anyone who wasn't aware of it, it is necessary for the argument to be presented before its flaws can be pointed out. And that is exactly what I did --and no more than that. I did not try to use that argument as an argument.

Unfortunately you present the argument INCORRECTLY since your understanding of the word is improper and truncated.

1) "capacity" can mean "potential", something that does not now exist, but which also could exist in the future.

UTTERLY FALSE. Capacity is a word that is not directly synonymous with the word potential. They are very similar, but there is a nuance of meaning that clearly escapes your comprehension. I have spelled it out numerous times in numerous ways. I am a fool to believe at last you will finally "get" it, but alas...I am the eternal optimist...

2) "capacity" can mean "actual magnitude", a volume of space which can be filled with something. Do note that even in this definition, it is the "volume" and not the "filling".

UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. The space available is of no consequence in this argument. The reality of the entity in question, and that entity's potential future, is what is important to the position. It is not a specific area to be filled--human potential is nearly unlimited--it is about future possible qualities and not about a measurable quantity of something.

3) "potential" is NEVER equal to "actual magnitude", and any attempt to equate the two, by using the intermediary word "capacity", is pure equivocation, and nothing else.

UTTERLY FALSE. When you are talking about the actual magnitude of the potential--or IOW--what potential is actually possible, the capacity of the entity is an actual magnitude of potential.

Thus an unborn human only has capacity/potential to, in the future, exhibit various characteristics such as Rational Will, that allow us to distinguish persons from animals.

UTTERLY REDUNDANT. The capacity for future traits is an actual magnitude of potential. You need not differentiate capacity/potential from capacity/actual magnitude because they are one and the same when speaking of the reality of what an entity ACTUALLY has the POTENTIAL to become.

At no time during pregnancy does it have any capacity/actual-magnitude to exhibit those characteristics.

UTTERLY IRRELEVANT AGAIN. (See "UTTERLY IRRELEVANT" above)

Indeed, most of those characteristics, and possibly all of them, are measurably not exhibited until months after birth.

FINALLY CORRECT! Those characteristics are "qualities" that in newborns are still a future actual potential. If it was required for a human being to exhibit rational conscious thought to be a person, it would never be wrong to kill someone while they slept. As a person sleeps, they are not demonstrating the characteristics of personhood--those characteristics are merely future actual potentials in the sleeping human that cannot be demonstrated until they wake.

Therefore the only possible conclusion is that every unborn human cannot qualify for person status, when this status depends upon being able to exhibit certain characteristics. Thus all unborn humans are only animals, and nothing you can say can change that Scientific Fact.

ILLOGICAL. And according to this "logic," you should never go to sleep. Someone may sneak up on you and kill you because you are not a person with rights since you are not able to exhibit certain characteristics to qualify you for person status.

 

[jallman]

Unfortunately you present the argument INCORRECTLY since your understanding of the word is improper and truncated.



UTTERLY FALSE. Capacity is a word that is not directly synonymous with the word potential. They are very similar, but there is a nuance of meaning that clearly escapes your comprehension. I have spelled it out numerous times in numerous ways. I am a fool to believe at last you will finally "get" it, but alas...I am the eternal optimist...



UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. The space available is of no consequence in this argument. The reality of the entity in question, and that entity's potential future, is what is important to the position. It is not a specific area to be filled--human potential is nearly unlimited--it is about future possible qualities and not about a measurable quantity of something.

UTTERLY FALSE. When you are talking about the actual magnitude of the potential--or IOW--what potential is actually possible, the capacity of the entity is an actual magnitude of potential.

UTTERLY REDUNDANT. The capacity for future traits is an actual magnitude of potential. You need not differentiate capacity/potential from capacity/actual magnitude because they are one and the same when speaking of the reality of what an entity ACTUALLY has the POTENTIAL to become.



UTTERLY IRRELEVANT AGAIN. (See "UTTERLY IRRELEVANT" above)

FINALLY CORRECT! Those characteristics are "qualities" that in newborns are still a future actual potential. If it was required for a human being to exhibit rational conscious thought to be a person, it would never be wrong to kill someone while they slept. As a person sleeps, they are not demonstrating the characteristics of personhood--those characteristics are merely future actual potentials in the sleeping human that cannot be demonstrated until they wake.

ILLOGICAL. And according to this "logic," you should never go to sleep. Someone may sneak up on you and kill you because you are not a person with rights since you are not able to exhibit certain characteristics to qualify you for person status.

I would really like to take a few things up with your former English teachers. They failed you horribly.

 

[Felicity]

I would really like to take a few things up with your former English teachers. They failed you horribly.

Would you like to be specific, or just prance about in your ambiguity.

 

[jallman]

Would you like to be specific, or just prance about in your ambiguity.

Specifically, your grasps of definition, intention, denotation, and connotation are severely lacking, despite your verbosity in trying to prove otherwise.

 

[Felicity]

Specifically, your grasps of definition, intention, denotation, and connotation are severely lacking, despite your verbosity in trying to prove otherwise.

...like....??? where?

 

[Felicity]

BTW...apparently the mocking tone escaped you. I thought fer sure the big red letters would be a dead giveaway. I suppose I should have mentioned "little people" and "giant squid" though...Oh well...next time.

 

[jallman]

...like....??? where?

Like...all the way back to your vilification by erroneously attaching the word "bigot" to my argument and now this lost cause of trying to help you understand the difference between capacity and potential. It doesn't matter...it can be pointed out to you in black and white and you won't accept it. You are on this mission to be as combative and argumentative as possible even at the cost of the respect and credibility you have gained. I will point it out and then you will equivocate by shading meaning or flat out refusing to accept what is in front of you in black and white. It's a pointless exercise because it's more about making sure you are right rather than establishing common language. I'm sorry, I refuse to cater to such arrogant histrionics by allowing a butchery of the English language.

 

[Roberdorus]

gelman is typing a long, weighty response about not wanting to indulge your hysterics and histrionics.

 

[Roberdorus]

HA!!
damn, i'm good.

 

[jallman]

gelman is typing a long, weighty response about not wanting to indulge your hysterics and histrionics.

Until you can actually have half a thought and contribute something, sod off. Nobody likes a little toadie.

 

[Felicity]

Like...all the way back to your vilification by erroneously attaching the word "bigot" to my argument and now this lost cause of trying to help you understand the difference between capacity and potential. It doesn't matter...it can be pointed out to you in black and white and you won't accept it. You are on this mission to be as combative and argumentative as possible even at the cost of the respect and credibility you have gained. I will point it out and then you will equivocate by shading meaning or flat out refusing to accept what is in front of you in black and white. It's a pointless exercise because it's more about making sure you are right rather than establishing common language. I'm sorry, I refuse to cater to such arrogant histrionics by allowing a butchery of the English language.

Someone is smarting from being called out as bigotted against a particular group of human beings, isn't he.:violin There's a bit of projection in the body of your post--what you accuse me of is exactly the shading of meaning and the IGNORING of facts that I believe YOU are demonstrating.

 

[jallman]

Someone is smarting from being called out as bigotted against a particular group of human beings, isn't he.:violin There's a bit of projection in the body of your post--what you accuse me of is exactly the shading of meaning and the IGNORING of facts that I believe YOU are demonstrating.

Well get back to me when your beliefs fall in line with reality a little better. :doh

 

[Felicity]

Well get back to me when your beliefs fall in line with reality a little better. :doh

Would you care to respond to the explanation I gave Jerry as he attempted to explain your position?

 

[Felicity]

....Or would you rather just keep crying "hystrionics"? I'd understand. Labeling is much easier than attempting rational logical debate.:roll:

 

[jallman]

Would you care to respond to the explanation I gave Jerry as he attempted to explain your position?

I don't see a point anymore. Too many of the last few posts have been me having to defend myself rather than my position or affiliations peppered with roberdorkus acting like a little cheerleader instead of, I dunno, contributing an original thought or even any thoughts at all. If it's not that, its squabbles over definitions that under any other circumstance would just be accepted. Never, in any discussion save those that involve abortion, have people had the audacity to dispute Merriam Webster and think that it is acceptable form.

I'm done. I'm finished with you people. You can sit in here and equivocate the same points over and over again and never achieve a damned thing for all I care. Abortion is still legal and safe for women and that's all that really matters to me. I don't know why I indulged this insanity for this long anyway.

 

[talloulou]

I don't see a point anymore. Too many of the last few posts have been me having to defend myself rather than my position or affiliations peppered with roberdorkus acting like a little cheerleader instead of, I dunno, contributing an original thought or even any thoughts at all. If it's not that, its squabbles over definitions that under any other circumstance would just be accepted. Never, in any discussion save those that involve abortion, have people had the audacity to dispute Merriam Webster and think that it is acceptable form.

I'm done. I'm finished with you people. You can sit in here and equivocate the same points over and over again and never achieve a damned thing for all I care. Abortion is still legal and safe for women and that's all that really matters to me. I don't know why I indulged this insanity for this long anyway.

Go watch the youtube please mr. marsters video I posted for ya in the tavern! Spike is much more entertaining than abortion!

Happy Valentine's Day to all my prolifer friends as well as all you big meanie prochoicers! :mrgreen:

 

[Felicity]

I don't see a point anymore. Too many of the last few posts have been me having to defend myself rather than my position or affiliations peppered with roberdorkus acting like a little cheerleader instead of, I dunno, contributing an original thought or even any thoughts at all. If it's not that, its squabbles over definitions that under any other circumstance would just be accepted. Never, in any discussion save those that involve abortion, have people had the audacity to dispute Merriam Webster and think that it is acceptable form.

I didn't dispute Webster dear...I agreed wholeheartedly--I'm the one who linked you to it. YOU are the one who is arguing definitions and getting offended by the application of a particular word that denotatively means exactly what you express and yet you don't like the connotation and prefer a softer synonym. Spare me your English lessons. My remedial 11th graders can get clear dictionary definitions better than the PCers on this site.

I'm done. I'm finished with you people. You can sit in here and equivocate the same points over and over again and never achieve a damned thing for all I care. Abortion is still legal and safe for women and that's all that really matters to me. I don't know why I indulged this insanity for this long anyway.

Don't like losing in dodge ball?--take your ball and go home.:roll:

 

[jallman]

I didn't dispute Webster dear...I agreed wholeheartedly--I'm the one who linked you to it. YOU are the one who is arguing definitions and getting offended by the application of a particular word that denotatively means exactly what you express and yet you don't like the connotation and prefer a softer synonym. Spare me your English lessons. My remedial 11th graders can get clear dictionary definitions better than the PCers on this site.


Don't like losing in dodge ball?--take your ball and go home.:roll:

Whatever. This coming from someone who wants every clinical definition to mean baby so she has something else to cry over. You can't play dodgeball with emotional cry babies who want the rules to change every time they get hit. Go sit in a corner and fret over a dead baby or something. :roll:

 

[Felicity]

Whatever. This coming from someone who wants every clinical definition to mean baby so she has something else to cry over. You can't play dodgeball with emotional cry babies who want the rules to change every time they get hit. Go sit in a corner and fret over a dead baby or something. :roll:

You are really not representing yourself well.


I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings with the bigot word--that wasn't my intention. I still believe it is accurate, but I understand if it smarted. There is no need for you to feel you have to retaliate since I really did not mean ill will.

 

[jallman]

You are really not representing yourself well.


I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings with the bigot word--that wasn't my intention. I still believe it is accurate, but I understand if it smarted. There is no need for you to feel you have to retaliate since I really did not mean ill will.

And now you want to try to claim some moral high ground? It isn't just about calling me a bigot, which in no way applies as a ZEF has no opinions for me to be intolerant of. It's about all the pettiness and equivocation that causes such a loss of ground. For two weeks I have been hearing the same bs over and over and over again...and it amounts to the same thing...people want to make their personal convictions binding law and there is no grounds for it. There is no vested state interest in what a woman does with her body prior to a fetus developing personhood.

I am really moderate on this issue but I find myself HAVING to take a much more zealous stance against the lies and the misinformation and the emotional extortion I see being perpetrated...just to offset the damage done by one of your camp when they get on a roll. The whole issue sucks big green donkey....