Abortion

[samsara15]

This is sort of strange, I have seen you stand by and see others who share your political view attack without any reason other than they felt like being mean and you said and did nothing except on some occasions added in with attacks of your own.

Yet here you are complaining that Pale Rider “attacks” but every single time he gives facts to back up his argument.

To say something like your opinion is irrelevant in light of the facts is just a fact. Opinion does not ever trump fact. Its not even an insult its just a cold way of saying something factual.

To say something like ... A person like yourself can not be enlightened because you have no interest in being enlightened is probably more of a personal attack but at the same time if a person has openly admitted that they rejected fact over opinion the statement is correct and a logical conclusion...

I find it strange that you are upset at what you feel are attacks from Pale Rider but you have said nothing about others who have attacked for no reason without provocation and the attacks had nothing to do with the argument at hand.

In the end, I agree with you if your thinking is ...... We should ALL be more polite to each other

Pale admits that he goads people, Pandora...he brags about it, openly, as if it is an accomplishment to be proud of.

I do not feel Pale has proven any case. I am, in any case, a very weak debater, only an observer with an opinion, and defeating me proves little or nothing. Others can state the case for my POV far better than I, and they do.

If I changed my opinions every time someone bested me, I would change my opinions several times a day, from one side to the other so rapidly I would lose track of where I was. In the end, however, I would be back where I started.

As Chip used to say, it's all sophistry.

BTW, I let your saint get by with a pass on one or two outright falsehoods; his knowledge of evolution is far outside the mainstream, for one who claims to be a biologist; my statements originated from a field geolgist.

 

[Pandora]

Pale admits that he goads people, Pandora...he brags about it, openly, as if it is an accomplishment to be proud of.

I do not feel Pale has proven any case. I am, in any case, a very weak debater, only an observer with an opinion, and defeating me proves little or nothing. Others can state the case for my POV far better than I, and they do.

If I changed my opinions every time someone bested me, I would change my opinions several times a day, from one side to the other so rapidly I would lose track of where I was. In the end, however, I would be back where I started.

As Chip used to say, it's all sophistry.

BTW, I let your saint get by with a pass on one or two outright falsehoods; his knowledge of evolution is far outside the mainstream, for one who claims to be a biologist; my statements originated from a field geolgist.

Oh no no, I do not think you should give up what you believe because someone bested you. That is not at all what I meant. I posted more about the personal attacks in forum. I do not think any of us should do them, and it seems to be out of hand. I don't really even look forward to logging in and reading the posts like I used to.

If Pale said something you do not think is true, you should have called him on it and asked for proof or posted proof. I assume its Pale Rider you are talking about. I do not consider him a saint by the way. I do not think anyone who comes here is even close to one.

 

[samsara15]

Oh no no, I do not think you should give up what you believe because someone bested you. That is not at all what I meant. I posted more about the personal attacks in forum. I do not think any of us should do them, and it seems to be out of hand. I don't really even look forward to logging in and reading the posts like I used to.

If Pale said something you do not think is true, you should have called him on it and asked for proof or posted proof. I assume its Pale Rider you are talking about. I do not consider him a saint by the way. I do not think anyone who comes here is even close to one.

I agree that we should be more kind to each other.

I am only a senile old codger, with a weak brain, trying to understand political and theological reality to be the best of my very limited ability, and there are lots of people who are smarter than I am and know a lot more than I do, even though I try to keep myself well informed. I listen to them, but in the end, I have to make my own judgements as to who is right and who is wrong, even if I often do use the wrong criteria for doing so. I have biases, and that effects the choices I make about who to believe and why. However, I am not alone in those failures.

I look at a lot of forums, and hear a lot of opinions, some by some very articulate and intelligent people. It's amazing how widely their opinions vary, on almost any topic.

I may not be persuaded, Pandora, but a well put argument can temporaily sway me.

 

[Pandora]

I agree that we should be more kind to each other.

I am only a senile old codger, with a weak brain, trying to understand political and theological reality to be the best of my very limited ability, and there are lots of people who are smarter than I am and know a lot more than I do, even though I try to keep myself well informed. I listen to them, but in the end, I have to make my own judgements as to who is right and who is wrong, even if I often do use the wrong criteria for doing so. I have biases, and that effects the choices I make about who to believe and why. However, I am not alone in those failures.

I look at a lot of forums, and hear a lot of opinions, some by some very articulate and intelligent people. It's amazing how widely their opinions vary, on almost any topic.

I may not be persuaded, Pandora, but a well put argument can temporaily sway me.

A well put argument can temp sway me too, but then again an argument that is based on pure emotion can do the same.

You know what? I think it bothers me more when someone insults their self than when they get insulted, I was so sad when I read what you said about being a senile old codger, with a weak brain. Please don't think that, anyone willing to use their brain to try and learn new things does not have a weak brain.

((hugs))

 

[GenSeneca]

Despite claims from the peanut gallery that others have made the same arguments that I have, their assertions are entirely false. Every one who has spoken in opposition to Pale's argument has dismissed or ignored the foundation of his argument, which is a rock solid foundation of irrefutable scientific fact. Each of them have instead constructed their own house of cards in support of their position but the moment the winds of truth begin blowing, its only Pale's argument left standing.

I have built my argument on the foundation that Pale has laid by accepting the truth of his statements: From the moment of conception a living human being is created. I did not refute this, I made it central to my argument that the debate is now one of individual rights for the parties involved.

While others have claimed they are arguing for individual rights, they are, in fact, arguing for the collective rights of women. In the consistent argument for individual rights, no individual has a right to anything that must be provided by another individual. The Pro-Choicers use this argument to oppose abortion but abandon the argument to support welfare, thus revealing their hypocrisy regarding their supposed support for individual rights.

Living is an action and in fact, the only action required to exercise your most fundamental right; i.e. the right to live.

Your syllogism as represented is logically sound; the minor premise (its alive) is true, the major premise (its a human being) is true and the conclusion (has a human right to life) is true. The problem is that once you establish the truth of this syllogism, you change the conclusion to a "right to live".

This is where you are begging the question and asking others to concede that the right to life is a right to live, i.e. a right to receive welfare from others in order to live.

Basic human rights are not granted. in this country, they are protected.

I agree that basic rights are to be protected. What you are asking is not for a basic right to be protected but an extra constitutional right to be established and granted, i.e. a right to live (for one individual to provide another with that which is necessary to continue living, welfare)

I understand where you are coming from, but that place is the realm of the theoretical and not the actual.

If our rights are theoretical and not actual, then what is the point of trying to prove the unborn deserve theoretical rights?

Whatever the theoretical, or actual nature of rights may be is really not important, or germain to this debate.

You are arguing for the unborn to have rights but do not consider rights to be germane to the debate?

Sounds like you are using Loki's Wager to avoid dealing with what is now at the center of the debate, individual rights.

A legal entity known as the United States of America was brought into being and its mission statement was expressed by the Declaration of Independence.

That document states we have a right to life and that our life is to be protected from others. It is not a right to live by the welfare of others.

What you are arguing is that the right to life is a guarantee that if one is unable to live on his own that his means for survival shall be provided by others.

Example:

Person A and Person B are both living human beings and therefore have a right to life. However, person A is unable to provide himself with the means of continuing his life while person B is able to provide himself with the means of continuing his life. Person B has no obligation to provide person A with the means of survival and his refusal to provide person A with those means is not a violation of his right to life. If person B is forced to provide person A with the means to live (welfare), then person B's rights are being violated. Any such welfare agreement must be volitional, not mandatory, if we are to respect individual rights.

The written and accepted rules are the law and it is the law that must be dealt with in the real world. There are legal means by which individual rights can be denied to either an individual, or a whole group or class. The nature of our legal system is such that a right can be denied if law is duely legislated that explicitly enumerates which right is to be denied, from whom it is to be denied, and for what reason it is to be denied.

I think it is foolhardy of you to dismiss arguments over our individual rights as theoretical and having no bearing on the issue. Clearly there is legal precedent to support the banning of abortion because the law regarding welfare exists. The argument that supports welfare is the same one you can use to support a ban on abortion, namely that an individual unable to provide for himself has a "right" to be taken care of by other individuals against their will.

The law is where my argument lives because I can prove it. Science is necesary to prove that unborns are actually human beings, but science has no bearing on the law.

Your arguments have been based almost entirely on science rather than law.

1965: 'Griswold v. Connecticut' established a right to privacy for married couples.
1972: 'Eisenstadt v. Baird' expanded the right to privacy to the unmarried.
1973: 'Roe v. Wade' established a womans right to "choose" abortion.
1976: 'Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth' struck down laws requiring consent from spouses and parents.
1976 and 1979: 'Bellotti v. Baird' confirmed abortion rights for minors without the need of parental consent.
1983: 'City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health' allowed minors to prove their maturity in order to overrule their parents veto on abortion.
1983: Planned Parenthood v. Ashcroft struck down a Missouri state law requiring that abortions performed during the second trimester be performed in a hospital.
1986: 'Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists' struck down state laws requiring women listen to speeches meant to dissuade them from having abortions.
1989: 'Webster v. Reproductive Health Services' upheld a Missouri state ban on the use of public employees and facilities for performing abortions.
1991: 'Rust v. Sullivan' another blow to abortion-rights advocates, the court upheld a federal regulation barring abortion counseling and referrals in family planning clinics that receive federal funding.
2000: 'Stenberg v. Carhart' struck down a Nebraska law banning so-called partial-birth abortions.

As can be seen, the abortion issue is moving your direction but as you state, its not a result of law looking at science in formulating their decisions. The law is looking at our "theoretical" rights when making their determinations in these cases and subordinating the individual rights of those who can provide for themselves to the "rights" of those who cannot.

...the governemnt's responsibilites and one of the most fundamental responsibilities of the government is to assure that no one be denied life, liberty or property without due process.

But is it the responsibility of government to provide anyone with the means of living (i.e. forcing others to do the providing)?

To that, I say prove it within the context of a constitution that has a prominent equal protection clause.

Protecting ones right to life is not the same as guaranteeing them the means to continue living.

 

[palerider]

Why don't you post on Volconvo any more? They still have an abortion thread running, the same one you posted on to Starboy and others. You apparently were never banned.

I grew tired of that particular place. Eventually I will come back when I grow tired of the places I presently post.

If your last post was not an ad hominem attack, then was it purely a personal attack? LOL.

It was an answer to your question. Since your statement was off topic, my answer was off topic.

 

[palerider]

DITTO...you have so systemically typed exactly what I've been thinking about your ongoing diatribe on this topic

You believe yourself to be a thinking person? I don't often laugh in anyone's face, but I am doing it now. Let me see the hard credible evidence upon which you base your position without regard to your personal opinion. Prove that you are a thinking person.

All you've managed to do is to reinforce my view and thought processes; that it is my body, and it is my choice and you nor your hyped up malingering constant B.S. posts won't change my opinion/belief, POV on that.

A perponderance of the evidence has simply reinforced your position that is contrary to the evidence and you call yourself a thinking person? Again, I am laughing. You are a knee jerk emotionalist who has determined to hold on to a postion that flies in the face of facts because you feel insulted by an individual. How much further do you believe you could possibly be from being a thinking person?

I have a firm grasp on what the Supreme Court has ruled on and the knowledgeable legal brains that have waged that verbal war of words...so I'll just leave it in their more then capable hands to continue to do the RIGHT THING...

No you don't and thus far you have given no indiciation that you even remotely understand roe or what the decision is based on. If you have a "firm" grasp of roe, then by all means, make a rational defense of the decision. I know that I can rationally tear it to shreds using nothing more than the words from the decision itself.

You sir need to get a life or a soap box and preach from the nearest corner of your choice!!!

You simply need to learn to think.

 

[palerider]

Pale admits that he goads people, Pandora...he brags about it, openly, as if it is an accomplishment to be proud of.

Have you ever been in a formal debate? I have. In fact, academic scholarships and my membership on the debate team in college paid for the bulk of my tuition. Goading and and not stepping over the line to ad hominem is known as gamesmanship and is a skill to take some pride in.

I do not feel Pale has proven any case. I am, in any case, a very weak debater, only an observer with an opinion, and defeating me proves little or nothing. Others can state the case for my POV far better than I, and they do.

And there lies your fault. You "feel". In a debate, what you feel is irrelevant. What you can prove is all that matters. Tell me, which person here who is a better debater than you has "proven" your point of view?

If I changed my opinions every time someone bested me, I would change my opinions several times a day, from one side to the other so rapidly I would lose track of where I was. In the end, however, I would be back where I started.

If you change your position due to being exposed to a perponderance of the facts, you will hardly ever need to change your position. At one time, a very long time ago, I held a pro choice position. I came against someone who exposed me to an argument that I couldn't rationally rebutt. Being the sort of person I am, I spent a very large quantity of time in medical school libraries, public libraries, etc., searching for information that would allow me to rationally argue against my opponent.

The more I learned, the more evident it became that I was never going to be able to form a rational and honest argument in answer to his own. As a person, I had two choices. I could hold to my position even though deep down I knew that the facts didn't support me and perhaps I might be able to fool someone sometime with my fundamentally dishonest argument, or I could change my position to reflect the facts. As a thinking person, however, I only had one choice. I had to alter my position to reflect the facts.

Over the years I have done a great deal of research and all of it only reinforces the position I hold. There is no credible science out there that supports the pro choice postion.

As Chip used to say, it's all sophistry.

I suggest that you learn what sophistry means and is. Your argument is certainly sophistry but mine, not a chance.

 

[palerider]

I agree that we should be more kind to each other.

I am only a senile old codger, with a weak brain, trying to understand political and theological reality to be the best of my very limited ability, and there are lots of people who are smarter than I am and know a lot more than I do, even though I try to keep myself well informed. I listen to them, but in the end, I have to make my own judgements as to who is right and who is wrong, even if I often do use the wrong criteria for doing so. I have biases, and that effects the choices I make about who to believe and why. However, I am not alone in those failures.

And exactly what do you base your judgement that I am wrong upon? What set of facts that I am unaware of are helping you to make your judgement and why aren't you enligtening the rest of us with them?

 

[palerider]

This is where you are begging the question and asking others to concede that the right to life is a right to live, i.e. a right to receive welfare from others in order to live.

An assumption that we have the right to live is not necessary.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This establishes that we have the right to live and that the state has the responsibility to protect that right. Further, in legal writings whenever series of things are put in list form i.e. life, liberty, property, the order those items are listed establishes their order of importance. The order we find them in is perfect logic for of what value would a right to property be if your right to be free were not first secured and of what value would a right to freedom or property be if your right to live were not first secured?

If our rights are theoretical and not actual, then what is the point of trying to prove the unborn deserve theoretical rights?[/quote]

You were theorizing on capitalism's view of rights and that strongly suggested that we were capitalist by design and republican as an afterthought. I believe, and have seen no evidence to the contrary that we are capitalists because that is the only economic system that rationally works under our republican form of government.

You are arguing for the unborn to have rights but do not consider rights to be germane to the debate? [/quote]

I don't consider theoretical musings on rights to be germane to the debate. The rules have been laid down and the table is set. We must play the game according to what whe have been provided. Adding pieces, additional playing squares, or unilatarally adding rules, etc., violates the rules of the game.

Person A and Person B are both living human beings and therefore have a right to life. However, person A is unable to provide himself with the means of continuing his life while person B is able to provide himself with the means of continuing his life. Person B has no obligation to provide person A with the means of survival and his refusal to provide person A with those means is not a violation of his right to life. If person B is forced to provide person A with the means to live (welfare), then person B's rights are being violated. Any such welfare agreement must be volitional, not mandatory, if we are to respect individual rights.

I am short on time this morning and I believe that the rest of your argument rests upon this example so I am going to deal with it only. If I have not addressed a point that you feel is pertinent, point it out and I will get to it as quickly as I can.

In your example, person A must launch an assault on person B and deny person B of their property. In pregnancy, no assault is launched and no property is taken. In fact, the only assault that may be launched is by the woman. Upon fertilization, the child begins a chemical communication with its mother. It announces its presence and the woman either rejects the communication and sends her immune system to kill the child as an invader or accepts the child by not sending her immune system and begins hormonal changes necessary for gestating the child. When a woman opts for abortion if her life is not in danger, she is in conflict with herself. Part of her mind wants to kill the child but her whole body is in support of nurturing the child. It is fine for one to be in conflict with oneself, but I don't believe one can rightly kill another human being as a result of that conflict and simply claim collateral damage.

If you can demonstrate in any real and credible way, and provide evidence that pregnancy represents an assault upon the woman's body, then your example has merit and must be considered. If you can't, then it represents a red herring.

If I open the door (do not send my immune system to kill you) and invite you in, make up a room for you, (uterus) dedicate part of my household staff (reproductive systems dedicated to gestation) to doing nothing but making sure you are comfortable and your every need is met, I can hardly claim that you have assaulted me and are using up my resources against my will.

 

[samsara15]

So perhaps a goal of society should be to find a way to remove the embryo/fetus/zygote from the womb of the unwilling mother, without killing it, and then supporting it, as a ward of the state, until such a time as it is adopted. No more abortions, no more forced births, no more choice of whose rights supercedes whose.

 

[Pandora]

So perhaps a goal of society should be to find a way to remove the embryo/fetus/zygote from the womb of the unwilling mother, without killing it, and then supporting it, as a ward of the state, until such a time as it is adopted. No more abortions, no more forced births, no more choice of whose rights supercedes whose.

That would be a great idea, I think we are a long way away from that though unless you are talking about late term, that is already possible but people who abort do not pick that option now. There are so many people like me who would adopt a persons baby if they would just not kill it.

Some sort of birth control that stops the egg and sperm from meeting till the person wants it to happen is probably more possible. But then again, With all the birth control currently out there, we still have a ton of abortions so that is also an option that people can do but often do not.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Have you ever been in a formal debate? I have. In fact, academic scholarships and my membership on the debate team in college paid for the bulk of my tuition. Goading and and not stepping over the line to ad hominem is known as gamesmanship and is a skill to take some pride in.

BRAVO 4 U
***WE ARE NOT WORTHY OF YOUR PRESENSE UPON THIS LOWLY FORUM, HERE AMOUNG US MERE MORTALS*** How do you manage to suffer our poor John Q. Public mentality??? Yet, here you are, daily, continuing to éclaircissement this forum with your superior intellect...you must enjoy the shear physical pain, self infliction of the mental anguish that this would cause you!

And there lies your fault. You "feel". In a debate, what you feel is irrelevant. What you can prove is all that matters. Tell me, which person here who is a better debater than you has "proven" your point of view?

Oh, so you are looking for accolades and board points for a job well done...well, HELLS-BELLS why didn't you say so and we would have taken a vote?
Yet in order to be good, really good at what you choose to argue/debate, one has to have a passion for the topic/subject...or you might as well be a auto-bot and speak in the boring monologue voice with out any inflection to the words that flow out of your mouth!!!

If you change your position due to being exposed to a preponderance of the facts, you will hardly ever need to change your position. At one time, a very long time ago, I held a pro choice position. I came against someone who exposed me to an argument that I couldn't rationally rebutt. Being the sort of person I am, I spent a very large quantity of time in medical school libraries, public libraries, etc., searching for information that would allow me to rationally argue against my opponent.

Well, kudos to you and with all of that knowledge you keep sweeping away the 'human element/factor' in this the one highly emotional based thing that a woman would ever-EVER think or have to decide to do. Oh, indeed you are all point on point factually based and oh, so knowledgeable about this one topic...and yet you sledge hammer away at the 'feelings' and 'ideology' for a topic that is surrounded by that very basic human emotional reaction...we all are not 'auto-bots' this topic is surrounded by 'HUMAN EMOTIONS' and 'FEELINGS'. Your constant rejoinder that it is 'IRRELEVANT' is just verbal B.S.

The more I learned, the more evident it became that I was never going to be able to form a rational and honest argument in answer to his own. As a person, I had two choices. I could hold to my position even though deep down I knew that the facts didn't support me and perhaps I might be able to fool someone sometime with my fundamentally dishonest argument, or I could change my position to reflect the facts. As a thinking person, however, I only had one choice. I had to alter my position to reflect the facts.

BRAVO, once again you are so full of YOU and how YOU came to change your opinion...but you do not, nor will you ever have a 'WOMB' and be faced with the emotional decision about your ability to carry/give birth to another human being. You are as detached from the 'REALITY' of that 'emotionally based' decision as an 'auto-bot' could be. But you are well within your right to have a THOUGHT/OPINION on this topic...as well as the rest of us!

Over the years I have done a great deal of research and all of it only reinforces the position I hold. There is no credible science out there that supports the pro choice postion.

Again, re-stating your long-long history of research...I'll take 'YOUR' word on that...just as I take the Supreme Courts word on the LAW, and the decision that THEY handed down.

I suggest that you learn what sophistry means and is. Your argument is certainly sophistry but mine, not a chance.

SOPHISTRY: - flawed method of argumentation: a method of argumentation that seems clever but is actually flawed or dishonest
IRRELEVANT: - adjective: beside the point. Synonyms: extraneous foreign garbage immaterial ... adjective: not pertaining to. Synonyms: extraneous immaterial inapplicable incidental ...

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Despite his tendency towards mental masturbation I still come down somewhere near Gen on this issue. I think his attacks on people who don't line up with him immediately are cheap and cheesy--but part of the aforementioned masturbation.

The over reliance on science and logic and law show definite pollyanna-ish perspective. Look at human history, when have science, logic, and law ever overcome the othe things that motivate people? Government and religion maybe the two most egregious examples of science, logic, and law being thrown out the window in favor of greed, avarice, power-hunger, ethnocentrism, horniness, and all the other base emotional kinds of things that are the real drivers of our culture.

Pale the Punisher, was his great grandfather Vlad the Impaler?, they are both pretty pale. Well, anyway, the pale punisher is pushing an agenda that is so absolute that it leaves no place for real human beings and that's why he has to rely on PUNISHMENT and LAW. Caucesceu was the same kind of absolutist and he finally resorted to a mandatory death sentence for any woman who had an abortion, that's why the orphanages were overflowing when the people finally hacked him to death and set themselves free.

 

[palerider]

BRAVO 4 U
***WE ARE NOT WORTHY OF YOUR PRESENSE UPON THIS LOWLY FORUM, HERE AMOUNG US MERE MORTALS*** How do you manage to suffer our poor John Q. Public mentality??? Yet, here you are, daily, continuing to éclaircissement this forum with your superior intellect...you must enjoy the shear physical pain, self infliction of the mental anguish that this would cause you!

Humor? Admitting to intimidation? Admission that you are completely unable to defend your position? Which. Thus far, you haven't scored enough points to warrant sarcasm on any effective level.

Oh, so you are looking for accolades and board points for a job well done...well, HELLS-BELLS why didn't you say so and we would have taken a vote?

Nah. I know when I have completely beaten an opponent without being told by bystanders.

Yet in order to be good, really good at what you choose to argue/debate, one has to have a passion for the topic/subject...or you might as well be a auto-bot and speak in the boring monologue voice with out any inflection to the words that flow out of your mouth!!!

Which does not change the content of my argument at all it is still superior to yours in every way. Delivery does not effect content and content is what counts.

Well, kudos to you and with all of that knowledge you keep sweeping away the 'human element/factor' in this the one highly emotional based thing that a woman would ever-EVER think or have to decide to do.

So you admit to being a knee jerk emotionalist to whom fact and logic are meaningless. Emotion, there is a fine justification for killing another human being.

Oh, indeed you are all point on point factually based and oh, so knowledgeable about this one topic...and yet you sledge hammer away at the 'feelings' and 'ideology' for a topic that is surrounded by that very basic human emotional reaction...we all are not 'auto-bots' this topic is surrounded by 'HUMAN EMOTIONS' and 'FEELINGS'. Your constant rejoinder that it is 'IRRELEVANT' is just verbal B.S.

Perhaps you are unaware that emotion is the very worst way to reach a decison. Those who live that way invariably have lives that are a shambles. If emotion guides you in all aspects of your life, I am truely sorry for you.

SOPHISTRY: - flawed method of argumentation: a method of argumentation that seems clever but is actually flawed or dishonest
IRRELEVANT: - adjective: beside the point. Synonyms: extraneous foreign garbage immaterial ... adjective: not pertaining to. Synonyms: extraneous immaterial inapplicable incidental ...

That about sums up the pro choice argument. Logical fallacy, devoid of fact or reason, knee jerk emotionalism, misrepresentation of the facts and deliberate lies made as cleverly as possible.

Tell me, how does it feel to be reduced to ad hominems, appeals to emotion and impotent sarcasm?