This Mr. Straw needs his own TV and line of action figures. I've heard that word more times in 30 days than I have my entire life. And, most telling, from the same three people.
There is nothing straw-ish (is that proper grammar? ) about comparing a newborn child and a child 8.5 month term child that was wanted. They had already found out the gender and given the boy a name.
Strawman would be staking out some extreme position like saying "imagine someone blew up the maternity ward, would you support that?"
Leave him alone, Nick. He's absolutely obsessed, at this point, with the Straw Man (coming this fall from Columbia Pictures, BTW...I hear that Matt Damon has been cast in the lead).
There is nothing straw-ish (is that proper grammar? ) about comparing a newborn child and a child 8.5 month term child that was wanted. They had already found out the gender and given the boy a name.
Strawman would be staking out some extreme position like saying "imagine someone blew up the maternity ward, would you support that?"
You are off base with your assertion.
Nick
I'm on my college debate team so I deal with logical fallacies all the time.
Strawman simply defined is setting up something just so you can knock it down. It's like attacking one insignificant part of an argument and then declaring that someone's whole argument is defeated.
Fangorn responded to BRussell with the assertion that a person is a person is a person is a person. So that newborn baby is equivalent to an unborn baby. So he must be wrong. Holy shit? Well why didn't BRussell know that? Holy ****ing strawman! You mean this thing is human? Duuuudeee.
(and no pscates, it's about the 2nd time i've used that term here so don't think i'm strawman happy)
(and no pscates, it's about the 2nd time i've used that term here so don't think i'm strawman happy)
You are SO absolutely bonkers at this point (this isn't finals week or anything, is it?)
You (and the other two Straw Knights) say it all the time! Okay, maybe you don't say it as much as the other two, but "two times" is certainly a bunch of crap. Please.
BTW, how much out-of-context is your sig? Groverat saying "you're right"? Did you chop off the "...around the bend and halfway to Looneyville?" part that followed?
I doubt groverat said it in the way it appears. As a matter of fact, I'd pay $29.95 to see you and him - the two greatest arguers/debaters this site has ever known - to verbally duke it out for two hours in a closed amphitheatre.
The two of you would argue with a shovel and a styrofoam cup if you thought you had a shot.
I wouldn't know who to put my money on, but it's be fun as hell to watch! The place might actually implode and go backward through time or something...all that cosmic energy and so forth.
So far you have equated anyone who doesn't agree with you with terrorists, communist china, and murderers just for the record.
Not anyone, Nick, just you. You're the only one who has said you understand killing physicians to pursue one's political beliefs. You're the only one who wrote a long sympathetic piece explaining how those actions are really just about a difference of opinion. I stand by my statement that that is no better than being sympathetic to bin Laden and the 9/11 terrorists, who I'm sure also felt very strongly that what they did was right.
Quote:
The fact that you can't even be clear on something as easily defined as this Laci Peterson murder, shows your own views.
I thought I had stated my views very clearly. I did also try to address deeper issues such as criminal intent, in the interest of broadening the discussion beyond that one case. That's different from not being clear. Lack of clarity arises from not dealing with those critical underlying principles, IMO. If you'd rather deal in simplistic slogans and individual anecdotes rather than larger principles, I'll know in the future that I'm wasting my time. I give you enough credit to doubt that, however.
I'll restate my view from last page: Scott Peterson should be charged with double murder. He should because he would have known with certainty that she was pregnant, and that killing his wife would also result in the death of the baby.
Where I equivocated was about whether killing a pregnant woman should be strict liability for double murder, i.e., if he didn't know she was pregnant. I said I didn't have strong feelings about whether that should be double murder. I lean against it, because that would actually set a higher burden for proving murder of an adult than an unborn baby - if you accidentally or unknowingly kill an adult, it wouldn't normally be murder.
That's about as clear as I can get for an issue like that. If you still think I'm being an extremist or whatever, I think that says more about your views on this issue than mine.
I'm on my college debate team so I deal with logical fallacies all the time.
Strawman simply defined is setting up something just so you can knock it down. It's like attacking one insignificant part of an argument and then declaring that someone's whole argument is defeated.
Fangorn responded to BRussell with the assertion that a person is a person is a person is a person. So that newborn baby is equivalent to an unborn baby. So he must be wrong. Holy shit? Well why didn't BRussell know that? Holy ****ing strawman! You mean this thing is human? Duuuudeee.
(and no pscates, it's about the 2nd time i've used that term here so don't think i'm strawman happy)
Right and BRussell in numerous statements also said that he believed the unborn child is human is well. So it is a strawman how again?
Asking BRussell to personalize the point isn't setting a seperate weaker point to knock down. It is asking him to bring his own experience into the equation. Asking if when his wife was 8.5 months pregnant and if she were killed, how would he want the criminal charged isn't setting up a weaker argument to knock down.
Not anyone, Nick, just you. You're the only one who has said you understand killing physicians to pursue one's political beliefs. You're the only one who wrote a long sympathetic piece explaining how those actions are really just about a difference of opinion. I stand by my statement that that is no better than being sympathetic to bin Laden and the 9/11 terrorists, who I'm sure also felt very strongly that what they did was right.
I thought I had stated my views very clearly. I did also try to address deeper issues such as criminal intent, in the interest of broadening the discussion beyond that one case. That's different from not being clear. Lack of clarity arises from not dealing with those critical underlying principles, IMO. If you'd rather deal in simplistic slogans and individual anecdotes rather than larger principles, I'll know in the future that I'm wasting my time. I give you enough credit to doubt that, however.
I'll restate my view from last page: Scott Peterson should be charged with double murder. He should because he would have known with certainty that she was pregnant, and that killing his wife would also result in the death of the baby.
Where I equivocated was about whether killing a pregnant woman should be strict liability for double murder, i.e., if he didn't know she was pregnant. I said I didn't have strong feelings about whether that should be double murder. I lean against it, because that would actually set a higher burden for proving murder of an adult than an unborn baby - if you accidentally or unknowingly kill an adult, it wouldn't normally be murder.
That's about as clear as I can get for an issue like that. If you still think I'm being an extremist or whatever, I think that says more about your views on this issue than mine.
You can stand by any statement you want because if you think I wrote that I can understand why someone acts differently when the issue is human rights. People are willing to fight and die for their rights. The same cannot be said for how much the bus fare is going to be or what percentage of your Social Security is taxed. Also people act differently when they believe someone is being murdered versus say, when someone is being assigned extra points for being a particular race in college admissions.
The issue of abortion is not just politics. That is the strawman you are tossing up there. It isn't just a quibble about budget numbers or services. You treat at as such, and they say "Hey isn't it a little crazy to shoot someone over bus fare?"
That isn't the case. A certain group believes this is outright murder and all I said is that if they believed that a guilty party (not innocent people) were killing children. I can see a large segment of the population agreeing with their actions if they managed to hold the same view. (Understand = comprehend, not support)
You are the one Shawn should be accusing of strawmen because your exagerration of an "understand" does not equal support. Especially when I say little statements like "I don't condone what they do."
So just so we are clear again since you so enjoy harping on one word... understand.... I will give you a paragraph, again, that clarifies it.
I believe it is not extreme to think that many adults would take matters into their own hands if there was a man who had murdered and continued to murder large numbers of innocent children without government prosecution.
Does this mean I would take action or support their actions with abortion doctors? No, but this is the view of those extreme pro-lifers.
Perhaps the 9/11 terrorists did feel what they were doing is right and if it happened several more times with the terrorists each time being arabic young men. I would "understand" why people would start stereotyping arabics and perhaps wanting to act in a racist manner towards them. I would understand/comprehend their thinking, but not support it.
But it doesn't really matter because again it is just a strawman. At least two other people on this board made much harsher statements regarding the deaths of those doctors than I did. But they aren't pounding your arguments to pieces so you aren't trying to hit them with low blows.
You have to resort to trying to associate people with terrorists because you don't have the intellect to pull of doing it with discussion. Please remember that before I asserted this you have made multiple posts trying to associate me with terrorists. Don't be so intellectually lazy. Either admit that you are trying to have it both ways or just lay your views, extreme as they are out there in an honest fashion. Don't call names because you can't twist your logic enough to continue the facade of speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
Quote:
But I do think the law is needed to deal with situations where the criminal intent was to interfere with a pregnancy. Say a husband and wife get in a fight because she's pregnant and wants the baby but he doesn't want it. He beats her on the stomach to try to kill the baby. If the baby dies, he should be guilty of more than just assault of the woman.
On the other hand, I don't have really strong feelings about it. Make it strict liability. You could argue that the assault or murder of a woman should always be a worse crime because of the possibility that the woman is pregnant.
It is right there, your own words. You try to have it both ways.
If I drove recklessly and hit a carriage would my ignorance about whether it was a doll carriage or a baby carriage cause me to not be charged with manslaughter? Ignorance of the law does not excuse breaking it nor does claiming that you do not fully understand the results of your actions excuse them.
If you really wanted to support what you say and be consistant, you would be arguing for manslaughter minimum for someone who kills an unborn child without knowledge of the pregnancy. That is definately above assault and it is what you are charged with when you kill someone without clear premeditated intent.
Do you support manslaughter charges for someone who kills a baby in the third trimester without knowledge of the pregnancy? You stated that you support double murder charges for Laci Peterson, but of course that is "politcally expedient" to do. What about the rest of the poor women who don't get TV time, what do you support for them?
Please see if you can answer that question without associating me with terrorists. Thanks.
You (and the other two Straw Knights) say it all the time!
Why don't you criticize those making these dishonest arguments instead of criticising those who are pointing out the fact that the posts are dishonest?
You can stand by any statement you want because if you think I wrote that I can understand why someone acts differently when the issue is human rights. People are willing to fight and die for their rights. The same cannot be said for how much the bus fare is going to be or what percentage of your Social Security is taxed. Also people act differently when they believe someone is being murdered versus say, when someone is being assigned extra points for being a particular race in college admissions.
The issue of abortion is not just politics. That is the strawman you are tossing up there. It isn't just a quibble about budget numbers or services. You treat at as such, and they say "Hey isn't it a little crazy to shoot someone over bus fare?"
That isn't the case. A certain group believes this is outright murder and all I said is that if they believed that a guilty party (not innocent people) were killing children. I can see a large segment of the population agreeing with their actions if they managed to hold the same view. (Understand = comprehend, not support)
You are the one Shawn should be accusing of strawmen because your exagerration of an "understand" does not equal support. Especially when I say little statements like "I don't condone what they do."
So just so we are clear again since you so enjoy harping on one word... understand.... I will give you a paragraph, again, that clarifies it.
I believe it is not extreme to think that many adults would take matters into their own hands if there was a man who had murdered and continued to murder large numbers of innocent children without government prosecution.
Does this mean I would take action or support their actions with abortion doctors? No, but this is the view of those extreme pro-lifers.
Go on, keep digging deeper. Keep explaining their thinking. Keep refusing to condemn their terrorism.
You "believe it is not extreme" to shoot doctors and their families, to engage in arson and terrorism, etc., if your beliefs dictate it. Yeah, abortion is different than bus fare. Certain groups think it is a lot worse. We all know that. But terrorism is reprehensible, no matter what beliefs motivate it. But you can't bring yourself to say that, can you. You can only try to explain it to us, so that we understand it, that we appreciate their beliefs, that we see they're really no different from us.
Quote:
Perhaps the 9/11 terrorists did feel what they were doing is right and if it happened several more times with the terrorists each time being arabic young men. I would "understand" why people would start stereotyping arabics and perhaps wanting to act in a racist manner towards them. I would understand/comprehend their thinking, but not support it.
I have no idea what you're talking about here.
Quote:
You have to resort to trying to associate people with terrorists because you don't have the intellect to pull of doing it with discussion. Please remember that before I asserted this you have made multiple posts trying to associate me with terrorists. Don't be so intellectually lazy. Either admit that you are trying to have it both ways or just lay your views, extreme as they are out there in an honest fashion. Don't call names because you can't twist your logic enough to continue the facade of speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
Uh-huh.
1. Again, you're the only one who has spent a great deal of time explaining why anti-abortion terrorists might do what they do. No one else. Just you. So don't say "associate people with terrorists." I'm only associating them with you.
2. I did not make "multiple posts trying to associate you with terrorists" until after you started defending them. That statement is absolutely false.
3. Yeah, I don't have the intellect to engage in this discussion.
Quote:
It is right there, your own words. You try to have it both ways.
My statements there mean exactly the opposite of what you're implying they mean. I'm saying that killing a fetus should be AT LEAST as punishable as killing an adult.
But you know what, you (accidentally I'm sure) left off an important part of my statement when you quoted it:
Quote:
You could argue that the assault or murder of a woman should always be a worse crime because of the possibility that the woman is pregnant. But that's not real consistent with your other thread going right now.
With the smiley and the last sentence there it is clear that I posted that as a light-hearted reference to your "men are oppressed" thread. Of course I don't think "the assault or murder of a woman should always be a worse crime." Your whole big incisive point here about how I try to have it both ways is based on a freakin' joke! Congratulations!
Quote:
Ignorance of the law does not excuse breaking it...
Of course not, and I claimed no such thing.
Quote:
...nor does claiming that you do not fully understand the results of your actions excuse them.
Oh yes it can. If you truly accidentally and unintentionally kill someone, you are not a murderer, and you will most likely not be guilty of anything at all. At the very minimum (i.e., involuntary manslaughter) you have to be criminally negligent. I don't see how causing an abortion in a woman when the offender doesn't know the woman is pregnant could possibly be any type of crime against the fetus, under current law.
Quote:
If you really wanted to support what you say and be consistant, you would be arguing for manslaughter minimum for someone who kills an unborn child without knowledge of the pregnancy. That is definately above assault and it is what you are charged with when you kill someone without clear premeditated intent.
No you're wrong.
First off, it depends on whether you're talking about voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. With voluntary manslaughter, you do intend to kill the person, but there are mitigating circumstances like heat of passion. So no, if you don't know the woman is pregnant, you didn't intend to kill the fetus, and it shouldn't be voluntary manslaughter. But even with involuntary manslaughter, in most states the definition is that you didn't intend to kill someone, but most reasonable people would have known that your actions could result in the death of the person. If you don't even know the person exists, I think it would be hard to argue a reasonable person should have known you could have killed that person.
I'd love to get more into the intricacies of the UVVA and the various state laws and the concepts of intent and strict liability and felony murder etc. I live for that kind of stuff. However, it's become very clear to me that you're not interested in those kinds of issues, so I won't wast my time trying to go into it further.
Quote:
Please see if you can answer that question without associating me with terrorists. Thanks.
I'm not associating you with them. You're doing fine on that all by yourself.
I've got an idea, why don't you stop defending them and start condemning them. And no, saying "...but I don't condone it" isn't good enough, in the midst of a statement otherwise explaining their actions.
Go on, keep digging deeper. Keep explaining their thinking. Keep refusing to condemn their terrorism.
You "believe it is not extreme" to shoot doctors and their families, to engage in arson and terrorism, etc., if your beliefs dictate it. Yeah, abortion is different than bus fare. Certain groups think it is a lot worse. We all know that. But terrorism is reprehensible, no matter what beliefs motivate it. But you can't bring yourself to say that, can you. You can only try to explain it to us, so that we understand it, that we appreciate their beliefs, that we see they're really no different from us.
I have no idea what you're talking about here.Uh-huh.
1. Again, you're the only one who has spent a great deal of time explaining why anti-abortion terrorists might do what they do. No one else. Just you. So don't say "associate people with terrorists." I'm only associating them with you.
2. I did not make "multiple posts trying to associate you with terrorists" until after you started defending them. That statement is absolutely false.
3. Yeah, I don't have the intellect to engage in this discussion.My statements there mean exactly the opposite of what you're implying they mean. I'm saying that killing a fetus should be AT LEAST as punishable as killing an adult.
But you know what, you (accidentally I'm sure) left off an important part of my statement when you quoted it:With the smiley and the last sentence there it is clear that I posted that as a light-hearted reference to your "men are oppressed" thread. Of course I don't think "the assault or murder of a woman should always be a worse crime." Your whole big incisive point here about how I try to have it both ways is based on a freakin' joke! Congratulations! Of course not, and I claimed no such thing.
Oh yes it can. If you truly accidentally and unintentionally kill someone, you are not a murderer, and you will most likely not be guilty of anything at all. At the very minimum (i.e., involuntary manslaughter) you have to be criminally negligent. I don't see how causing an abortion in a woman when the offender doesn't know the woman is pregnant could possibly be any type of crime against the fetus, under current law.
No you're wrong.
First off, it depends on whether you're talking about voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. With voluntary manslaughter, you do intend to kill the person, but there are mitigating circumstances like heat of passion. So no, if you don't know the woman is pregnant, you didn't intend to kill the fetus, and it shouldn't be voluntary manslaughter. But even with involuntary manslaughter, in most states the definition is that you didn't intend to kill someone, but most reasonable people would have known that your actions could result in the death of the person. If you don't even know the person exists, I think it would be hard to argue a reasonable person should have known you could have killed that person.
I'd love to get more into the intricacies of the UVVA and the various state laws and the concepts of intent and strict liability and felony murder etc. I live for that kind of stuff. However, it's become very clear to me that you're not interested in those kinds of issues, so I won't wast my time trying to go into it further.I'm not associating you with them. You're doing fine on that all by yourself.
I've got an idea, why don't you stop defending them and start condemning them. And no, saying "...but I don't condone it" isn't good enough, in the midst of a statement otherwise explaining their actions.
You are high, do you know that? You have the world's biggest strawman by claiming that understand = support.
I have never said I supported their actions. Likewise I have never been asked to condemn them either but will gladly do so. The killing of doctors and abortion providers is wrong and does not solve the problem of abortion.
There are you happy now? Ask and you shall receive.
So for the last time, understanding a position does not = supporting it. Thanks for all the strawmen though, I could build several scarecrows with the numerous ways you have restated my intentions.
What is even more ironic about this, is that I repeatedly said I do not condone what they do.
Condone is defined as
1. to disregard or overlook (something illegal or objectionalble)
2. to give tacit approval to
3. to pardon or forgive
I said repeatedly that I do not do any of these actions with regard to the pro-life people who have killed doctors. You said that this equals support. Well I guess you have a little trouble with reading comprehension.
Understand is defined as
1. to perceive the meaning of; comprehend
2. to be familiar withl have a thorough knowledge of
3. to interpret or comprehend in a specified way
4. to grasp the significance or importance of
5. to learn
etc....
Do you see the word support in there? I see exactly what I claimed which is that I could grasp the difference between human rights, and political agendas.
Condemn is defined as
1. to express express an unfavorable or adverse judgement on
2. to sentence to punishment
3. to pronounce to be guilty
4. to force into a specific (usually unhappy) state
5. to give grounds for convicting or censuring
I suppose you wanted number 1 right? Well I thought I had done that . I thought I had done that repeatedly by saying I didn't condone what they did. I said I do not give approval to, forgive, or pardon their actions. You wanted something stronger and I when you expressed this, I am more than glad to give it because I can comprehend that understanding a position doesn't equal supporting it.
However for you to declare that I support terrorism is again, just off the mark. I simply said that the number of people that view an action as extreme is lower when that action is considered to be advancing human rights.
The classic example of this is you ask someone if it is okay to be dishonest. Most people say no and then of course you ask them about someone coming into a room to kill a person hidden in a closet. They ask you if the person is in the closet. Suddenly dishonestly is okay in that instance.
I stated that most people don't view killing murderers as extreme. As you move closer and closer to the end of term more and more people would believe that this baby deserves rights and the person that ends his life should be treated accordingly (murderer). If you move this back to the first trimester the number that support that view would likely go down. (people would argue as to whether it was murder) If you move it to when the child is 5 years old then you have a whole lot of people supporting a severe punishment (life imprisonment or death) for a murderer.
I just pointed out that I understand the reasoning, but I don't draw my line where they do. I would easily draw it at 8.5 months pregnant and you stated you would too.
So just so we are clear supporting calling someone a murderer still doesn't support vigilante justice. However I did say that the number of people that would support vigilante justice would go up again along that sliding scale of people agreeing about "person" and rights included with being one.
Here are my own words on it... (again)
So while I don't condone it, I can certainly understand it. You don't call the abortion a death of an innocent child. They do and if there were a place where we all agreed that they were a) children and b) killed for no reason while the government did nothing, I wonder what percentage here would take or at least speak for action.
If a killer murdered say 500 children at an elementary school and then fled across the border to Mexico where they wouldn't extradite him, I wonder how many here wouldn't favor just stepping across the border ourselves for a little justice. The view might be a lot less extreme than you imagine.
_____________________
As you can see I am thinking out loud about what sort of percentages or numbers would support killing a child murder when 100% of the population agrees it is a child. I don't name a number but I state that the number that would pop up, I likely wouldn't call extreme.
What is so hard to understand about saying the number of people that support a position would grow if the context were changed?
You said you had no idea what I was talking about regarding this statement.
Perhaps the 9/11 terrorists did feel what they were doing is right and if it happened several more times with the terrorists each time being arabic young men. I would "understand" why people would start stereotyping arabics and perhaps wanting to act in a racist manner towards them. I would understand/comprehend their thinking, but not support it.
It is again demonstrating that the same reasoning will be embraced by a larger number of people as the context changes.
What percentage would act racist after one attack, two attacks, 10 attacks?
Do you have any doubts that the numbers would go up?
I then say I can understand why the numbers would go up , but I do not support racism and would not change my own position that racism is bad.
As for discussing intricacies, that is what I have been doing and discussing all along. It is what I have been trying to get you to see. It is what I live for as well and would be glad to discuss further. I have been trying to discuss context and you see only support for an extreme action when discussing the intricacies and context of the people dealing with these actions along the entire range..
you try to think like you have some kind of superiority.
"Human Being" ?
Whats that? Wombat?
How is a human better than a wombat?
Really?
Neither, in the long run, contributes any thing to the world.
That is, if you take the standard religious view that the world has a begining and an end. You may think the concept of the 'big bang' and 'big crunch' are science based...but are they?
So lets assume the world ends.... everything you might accomplish as a human or wombat in null....void. It doesn't matter. The crystals floating in water that spawned you both end up not really changing a damn thing.
Or maybe the world doesn't end... did anyone accomplish anything here either? Or rather, whatever you might do has and will be done an infinite number of times by an infinite number of creatures. Again, not special. (unique...maybe....)
god (....purposefully disrespectful...doesn't even enter into it.... Dyaus does not exist...but if he does....he lives above us....)
So what is 'life'?
Matter and electricity mixed together mixed all up?
Why does a woman get the only word?
I don't even think to deny her the Final word.... but to say it is only her that will be effected is ridiculous.
Everyone outside of the....unit..... will have to deal with it, for however long it lasts...both dead and alive.
And rights?
Rights are just an invention of humans..... people don't have any imminent domain to life, liberty, or the pursuit or happiness.
Comments
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Strawman
Thank you.
I KNOW he did that just to tweak me...
This Mr. Straw needs his own TV and line of action figures. I've heard that word more times in 30 days than I have my entire life. And, most telling, from the same three people.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Strawman
Thank you.
Do you know what a strawman argument is?
There is nothing straw-ish (is that proper grammar?
Strawman would be staking out some extreme position like saying "imagine someone blew up the maternity ward, would you support that?"
You are off base with your assertion.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Do you know what a strawman argument is?
There is nothing straw-ish (is that proper grammar?
Strawman would be staking out some extreme position like saying "imagine someone blew up the maternity ward, would you support that?"
You are off base with your assertion.
Nick
I'm on my college debate team so I deal with logical fallacies all the time.
Strawman simply defined is setting up something just so you can knock it down. It's like attacking one insignificant part of an argument and then declaring that someone's whole argument is defeated.
Fangorn responded to BRussell with the assertion that a person is a person is a person is a person. So that newborn baby is equivalent to an unborn baby. So he must be wrong. Holy shit? Well why didn't BRussell know that? Holy ****ing strawman! You mean this thing is human? Duuuudeee.
(and no pscates, it's about the 2nd time i've used that term here so don't think i'm strawman happy)
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
(and no pscates, it's about the 2nd time i've used that term here so don't think i'm strawman happy)
You are SO absolutely bonkers at this point (this isn't finals week or anything, is it?)
You (and the other two Straw Knights) say it all the time! Okay, maybe you don't say it as much as the other two, but "two times" is certainly a bunch of crap. Please.
I doubt groverat said it in the way it appears. As a matter of fact, I'd pay $29.95 to see you and him - the two greatest arguers/debaters this site has ever known - to verbally duke it out for two hours in a closed amphitheatre.
The two of you would argue with a shovel and a styrofoam cup if you thought you had a shot.
I wouldn't know who to put my money on, but it's be fun as hell to watch! The place might actually implode and go backward through time or something...all that cosmic energy and so forth.
It's definitely out of context!
Originally posted by trumptman
So far you have equated anyone who doesn't agree with you with terrorists, communist china, and murderers just for the record.
Not anyone, Nick, just you. You're the only one who has said you understand killing physicians to pursue one's political beliefs. You're the only one who wrote a long sympathetic piece explaining how those actions are really just about a difference of opinion. I stand by my statement that that is no better than being sympathetic to bin Laden and the 9/11 terrorists, who I'm sure also felt very strongly that what they did was right.
The fact that you can't even be clear on something as easily defined as this Laci Peterson murder, shows your own views.
I thought I had stated my views very clearly. I did also try to address deeper issues such as criminal intent, in the interest of broadening the discussion beyond that one case. That's different from not being clear. Lack of clarity arises from not dealing with those critical underlying principles, IMO. If you'd rather deal in simplistic slogans and individual anecdotes rather than larger principles, I'll know in the future that I'm wasting my time. I give you enough credit to doubt that, however.
I'll restate my view from last page: Scott Peterson should be charged with double murder. He should because he would have known with certainty that she was pregnant, and that killing his wife would also result in the death of the baby.
Where I equivocated was about whether killing a pregnant woman should be strict liability for double murder, i.e., if he didn't know she was pregnant. I said I didn't have strong feelings about whether that should be double murder. I lean against it, because that would actually set a higher burden for proving murder of an adult than an unborn baby - if you accidentally or unknowingly kill an adult, it wouldn't normally be murder.
That's about as clear as I can get for an issue like that. If you still think I'm being an extremist or whatever, I think that says more about your views on this issue than mine.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
I'm on my college debate team so I deal with logical fallacies all the time.
Strawman simply defined is setting up something just so you can knock it down. It's like attacking one insignificant part of an argument and then declaring that someone's whole argument is defeated.
Fangorn responded to BRussell with the assertion that a person is a person is a person is a person. So that newborn baby is equivalent to an unborn baby. So he must be wrong. Holy shit? Well why didn't BRussell know that? Holy ****ing strawman! You mean this thing is human? Duuuudeee.
(and no pscates, it's about the 2nd time i've used that term here so don't think i'm strawman happy)
Right and BRussell in numerous statements also said that he believed the unborn child is human is well. So it is a strawman how again?
Asking BRussell to personalize the point isn't setting a seperate weaker point to knock down. It is asking him to bring his own experience into the equation. Asking if when his wife was 8.5 months pregnant and if she were killed, how would he want the criminal charged isn't setting up a weaker argument to knock down.
Nick
Originally posted by BRussell
Not anyone, Nick, just you. You're the only one who has said you understand killing physicians to pursue one's political beliefs. You're the only one who wrote a long sympathetic piece explaining how those actions are really just about a difference of opinion. I stand by my statement that that is no better than being sympathetic to bin Laden and the 9/11 terrorists, who I'm sure also felt very strongly that what they did was right.
I thought I had stated my views very clearly. I did also try to address deeper issues such as criminal intent, in the interest of broadening the discussion beyond that one case. That's different from not being clear. Lack of clarity arises from not dealing with those critical underlying principles, IMO. If you'd rather deal in simplistic slogans and individual anecdotes rather than larger principles, I'll know in the future that I'm wasting my time. I give you enough credit to doubt that, however.
I'll restate my view from last page: Scott Peterson should be charged with double murder. He should because he would have known with certainty that she was pregnant, and that killing his wife would also result in the death of the baby.
Where I equivocated was about whether killing a pregnant woman should be strict liability for double murder, i.e., if he didn't know she was pregnant. I said I didn't have strong feelings about whether that should be double murder. I lean against it, because that would actually set a higher burden for proving murder of an adult than an unborn baby - if you accidentally or unknowingly kill an adult, it wouldn't normally be murder.
That's about as clear as I can get for an issue like that. If you still think I'm being an extremist or whatever, I think that says more about your views on this issue than mine.
You can stand by any statement you want because if you think I wrote that I can understand why someone acts differently when the issue is human rights. People are willing to fight and die for their rights. The same cannot be said for how much the bus fare is going to be or what percentage of your Social Security is taxed. Also people act differently when they believe someone is being murdered versus say, when someone is being assigned extra points for being a particular race in college admissions.
The issue of abortion is not just politics. That is the strawman you are tossing up there. It isn't just a quibble about budget numbers or services. You treat at as such, and they say "Hey isn't it a little crazy to shoot someone over bus fare?"
That isn't the case. A certain group believes this is outright murder and all I said is that if they believed that a guilty party (not innocent people) were killing children. I can see a large segment of the population agreeing with their actions if they managed to hold the same view. (Understand = comprehend, not support)
You are the one Shawn should be accusing of strawmen because your exagerration of an "understand" does not equal support. Especially when I say little statements like "I don't condone what they do."
So just so we are clear again since you so enjoy harping on one word... understand.... I will give you a paragraph, again, that clarifies it.
I believe it is not extreme to think that many adults would take matters into their own hands if there was a man who had murdered and continued to murder large numbers of innocent children without government prosecution.
Does this mean I would take action or support their actions with abortion doctors? No, but this is the view of those extreme pro-lifers.
Perhaps the 9/11 terrorists did feel what they were doing is right and if it happened several more times with the terrorists each time being arabic young men. I would "understand" why people would start stereotyping arabics and perhaps wanting to act in a racist manner towards them. I would understand/comprehend their thinking, but not support it.
But it doesn't really matter because again it is just a strawman. At least two other people on this board made much harsher statements regarding the deaths of those doctors than I did. But they aren't pounding your arguments to pieces so you aren't trying to hit them with low blows.
You have to resort to trying to associate people with terrorists because you don't have the intellect to pull of doing it with discussion. Please remember that before I asserted this you have made multiple posts trying to associate me with terrorists. Don't be so intellectually lazy. Either admit that you are trying to have it both ways or just lay your views, extreme as they are out there in an honest fashion. Don't call names because you can't twist your logic enough to continue the facade of speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
But I do think the law is needed to deal with situations where the criminal intent was to interfere with a pregnancy. Say a husband and wife get in a fight because she's pregnant and wants the baby but he doesn't want it. He beats her on the stomach to try to kill the baby. If the baby dies, he should be guilty of more than just assault of the woman.
On the other hand, I don't have really strong feelings about it. Make it strict liability. You could argue that the assault or murder of a woman should always be a worse crime because of the possibility that the woman is pregnant.
It is right there, your own words. You try to have it both ways.
If I drove recklessly and hit a carriage would my ignorance about whether it was a doll carriage or a baby carriage cause me to not be charged with manslaughter? Ignorance of the law does not excuse breaking it nor does claiming that you do not fully understand the results of your actions excuse them.
If you really wanted to support what you say and be consistant, you would be arguing for manslaughter minimum for someone who kills an unborn child without knowledge of the pregnancy. That is definately above assault and it is what you are charged with when you kill someone without clear premeditated intent.
Do you support manslaughter charges for someone who kills a baby in the third trimester without knowledge of the pregnancy? You stated that you support double murder charges for Laci Peterson, but of course that is "politcally expedient" to do. What about the rest of the poor women who don't get TV time, what do you support for them?
Please see if you can answer that question without associating me with terrorists. Thanks.
Nick
Originally posted by pscates
You (and the other two Straw Knights) say it all the time!
Why don't you criticize those making these dishonest arguments instead of criticising those who are pointing out the fact that the posts are dishonest?
Originally posted by trumptman
You can stand by any statement you want because if you think I wrote that I can understand why someone acts differently when the issue is human rights. People are willing to fight and die for their rights. The same cannot be said for how much the bus fare is going to be or what percentage of your Social Security is taxed. Also people act differently when they believe someone is being murdered versus say, when someone is being assigned extra points for being a particular race in college admissions.
The issue of abortion is not just politics. That is the strawman you are tossing up there. It isn't just a quibble about budget numbers or services. You treat at as such, and they say "Hey isn't it a little crazy to shoot someone over bus fare?"
That isn't the case. A certain group believes this is outright murder and all I said is that if they believed that a guilty party (not innocent people) were killing children. I can see a large segment of the population agreeing with their actions if they managed to hold the same view. (Understand = comprehend, not support)
You are the one Shawn should be accusing of strawmen because your exagerration of an "understand" does not equal support. Especially when I say little statements like "I don't condone what they do."
So just so we are clear again since you so enjoy harping on one word... understand.... I will give you a paragraph, again, that clarifies it.
I believe it is not extreme to think that many adults would take matters into their own hands if there was a man who had murdered and continued to murder large numbers of innocent children without government prosecution.
Does this mean I would take action or support their actions with abortion doctors? No, but this is the view of those extreme pro-lifers.
Go on, keep digging deeper. Keep explaining their thinking. Keep refusing to condemn their terrorism.
You "believe it is not extreme" to shoot doctors and their families, to engage in arson and terrorism, etc., if your beliefs dictate it. Yeah, abortion is different than bus fare. Certain groups think it is a lot worse. We all know that. But terrorism is reprehensible, no matter what beliefs motivate it. But you can't bring yourself to say that, can you. You can only try to explain it to us, so that we understand it, that we appreciate their beliefs, that we see they're really no different from us.
Perhaps the 9/11 terrorists did feel what they were doing is right and if it happened several more times with the terrorists each time being arabic young men. I would "understand" why people would start stereotyping arabics and perhaps wanting to act in a racist manner towards them. I would understand/comprehend their thinking, but not support it.
I have no idea what you're talking about here.
You have to resort to trying to associate people with terrorists because you don't have the intellect to pull of doing it with discussion. Please remember that before I asserted this you have made multiple posts trying to associate me with terrorists. Don't be so intellectually lazy. Either admit that you are trying to have it both ways or just lay your views, extreme as they are out there in an honest fashion. Don't call names because you can't twist your logic enough to continue the facade of speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
Uh-huh.
1. Again, you're the only one who has spent a great deal of time explaining why anti-abortion terrorists might do what they do. No one else. Just you. So don't say "associate people with terrorists." I'm only associating them with you.
2. I did not make "multiple posts trying to associate you with terrorists" until after you started defending them. That statement is absolutely false.
3. Yeah, I don't have the intellect to engage in this discussion.
It is right there, your own words. You try to have it both ways.
My statements there mean exactly the opposite of what you're implying they mean. I'm saying that killing a fetus should be AT LEAST as punishable as killing an adult.
But you know what, you (accidentally I'm sure) left off an important part of my statement when you quoted it:
You could argue that the assault or murder of a woman should always be a worse crime because of the possibility that the woman is pregnant. But that's not real consistent with your other thread going right now.
With the smiley and the last sentence there it is clear that I posted that as a light-hearted reference to your "men are oppressed" thread. Of course I don't think "the assault or murder of a woman should always be a worse crime." Your whole big incisive point here about how I try to have it both ways is based on a freakin' joke! Congratulations!
Ignorance of the law does not excuse breaking it...
Of course not, and I claimed no such thing.
...nor does claiming that you do not fully understand the results of your actions excuse them.
Oh yes it can. If you truly accidentally and unintentionally kill someone, you are not a murderer, and you will most likely not be guilty of anything at all. At the very minimum (i.e., involuntary manslaughter) you have to be criminally negligent. I don't see how causing an abortion in a woman when the offender doesn't know the woman is pregnant could possibly be any type of crime against the fetus, under current law.
If you really wanted to support what you say and be consistant, you would be arguing for manslaughter minimum for someone who kills an unborn child without knowledge of the pregnancy. That is definately above assault and it is what you are charged with when you kill someone without clear premeditated intent.
No you're wrong.
First off, it depends on whether you're talking about voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. With voluntary manslaughter, you do intend to kill the person, but there are mitigating circumstances like heat of passion. So no, if you don't know the woman is pregnant, you didn't intend to kill the fetus, and it shouldn't be voluntary manslaughter. But even with involuntary manslaughter, in most states the definition is that you didn't intend to kill someone, but most reasonable people would have known that your actions could result in the death of the person. If you don't even know the person exists, I think it would be hard to argue a reasonable person should have known you could have killed that person.
I'd love to get more into the intricacies of the UVVA and the various state laws and the concepts of intent and strict liability and felony murder etc. I live for that kind of stuff. However, it's become very clear to me that you're not interested in those kinds of issues, so I won't wast my time trying to go into it further.
Please see if you can answer that question without associating me with terrorists. Thanks.
I'm not associating you with them. You're doing fine on that all by yourself.
I've got an idea, why don't you stop defending them and start condemning them. And no, saying "...but I don't condone it" isn't good enough, in the midst of a statement otherwise explaining their actions.
Originally posted by BRussell
Go on, keep digging deeper. Keep explaining their thinking. Keep refusing to condemn their terrorism.
You "believe it is not extreme" to shoot doctors and their families, to engage in arson and terrorism, etc., if your beliefs dictate it. Yeah, abortion is different than bus fare. Certain groups think it is a lot worse. We all know that. But terrorism is reprehensible, no matter what beliefs motivate it. But you can't bring yourself to say that, can you. You can only try to explain it to us, so that we understand it, that we appreciate their beliefs, that we see they're really no different from us.
I have no idea what you're talking about here.Uh-huh.
1. Again, you're the only one who has spent a great deal of time explaining why anti-abortion terrorists might do what they do. No one else. Just you. So don't say "associate people with terrorists." I'm only associating them with you.
2. I did not make "multiple posts trying to associate you with terrorists" until after you started defending them. That statement is absolutely false.
3. Yeah, I don't have the intellect to engage in this discussion.My statements there mean exactly the opposite of what you're implying they mean. I'm saying that killing a fetus should be AT LEAST as punishable as killing an adult.
But you know what, you (accidentally I'm sure) left off an important part of my statement when you quoted it:With the smiley and the last sentence there it is clear that I posted that as a light-hearted reference to your "men are oppressed" thread. Of course I don't think "the assault or murder of a woman should always be a worse crime." Your whole big incisive point here about how I try to have it both ways is based on a freakin' joke! Congratulations! Of course not, and I claimed no such thing.
Oh yes it can. If you truly accidentally and unintentionally kill someone, you are not a murderer, and you will most likely not be guilty of anything at all. At the very minimum (i.e., involuntary manslaughter) you have to be criminally negligent. I don't see how causing an abortion in a woman when the offender doesn't know the woman is pregnant could possibly be any type of crime against the fetus, under current law.
No you're wrong.
First off, it depends on whether you're talking about voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. With voluntary manslaughter, you do intend to kill the person, but there are mitigating circumstances like heat of passion. So no, if you don't know the woman is pregnant, you didn't intend to kill the fetus, and it shouldn't be voluntary manslaughter. But even with involuntary manslaughter, in most states the definition is that you didn't intend to kill someone, but most reasonable people would have known that your actions could result in the death of the person. If you don't even know the person exists, I think it would be hard to argue a reasonable person should have known you could have killed that person.
I'd love to get more into the intricacies of the UVVA and the various state laws and the concepts of intent and strict liability and felony murder etc. I live for that kind of stuff. However, it's become very clear to me that you're not interested in those kinds of issues, so I won't wast my time trying to go into it further.I'm not associating you with them. You're doing fine on that all by yourself.
I've got an idea, why don't you stop defending them and start condemning them. And no, saying "...but I don't condone it" isn't good enough, in the midst of a statement otherwise explaining their actions.
You are high, do you know that? You have the world's biggest strawman by claiming that understand = support.
I have never said I supported their actions. Likewise I have never been asked to condemn them either but will gladly do so. The killing of doctors and abortion providers is wrong and does not solve the problem of abortion.
There are you happy now? Ask and you shall receive.
So for the last time, understanding a position does not = supporting it. Thanks for all the strawmen though, I could build several scarecrows with the numerous ways you have restated my intentions.
What is even more ironic about this, is that I repeatedly said I do not condone what they do.
Condone is defined as
1. to disregard or overlook (something illegal or objectionalble)
2. to give tacit approval to
3. to pardon or forgive
I said repeatedly that I do not do any of these actions with regard to the pro-life people who have killed doctors. You said that this equals support. Well I guess you have a little trouble with reading comprehension.
Understand is defined as
1. to perceive the meaning of; comprehend
2. to be familiar withl have a thorough knowledge of
3. to interpret or comprehend in a specified way
4. to grasp the significance or importance of
5. to learn
etc....
Do you see the word support in there? I see exactly what I claimed which is that I could grasp the difference between human rights, and political agendas.
Condemn is defined as
1. to express express an unfavorable or adverse judgement on
2. to sentence to punishment
3. to pronounce to be guilty
4. to force into a specific (usually unhappy) state
5. to give grounds for convicting or censuring
I suppose you wanted number 1 right? Well I thought I had done that . I thought I had done that repeatedly by saying I didn't condone what they did. I said I do not give approval to, forgive, or pardon their actions. You wanted something stronger and I when you expressed this, I am more than glad to give it because I can comprehend that understanding a position doesn't equal supporting it.
However for you to declare that I support terrorism is again, just off the mark. I simply said that the number of people that view an action as extreme is lower when that action is considered to be advancing human rights.
The classic example of this is you ask someone if it is okay to be dishonest. Most people say no and then of course you ask them about someone coming into a room to kill a person hidden in a closet. They ask you if the person is in the closet. Suddenly dishonestly is okay in that instance.
I stated that most people don't view killing murderers as extreme. As you move closer and closer to the end of term more and more people would believe that this baby deserves rights and the person that ends his life should be treated accordingly (murderer). If you move this back to the first trimester the number that support that view would likely go down. (people would argue as to whether it was murder) If you move it to when the child is 5 years old then you have a whole lot of people supporting a severe punishment (life imprisonment or death) for a murderer.
I just pointed out that I understand the reasoning, but I don't draw my line where they do. I would easily draw it at 8.5 months pregnant and you stated you would too.
So just so we are clear supporting calling someone a murderer still doesn't support vigilante justice. However I did say that the number of people that would support vigilante justice would go up again along that sliding scale of people agreeing about "person" and rights included with being one.
Here are my own words on it... (again)
So while I don't condone it, I can certainly understand it. You don't call the abortion a death of an innocent child. They do and if there were a place where we all agreed that they were a) children and b) killed for no reason while the government did nothing, I wonder what percentage here would take or at least speak for action.
If a killer murdered say 500 children at an elementary school and then fled across the border to Mexico where they wouldn't extradite him, I wonder how many here wouldn't favor just stepping across the border ourselves for a little justice. The view might be a lot less extreme than you imagine.
_____________________
As you can see I am thinking out loud about what sort of percentages or numbers would support killing a child murder when 100% of the population agrees it is a child. I don't name a number but I state that the number that would pop up, I likely wouldn't call extreme.
What is so hard to understand about saying the number of people that support a position would grow if the context were changed?
You said you had no idea what I was talking about regarding this statement.
Perhaps the 9/11 terrorists did feel what they were doing is right and if it happened several more times with the terrorists each time being arabic young men. I would "understand" why people would start stereotyping arabics and perhaps wanting to act in a racist manner towards them. I would understand/comprehend their thinking, but not support it.
It is again demonstrating that the same reasoning will be embraced by a larger number of people as the context changes.
What percentage would act racist after one attack, two attacks, 10 attacks?
Do you have any doubts that the numbers would go up?
I then say I can understand why the numbers would go up , but I do not support racism and would not change my own position that racism is bad.
As for discussing intricacies, that is what I have been doing and discussing all along. It is what I have been trying to get you to see. It is what I live for as well and would be glad to discuss further. I have been trying to discuss context and you see only support for an extreme action when discussing the intricacies and context of the people dealing with these actions along the entire range..
Nick
you try to think like you have some kind of superiority.
"Human Being" ?
Whats that? Wombat?
How is a human better than a wombat?
Really?
Neither, in the long run, contributes any thing to the world.
That is, if you take the standard religious view that the world has a begining and an end. You may think the concept of the 'big bang' and 'big crunch' are science based...but are they?
So lets assume the world ends.... everything you might accomplish as a human or wombat in null....void. It doesn't matter. The crystals floating in water that spawned you both end up not really changing a damn thing.
Or maybe the world doesn't end... did anyone accomplish anything here either? Or rather, whatever you might do has and will be done an infinite number of times by an infinite number of creatures. Again, not special. (unique...maybe....)
god (....purposefully disrespectful...doesn't even enter into it.... Dyaus does not exist...but if he does....he lives above us....)
So what is 'life'?
Matter and electricity mixed together mixed all up?
Why does a woman get the only word?
I don't even think to deny her the Final word.... but to say it is only her that will be effected is ridiculous.
Everyone outside of the....unit..... will have to deal with it, for however long it lasts...both dead and alive.
And rights?
Rights are just an invention of humans..... people don't have any imminent domain to life, liberty, or the pursuit or happiness.
Not that this saddens me....
in fact, I'm free in ways you can only dream of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In terms of whomever ended the lifes of these two units....
does it really matter?
Maybe just be happy you and yours are alive....
hope that you never have to see the real world where your precious rights don't hold much sway.
And maybe know that, despite the lack of consequences,
fear and respect will keep you safe.
....or maybe not... keep an eye out.
an abortion is something that happens by choice.
if she was attacked and had her baby cut out of her and killed. you would all agree that it was murder if the mother somehow survived.