Abortion??? anyone??

[palerider]

You engage in such typical logical fallacies dahermit and frankly you are becoming somewhat boring. How about something different like a genetic fallacy, or perhaps a relativist's fallacy. Be original. Stop being common. Step out on a limb and explore a whole new level of wrong.

 

[BigRob]

Sssssssh now son, the adults are talking.

OK Mr. Morality, I expect to see you in Darfur fighting the injustice. What are you waiting for?

I also expect you to support the Iraq War on the basis that Saddam was killing people.

 

[BigRob]

Further, you point out that you would intervene in a murder should you see it occurring.... I wonder how many abortions Palerider has seen occur to intervene in?

 

[palerider]

Further, you point out that you would intervene in a murder should you see it occurring.... I wonder how many abortions Palerider has seen occur to intervene in?

Could it be that he has come to realize that logical fallacy isn't going to get him anywhere but painted into a corner of his own making?

 

[dahermit]

Ahhhh. The impotent Ad hominem. I do enjoy it so after each and every victory.

Just substitute the appropriate words: For "you" paste in "anyone who holds that position". For "Palerider", "anyone who claims that abortion is murder."
etc., etc. For example: Anyone who says that abortion is murder and does not physically try to stop it, betrays the fact that they do not have the courage of their stated convictions or they do not actually believe that abortion is murder. In other words: Full of bull.

Now it is not a Ad homiem attack.

You have been found out. Let the readers of this forum decide if you have won a victory. Or are you too busy out stopping "murders' to read this?

No, you will be here to respond.

 

[dahermit]

Further, you point out that you would intervene in a murder should you see it occurring.... I wonder how many abortions Palerider has seen occur to intervene in?

He could walk into any abortion clinic could he not? Of course, sitting in front of a computer, he is not likely to observe any is he?
If you knew that your neighbor was being murdered, would you get up and go next door to intervene?

 

[BigRob]

He could walk into any abortion clinic could he not? Of course, sitting in front of a computer, he is not likely to observe any is he?
If you knew that your neighbor was being murdered, would you get up and go next door to intervene?

You are fully aware of people being murdered all over the world... why are you not rushing out to help?

 

[palerider]

Just substitute the appropriate words: For "you" paste in "anyone who holds that position". For "Palerider", "anyone who claims that abortion is murder."
etc., etc. For example: Anyone who says that abortion is murder and does not physically try to stop it, betrays the fact that they do not have the courage of their stated convictions or they do not actually believe that abortion is murder. In other words: Full of bull.

Now it is not a Ad homiem attack.

My but you lose badly, and while your latest bout of bloviation may not be entirely an ad hominem attack, it is still logical fallacy and therefore not worth the time it took to type it out. Suggesting that two wrongs might somehow make a right is no more exiciting, or intellectually challenging than any of your past logical fallacies.

At this point, you are becoming somewhat pathetic, but I am interested, in a watching a train wreck sort of way, to see exactly how far you will prostitute your intellect in an attempt to score some sort of point even after you freely admitted that you have lost the debate..

You have been found out. Let the readers of this forum decide if you have won a victory. Or are you too busy out stopping "murders' to read this?

Decide what? You have already told them who won when you said:

You have won the debate. You have convinced me that abortion is murder.

At this point, one must wonder, since you admit that you have been convinced, whether or not you are out stopping the murder at the clinics or whether you simply believe murder is OK. Which is it? Have you revealed yourself to be a hypocrite, or a sociopath?

 

[dahermit]

My but you lose badly, and while your latest bout of bloviation may not be entirely an ad hominem attack, it is still logical fallacy and therefore not worth the time it took to type it out. Suggesting that two wrongs might somehow make a right is no more exiciting, or intellectually challenging than any of your past logical fallacies.

There is that shrill, pale voice crying: "logical fallacy, logical fallacy, logical fallacy!!!" A logical fallacy may violate the rules of proper debate, but the question remains pertinent: If abortion is actually murder, why have you (and the others who insist that), not physically intervened? There is that shrill, pale voice crying: "logical fallacy, logical fallacy, logical fallacy!!!", to safely (and conveniently), hide behind.


"Two wrongs"? Do you mean that if you interfered with an abortion (intervened to stop a murder), that it would be as wrong as an abortion? Stopping a murder is not a wrong.

Again, would you remind me what you have won, and just how it has affected me? I keep forgetting what wonderful prize you claim (prestige on an Internet board?),...but then It is evident that it is something of great value to you.

At this point, one must wonder, since you admit that you have been convinced, whether or not you are out stopping the murder at the clinics or whether you simply believe murder is OK. Which is it? Have you revealed yourself to be a hypocrite, or a sociopath?

Facetious, f-a-c-e-t-i-o-u-s, facetious, that is, pretending to be convinced. Just like you pretend that it is more than a medical procedure that is none of your business.
Abortion obviously is not murder or, you would be out stopping it, wouldn't you(perhaps you are content to win debates)? Or, do you, as you say about women who have abortions, not want to be inconvenienced?

 

[BigRob]

There is that shrill, pale voice crying: "logical fallacy, logical fallacy, logical fallacy!!!" A logical fallacy may violate the rules of proper debate, but the question remains pertinent: If abortion is actually murder, why have you (and the others who insist that), not physically intervened? There is that shrill, pale voice crying: "logical fallacy, logical fallacy, logical fallacy!!!", to safely (and conveniently), hide behind.


"Two wrongs"? Do you mean that if you interfered with an abortion (intervened to stop a murder), that it would be as wrong as an abortion? Stopping a murder is not a wrong.

Again, would you remind me what you have won, and just how it has affected me? I keep forgetting what wonderful prize you claim (prestige on an Internet board?),...but then It is evident that it is something of great value to you.


Facetious, f-a-c-e-t-i-o-u-s, facetious, that is, pretending to be convinced. Just like you pretend that it is more than a medical procedure that is none of your business.
Abortion obviously is not murder or, you would be out stopping it, wouldn't you(perhaps you are content to win debates)? Or, do you, as you say about women who have abortions, not want to be inconvenienced?

I find I keep getting ignored by you when you bring up and issue and then do not want to answer your own question. So be it.

 

[palerider]

Facetious, f-a-c-e-t-i-o-u-s, facetious, that is, pretending to be convinced. Just like you pretend that it is more than a medical procedure

So you are neither a hypocrite nor a sociopath but just a common liar? Too bad. Hypocrites and sociopaths are so much more interesting.

 

[dahermit]

So you are neither a hypocrite nor a sociopath but just a common liar? Too bad. Hypocrites and sociopaths are so much more interesting.

My, my. When it suits your purpose you are not above stooping to an Ad hominem attack instead of answering embarrassing questions.

 

[palerider]

My, my. When it suits your purpose you are not above stooping to an Ad hominem attack instead of answering embarrassing questions.

What ad hominem? You admitted defeat and then claimed that you were just kidding. That either is a lie or it isn't.

Further, an ad homiinem is a personal attack in lieu of a rebuttal to an actual point. At this stage you are no longer making any points that are pertinent to the abortion debate nor have you for some time.

 

[n0spam4me]

Ralph Nader quoting a Harvard Law School Dean
"Beyond the effective limits of legal action"

In other words, You can NOT legislate morailty!


and as we all know
the emperor is NAKED!
.

 

[Libsmasher]

Ralph Nader quoting a Harvard Law School Dean
"Beyond the effective limits of legal action"

In other words, You can NOT legislate morailty!

Nonsense - the wellspring of a HUGE amount of law is morality, because people think many acts of ommission or commission are wrong, including violation of at least three of the Ten Commandments.