Home - List All Discussions

Intellectual Dishonesty

the way proaborts "get out of debate free"

by: cali1981

I have noticed a rampant and disturbing trend lately among the proaborts on this board (and actually, among proaborts in general). I call it "intellectual dishonesty" or an unwillingness to admit an untruth or inconsistency in your position. Here are just a few examples (I summarize the main points of what was said and by whom):
From the thread "A question for prochoicers"
Skippy:
The concept of personhood is arbitrary; everyone has a different opinion about when we should start extending rights and it is just as arbitrary for you to choose conception as it is for me to choose any other point, like viability or birth.
Tam/Yoda:
No, it's not. Conception is the first moment of existence of every human being. There is nothing arbitrary about that.
Skippy:
[never responds to this]
Tam:
But hey, you know, I might as well give you the benefit of the doubt. Go ahead and show me the premises by which you arrived at the conclusion that conception is an arbitrary point in the life of a human being. Defend your position using logic and we'll take it from there.
Skippy:
[doesn't answer for a long time, then says she's not going to talk to Tam anymore because of her "obsession" with Dmourning]
Summary: Skippy makes the inane statement that conception is an arbitrary point in the life of a human being, then refuses both to defend it using logic and to admit that she was wrong. Instead she makes an excuse not to interact anymore with the person who cornered her and showed her statement to be untrue.
From the thread "Kansas AG Sues to End State Abortion Funding"
Valfar:
The government does not exist to impose restrictions on reproductive freedom.
Cali:
Prohibiting abortion would have absolutely nothing to do with restricting reproductive freedom. Abortion is not about that at all, since it is a biological fact that when a woman is pregnant reproduction has already occurred (i.e., her offspring is living inside her). Abortion is about killing the child that has been produced.
Tam:
Premise 1: Reproduction is the creation of a child.
Premise 2: An embryo is an existing child.
Premise 3: Freedom is the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.
Premise 4: Reproductive freedom is the freedom to reproduce.
Conclusion: Removing embryos is not reproductive freedom.
If you have evidence that any of my premises is false, or an argument proving your position that abortion is reproductive freedom, please share.
Valfar:
[never responds to any of this]
Summary: Valfar makes the inane statement that abortion is reproductive freedom, but never presents an argument justifying this claim, and also never admits that it was wrong.
From the same thread
Valfar:
A "child" does not include the unborn. And spare me the dictionaries; what we care about is mainstream thought.
Yoda (and others):
Dictionaries DO represent mainstream thought.
Valfar:
Well, my dictionary doesn't include "unborn" in that definition, so it's my dictionary against your dictionary.
Yoda:
Dictionaries do not disprove each other. How can you assert that one dictionary claims to have all the valid usages, and that all other dictionaries are incorrect? Who says this? Dictionaries complement each other; they each add to the list of accepted, valid uses found for each particular word; they do not disprove each other. If they did, we could not believe any of them. So, you might have found the one dictionary that doesn't list child as being defined as an unborn human, but you haven't proven a single thing.
Valfar:
[never addresses these points]
Summary: Valfar makes the inane statement that dictionaries have nothing to do with how we think of words, then makes the inane statement that because he found one dictionary that doesn't list the usage of "child" that every other dictionary does, that dictionary is somehow "competing" with the others. Then, when called on these inane statements, he neither defends them with logic nor admits he was wrong.
From the thread "Strawmen Erected by Bobinsky: Part Five"
Cali:
It is inaccurate to talk about abortion as "pregnancy termination," since that's an attempt to obfuscate the truth with an inaccurate euphemism. All pregnancies terminate; what we oppose are those that terminate with the direct slaughter of the child.
Skippy:
Haha, these people are so slow; you have to spell it out for them that you mean terminating a pregnancy by removing the fetus from the uterus! Apparently they don't know this.
Cali (and others):
No, we are pointing out how dishonest it is for you to try to disguise what abortion really is with these euphemisms. Additionally, abortion is not accomplished by "removing the fetus from the uterus," it is accomplished by slaughtering them! They are killed by starvation (preventing implantation by pill or other chemical methods), suctioning their bodies to pieces (vacuum aspiration, suction curettage, dilation and curettage, usually first trimester), poisoning them (methotrexate, first trimester, instillation, second and third), or dismembering their bodies with sharp instruments (dilation and extraction, usually second and third trimester), then removing the body parts from the mother's uterus. It is simply undeniable that abortion equals the slaughter of an unborn baby. If there's nothing wrong with that, why would you invent all of these inaccurate euphemisms to cover it? Just recognize it for what it is. Say, "I respect a woman's choice to have her unborn baby slaughtered if that is what she feels is best for her." Plain and simple. Take responsibility for your view.
Skippy:
[never responds to any of this]
Summary: Cali and others point out how inaccurate and dishonest the term "pregnancy termination" is as a euphemism for abortion, Skippy and others laugh and pretend as though the pro-lifers are playing dumb and don't know what "pregnancy termination" refers to. When they explain further how it's dishonest, Skippy and others never respond with their own argument nor admit that they are being dishonest in using the term.
From the same thread
Bobinsky:
The dictionary definition of abortion is: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus. You want to talk definitions and semantics. Above is the definition of abortion - also referred to in the definition as the termination of a pregnancy, etc. So whether or not you like how I couched the phrase originally, the dictionary definition of this word is completely understandable. I will use the term abortion or termination of pregnancy as I see fit. If you don't like it, tough.
Cali:
The underlined part of that definition proves exactly what I was talking about: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus. The point is that it's not simply defined as "the termination of a pregnancy." It can't be, because there are other types of pregnancy terminations. If you're talking about abortion, you must qualify "termination of pregnancy" with "after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus" - just as the dictionary does. So if you choose to use this definition of abortion, you must use the entire one. To talk about abortion as simply "the termination of pregnancy" does not include the qualifier and is a misleading euphemism for what really happens.
Bobinsky:
[never responds to this and instead begins complaining about all of the superfluous comments made on the thread by other posters; later says that she never has to respond to anything Cali says again because of some tiny comment that he made in another thread saying that she doesn't make sense]
Summary: Basically the same as what happened with Skippy above. She never admits that she was being dishonest in using the term or that this dishonest term allows her and other proaborts to draw attention away from what really happens in an abortion. She then finds an excuse to stop talking to the person who called her out, similarly to what Skippy did in the first example.
From the thread "Partial birth abortion"
Skippy:
Even if you did grant the legal rights of personhood to zygotes, embryos, and fetuses, you'd still have a conflicting set of rights. That someone is related to you does not give them license to violate your bodily integrity. And at this time, there is no way to resolve in a timely fashion the conflict of rights an unwanted pregnancy produces without the Z/E/F dying.
Tam:
Either the pregnancy threatens her life, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then her reasons for wanting to kill her child are outweighed by the child's right to live. If it does, the only ethical thing to do is remove the child from her body. Depending on his/her age, and the facility in which this takes place, s/he might or might not survive. Obviously, when the mom's life is in danger, you do what you have to do to save her life....I have no sympathy for the notion that a child's life must be sacrificed to preserve the lifestyle of his/her mother. The mother's LIFE is NOT secondary to her child's LIFE--and her CHILD'S life is NOT secondary to the mother's life--they are of EQUAL value....The mother's LIFESTYLE, however, IS of secondary importance to the LIFE of her child--or ANY OTHER HUMAN BEING!! It's not about her child per se--there is NO human being I'd say should be sacrificed to someone else's lifestyle! And the LIFESTYLE of the child is NOT more important than the LIFE of the mother--not that the child even HAS a lifestyle yet, but if s/he did, it'd be secondary to the LIFE of the mother....You believe the LIFESTYLE of the mother is equal to or more important than the LIFE of her child. That's the only reason you see a "conflicting set of rights."
Skippy:
[never responds to this]
Summary: Skippy makes the illogical statement that one person's rights can conflict with another's in such a way as to allow one to take the life of another. When Tam points out the distinction between lifestyle and life, Skippy has no response, but also does not admit that she was wrong.
From the thread "Forced abortions"
Skippy (to AshMarie):
Both you and your friend on myspace.com should be called anti-choice. He wants to force women to abort wanted pregnancies, and you want to force them to continue unwanted pregnancies. Both cases involve stripping a woman of her right to determine for herself what to do.
Tam:
By "continue a pregnancy" you mean "refrain from killing her unborn child." By "force them to continue unwanted pregnancies" you are using a euphemism for "forbid them to kill their offspring in utero". That is quite different. When you have urine in your bladder, if I pay a doctor to sew your bladder shut, I am preventing you from urinating. But if I advocate for a law that says you cannot pay a doctor to cut open your bladder and empty it of urine, that is not the same thing as saying I am forcing you to urinate against your will. If I do nothing, you will eventually urinate. It's a natural process, and as the bladder fills, you eventually succumb, even if you don't want to (in which case you might wet your pants). But forbidding you from paying for surgery to artificially empty your bladder is NOT the same thing as forcing you to urinate. No one is forcing you to urinate. That happens naturally, because, you gotta go. Likewise, if your womb contains a child, that child will be born, unless the mother dies. Even if the child dies, a still birth will occur. Ash can no more "force" anyone to "continue a pregnancy" than she can "force" someone to urinate--or to exhale. These things happen naturally. Your euphemisms may hide from yourself the nature of what you advocate, but they don't hide it from me.
Skippy:
[never answers this - any of the three or four times when Tam has used it!]
Summary: Skippy makes the illogical statement that pro-lifers want to force women to continue unwanted pregnancies. When Tam points out the inaccuracy of this euphemism for killing one's unborn child, Skippy has no response. Tam uses this response in multiple threads, and Skippy still never answers nor admits that she is wrong.
From the thread "Fatherhood"
Skippy:
I think the only say the person who provided the sperm and isn't going to carry the pregnancy should have is whether or not, if the woman chooses to continue the pregnancy, he wishes to provide financial support after the birth.
Cali:
I thought I'd take this opportunity to point out a common incorrect word usage by pro-aborts. The like to talk about the pregnancy as "being carried" or "growing," so they don't have to talk about the child being carried or growing. Pregnancy is a state - a relationship between two organisms - NOT an object! It cannot be carried or grow. So not only is it euphemistic to say that, it is INCORRECT.
Skippy:
[doesn't answer this - any of the times it has been pointed out to her]
Summary: Skippy continually talks about pregnant women as "carrying" their pregnancies, and also speaks of pregnancies as "growing", neither of which is a correct usage of the term pregnancy. When called out on these errors (and also on their euphemistic nature that allows her to mask what abortion really is), she neither explains nor admits she was wrong.
From the thread "Life possibly saved tonight" (thanks laurissa for the addition)
mybodymylifegetoverit:
I DO care, the difference being that i care about those who are AWARE of their suffering. Yes the "baby" might suffer during abortion, depending on the gestation, but to be blunt that suffering will be over in a matter of minutes after which they will not be aware of that suffering. Abused children (i'm talking born children) are suffering for longer than a matter of minutes and even once their suffering has "finished" they will remember it forever - it is those children who are my priority.
Yoda:
Isn't that just amazing? How very considerate of them to want to make sure they kill the baby so it won't suffer too long.......
Wow, yeah, that makes it okay to abuse or molest as many kids as you want to, as long as you kill them quickly after you're done, right?
Wow........
mybodymylifegetoverit:
[does not respond]
laurissamarcotte:
What if someone beat a child for a minute, and then killed it? Would you be against it then?
mybodymylifegetoverit:
[still does not respond]
Summary: Mybodymylife continually maintains that the fact that unborn babies do not suffer much before they die is a good enough reason to allow abortion, but when challenged to think about this as it relates to born children, the inconsistency is not admitted.
I know that there are a billion other examples of intellectual dishonesty on this forum and in general. If I had more time, I'd splash more of them on this thread (and if anybody else can think of more off the top of your head, feel free to post them here)! It just goes to show that it is incredibly difficult to debate with most proaborts because even if you take their position apart, they will never be honest enough to admit that they don't have a logical answer for you or that their position doesn't make sense. Instead, they will come up with reasons to never speak to you again, or anything to avoid facing the truth.

reply from: michael

bah- this dictionary thing is ridiculous. dictionaries can compliment each other they dont always do. The definitions behind the words we mean must be sought through the perspective that you wish to have, wheter it be legal, philosophical, medical, or rudimentary usage.

Entering a philosophical or legal debate and quoting Websters dictionary for the means of establishing an authority will not accomplish much at all. Whether you guys wish to admit it or not, words are defined by the elite not by the masses.

btw, difference between human being and human person. the proaborts need to get their semantics straight to have further impact...well, maybe not against you some of you guys but rather those who are open and do not refer to the opposition as "bortheads"

reply from: yoda

Well there you have it.

According to michael, there is an "elite" class of people in this country who tell us what our words mean. That is so sad it is disgusting. In all my years as a student of linguistics, I have never before been exposed to such elitism, such arrogant disdain for the truth.

Any scientist will tell you that accurate observation is the key to understanding nature. And that's what dictionary editors do, they accurately observe and record how we use words, what we mean when we say them. And that's the value of words of the vernacular, we know what others mean when we hear their words because there is a common understanding in our society about their meaning. And that common understanding is what words "mean".

And now we are presented with a theory that it doesn't really matter what the common understanding is, that there is an "elite" group of individuals who have the authority, the importance, the superiority of intellect to override our common agreement and make up new meanings for old words. I have never seen such arrogance presented before on a debate board, as a serious position.

And all this incredible buffonery just to convince us that babykilling is okay. The clown avatar is indeed appropriate.

reply from: yoda

Excellent analysis, cali. michael posted a wonderful example of (his) intellectual dishonesty immediately below your post.

reply from: michael

yoda........

you do know it is the eltists within law that define the words they use? yes? you do know they are not up to the masses?words such as physican, person, etc are all defined by the elite not the masses.

reply from: scopia1982

I have heard words/phrases like : choice, self determination, right to choose, reproductive freedom etc used by all proaborts whether they are elite or the masses. Maybe you can explain that one too me since it is very clear that you are intellectually superior (TIC) to us simple minded "anti choicers".

reply from: michael

I have heard words/phrases like : choice, self determination, right to choose, reproductive freedom etc used by all proaborts whether they are elite or the masses. Maybe you can explain that one too me since it is very clear that you are intellectually superior (TIC) to us simple minded "anti choicers".

I dont see how this even questions my intial point that words used within law are determined by the elite. My point has no peritenence to the ongoing stand off between pro and anti abort parties. I also object to implying that i am proabort. I merely argue that words used by men of law and philosophy is hardly marginalized by the definitions offered by Webster.

reply from: sarah

So, it's the elite in their ivory towers that define the debate and the meaning of the words used? Mere mortals that would write dictionaries and those who subscribe to those definitions are off base?
Well, poor us....whatever would we do if people like Michael didn't come along and tell us we're all wrong? We might go on believeing the truth and act accordingly. Can't have that, the pro-aborts will twist and turn and contrive and jump thru any hoop whatsoever in order to justify the deliberate murder of a child in the womb.

You're as pro-abort as they come Michael. I've read your posts and the interaction within this debate, I've kept an open mind and took you at your word, til now that is. The contortions you've gone thru to diminish the very meaning of words gives you away like no other thing has.

It's only fitting that you would post in this thread, I dont' believe I've seen another pro-abort in my entire life be so intellectually dishonest as you have been.

You're up against some of the very best pro-life debaters on the planet, they are out of your league and you won't be able to pull the wool over their eyes if you tried until those "cows" that Valfar is fond of come marching home.

reply from: michael

So, it's the elite in their ivory towers that define the debate and the meaning of the words used? Mere mortals that would write dictionaries and those who subscribe to those definitions are off base?
Well, poor us....whatever would we do if people like Michael didn't come along and tell us we're all wrong? We might go on believeing the truth and act accordingly. Can't have that, the pro-aborts will twist and turn and contrive and jump thru any hoop whatsoever in order to justify the deliberate murder of a child in the womb.

You're as pro-abort as they come Michael. I've read your posts and the interaction within this debate, I've kept an open mind and took you at your word, til now that is. The contortions you've gone thru to diminish the very meaning of words gives you away like no other thing has.

It's only fitting that you would post in this thread, I dont' believe I've seen another pro-abort in my entire life be so intellectually dishonest as you have been.

You're up against some of the very best pro-life debaters on the planet, they are out of your league and you won't be able to pull the wool over their eyes if you tried until those "cows" that Valfar is fond of come marching home.

best pro-lifers on the planet? haha. ummm no. there is the elite in terms of the prolife but this forum does not hold any of them. Point me to the scholar please. i beg you. I never said words within this debate are defined with the ivory towers but they are defined by the elite such as physicans, philosophers, judges, etc.

i also claimed that in philosophy there isnt really any authority, there are arguments. i coincide that the term "person" in a common sense posits a human being, however, this doesnt mean it has any worth within the law or academics. the term is ambiguos within the elite and the law has indentifed this within the ruling of roe vs wade.

"To that, the Court said, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

To quote the dictionary is to merely appeal to the masses and not a higher sense of the word. I conclude and yet to be shown otherwise that the elite do interpret and define words such as "person" within a lawful setting. Their interpretations are also supplemented by philosophical inquisitions.

To show the errancy of the dictionary i would like to present the following link:

"Opposed or hostile to the government, official policies, or people of the United States. "

Now, this is the definition of Anti-american but is it really the definition? I am "opposed" to the contemporary american government, that is, i dislike the Buh administration but simply disliking the administration doesnt make me anti-american does it? What about the 49% of the americans who voted for Kerry over the contemporary Bush Administration, are they too , anti-american? Since they were and probably still are "opposed". The truth of the matter is that they definition is false. In fact, to vocally oppose a government is an american right, yes? to criticize or oppose a contemporary government is not to oppose america but to simply oppose the government.

i hope i made my point. the dictionary has its purposes but it is generally a rudimentary instrument and has no place in complex issues. It is crossing several perspectives and that being legal, philosophical and Yodas favorite word "vernacular"

reply from: sarah

Yes, you made a point. I'm sorry to be the one to inform you, but it's not the one you wish.

The elitist snobbery you exhibt is beyond the pale. You've had every argument you've posited dismantled and defeated and yet your own snobbery/ego will not alllow you to see past that long glance down your nose.

reply from: Skippy

There's a certain amount of truth to that statement. If you ask most people what the legal definition of a person is, you'll get a stare such as what one might expect from a cocker spaniel on quaaludes. Certainly, challenging them to provide an explanation of whom they feel is morally entitled to personhood will produce an even less spectacular result.

So it is left to those who run the show to decide such things. The rest of society, with few exceptions, tends to fall in line behind what the leaders think.

Only about one in five Americans can properly be called anti-abortion. An even smaller number are also opposed to killing unimplanted blastocysts via hormonal birth control or an IUD. Everyone else seems content to allow those abortions that the powers that be say are "okay". (That is not a consistent position, by the by. Granting the rights of personhood to only some fetuses isn't a particularly well thought out stance.)

Challenging people regarding the basis for their beliefs sometimes raises the bar and causes them to "live up to" the level of the conversation. But that's not the usual outcome. You illustrated that quite well when you took on the God Squad. "Abortion is bad because GOD SAYS SO!" requires a god to exist, as you pointed out. And since there is no way to prove or disprove its existance, that's a poor foundation for debate. But that doesn't stop most true believers.

As I'm sure you're aware, there's lots of good places on the internet to debate abortion, even places where you can engage abortion opponents in interesting, fruitful conversations. There's also lots of ultra-lame places. I think you've already drawn your own conclusions about the atmosphere here. You may not get much in the way of debate. But you sure will get a lot of laughs.

reply from: yoda

Just when I thought you couldn't pile it any higher and deeper, you surprise me.

NO, it's isn't "elitist" who define legal terms, it's the COURTS, by their decisions.

But what has that to do with terms of the vernacular? (Answer: zip, nada, noting, zilch, etc., etc.)

reply from: michael

nice refute. lovely. i like the part where you addressed zero of my arguments given concerning the courts and dictionary errancy.

reply from: yoda

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you, being a brillian scholar, meant to say "concede", rather than "coincide", which is a totally different word.

Working on that assumption, I must say I'm totally amazed that you do not realize that this is not a court of law nor a university classroom discussion. But then I suppose that for such an elite as yourself, the idea of using the vernacular to debate in a public forum is just beneath you, and you must imagine that you are in a court of law or a classroom to be able to stoop to this level. Is that what your problem is?

Once again, I'm amazed. Abortion isn't a "complex issue" at all, michael, it's a simple matter of proaborts like you trying to justify the deliberate killing of healthy unborn babies of healthy mothers with fancy, totally irrelevant hogwash.

Fallacy of complexity, michael.

reply from: yoda

In this discussion, the legal definition of any words is totally irrelevant.

There is NO law that states that legal definitions take precedence over those of the vernacular in ordinary conversations and writings. Only when legal meanings are important do legal definitions have any value at all. This is not a court of law nor a discussion of legal principles. This is a moral discussion being held in the vernacular about why michael and you think that it's morally okey-dokey for a healthy mother to intentionally have her healthy unborn baby killed.

We don't need Black's Law Dictionary to discuss that.

reply from: michael

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you, being a brillian scholar, meant to say "concede", rather than "coincide", which is a totally different word.

Working on that assumption, I must say I'm totally amazed that you do not realize that this is not a court of law nor a university classroom discussion. But then I suppose that for such an elite as yourself, the idea of using the vernacular to debate in a public forum is just beneath you, and you must imagine that you are in a court of law or a classroom to be able to stoop to this level. Is that what your problem is?

Once again, I'm amazed. Abortion isn't a "complex issue" at all, michael, it's a simple matter of proaborts like you trying to justify the deliberate killing of healthy unborn babies of healthy mothers with fancy, totally irrelevant hogwash.

Fallacy of complexity, michael.

co·in·cide :
To agree exactly, as in opinion; concur
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/coincide

Ouch. You got owned using your own dictionary techinques. How do you like them apples?

And the rudimentary argument against abortion is exactly what i challenge. thanks.

reply from: yoda

What country are you from? Things coincide, people concur. Your apples are sour.

reply from: michael

In this discussion, the legal definition of any words is totally irrelevant.

There is NO law that states that legal definitions take precedence over those of the vernacular in ordinary conversations and writings. Only when legal meanings are important do legal definitions have any value at all. This is not a court of law nor a discussion of legal principles. This is a moral discussion being held in the vernacular about why michael and you think that it's morally okey-dokey for a healthy mother to intentionally have her healthy unborn baby killed.

We don't need Black's Law Dictionary to discuss that.

well, morality, again is philosophical but yet you somehow attempt to isolate me to your vernacular definitions that are often rudimentary. if you want to debate morality then lets do it but i will use such terms as "human person" and i can explain to you the difference.

but understand that moral debate is a philosophical debate.

reply from: michael

well i appreciate dialogue over debate anytime but i would be interested to see such sites. please do present them to me and thanks for replying.

reply from: Tam

Cali -- you are awesome! Love this thread!

reply from: yoda

"Rudimentary"? Words are not divided into such categories. Again your arrogance shows.

Philosophy has no need of legal terminology, does it? Science has no need of legal terminology, does it? Moral discussion do not need legal terminology, do they?

So why do you cling to it? Perhaps because abortion "rights" depend upon it? Perhaps because you want to emphasize your desire to maintain the legal status of abortion?

Quebec?

reply from: Tam

Is this guy for real??

reply from: yoda

I sincerely doubt it. I think he's a construct of some devious proabort mind, brought here to distract us.

"Marginalized"? Webster and "men of law and philosophy" are at odds? No, only in his mind. Such "men" do not try to dispute the accuracy of dictionaries, only proaborts do that. People all over the world understand that specialized subjects have specialized terminology, and they understand that such terminology does not conflict with the vernacuar, because it only applies within specialized discussions.

When discussing the morality of killing babies, no specialized terminology is needed. You are either for it or against it, for your own reasons. It either bothers your conscience, or you have no conscience.

reply from: Tam

You know, you're right--dictionaries can compliment each other. Why, just the other day, I heard Merriam-Webster telling OED, "You're the coolest of the cool, man." And American Heritage said, "Yeah, I agree--and you're pretty awesome yourself, Em-Dub!" (Em-Dub is Merriam-Webster's rapper nickname. OED refuses to use it, but AmHer think's it's kewl.)

Then again, as you point out, they "dont always do." I know Random House doesn't think much of Cambridge and tends to refer to him as not having much between the covers.

You might consider looking up "compliment" and "complement." If you weren't such an insufferable snob, I wouldn't bother correcting you, but this:

is hilarious, particularly when written BY an elitist in the same post in which he misuses words. I take it YOU'RE not one of the "word-defining" elite?

reply from: cali1981

LOL Tam that is hilarious!

reply from: yoda

Hey, michael isn't one of the elite (who get to define words for us)????? I feel robbed! All this time I've been feeling so priviledged to be in the textual presence of a member of the elite word-definers of our society, and now you tell me is isn't so? What tipped you off, the way he coincides with the proaborts?

reply from: michael

"Rudimentary"? Words are not divided into such categories. Again your arrogance shows.

Philosophy has no need of legal terminology, does it? Science has no need of legal terminology, does it? Moral discussion do not need legal terminology, do they?

So why do you cling to it? Perhaps because abortion "rights" depend upon it? Perhaps because you want to emphasize your desire to maintain the legal status of abortion?

Quebec?

Well as far as i am aware, physican and philosophers were questioned during the legal inquisition of roe vs wade. i do not cling to the lawful definition of "person" , i merely stated that the elite of law define the lawful terms. I prefer to talk from a philosophical sense and my definition is backed by reason/logic. You may disagree but ummmm...oh well.

reply from: yoda

Everyone has their own "reason/logic". It's like.... well you know, it's like opinions, everyone has one. That doesn't give you any authority to proclaim what words are "supposed to mean", according to you.

Most of us have the humility to defer to professionals when it comes to seeking out, and recording how we use the vernacular in this society. Apparently you are not blessed with that quality.

reply from: Tam

Coincide? I thought that was when someone gets drawn and quartered.

(Get it? Quartered? Coin-cide? No, no, sorry, I know, that's just awful. Bad puns are just murder--if I had a dime for every time someone made one, I'd be rich! Unfortunately, I seem to be losing money because every time someone offers a penny for my thoughts, I put my two cents in! Maybe the reason michael doesn't coin-cide with us more often is that he makes no "cents!" I'd help him but I'm afraid I'd be giving aid and "quarter" to the enemy! Sorry, sorry, I'll stop, really.)

reply from: yoda

No, coin-cide is when you kill coins........ ............. ..................

reply from: michael

anytime you guys wish to refute the word "coincide" within the structure of my sentence, go right ahead.

reply from: yoda

We don't need to michael, any native speaker of english knows it isn't used the way you used it.

reply from: michael

care to explain?

reply from: yoda

I already did, michael....... I told you that things "coincide", and people "concede".

reply from: michael

well, your beloved dictionary says otherwise:

To agree exactly, as in opinion; concur
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm

do "things" have opinions?

reply from: yoda

One, you link doesn't work. Two, opinions and ideas (things) can coincide, but they don't "concur"...... people do that. You're simply wrong.

Why do you think we find your usage so funny?

reply from: Skippy

Don't sweat it, Michael. Amongst the "nobodies" who have used the phrase "I coincide with..." are Mark Twain and William F. Buckley. You're in good company with your usage.

reply from: yoda

Oh, it's absolutely nothing to "sweat", just a little clumsy usage......

Wait: I found the quote from Mark Twain: "Our friend Sergeant Fathom, one of the oldest cub pilots on the river, and now on the Railroad Line steamer Trombone, sends us a rather bad account concerning the state of the river. Sergeant Fathom is a "cub" of much experience, and although we are loth to coincide in his view of the matter, we give his note a place in our columns, only hoping that his prophesy will not be verified in this instance."

But none from William Buckley (in that vein). Twain was known to play fast and loose with the language, and to use words inappropriately to make a point or to be funny. Buckley, on the other hand, was fastidious in his use of words........ do you have a link to his use?

(Bold prediction: NO response from Skippy)

reply from: cali1981

Oh, it's absolutely nothing to "sweat", just a little clumsy usage......

Wait: I found the quote from Mark Twain: "Our friend Sergeant Fathom, one of the oldest cub pilots on the river, and now on the Railroad Line steamer Trombone, sends us a rather bad account concerning the state of the river. Sergeant Fathom is a "cub" of much experience, and although we are loth to coincide in his view of the matter, we give his note a place in our columns, only hoping that his prophesy will not be verified in this instance."

But none from William Buckley (in that vein). Twain was known to play fast and loose with the language, and to use words inappropriately to make a point or to be funny. Buckley, on the other hand, was fastidious in his use of words........ do you have a link to his use?

(Bold prediction: NO response from Skippy)

*hopes for the third thing in one day from Skippy that can be added to Intellectual Dishonesty thread*

reply from: michael

okay so, had i said merely. "i coincide." would that be adequate for you? Since your objection is that i used an intransitive verb, yes? An. i MAY have used in wrong but only because i think i pout it to an object but not because i am a person.

In grammar, an intransitive verb is a verb that takes no object. Examples of intransitive verbs include:

I ate.
He thought.
She runs.
http://www.wordlookup.net/in/intransitive.html

who knows....im no english major.

btw, its an indirect ad hom to bring up grammar and spelling. it posits that if the thinker is incoherent then must also the thought.

reply from: Tam

Ok, I'd like to settle the "coincide" issue. Here is the OED entry:

2. To occur or happen at the same time; to occupy the same space of time.

3. To be identical in substance, nature, or character; to agree exactly, to be in precise harmony or accord with.

4. Of persons: To accord or concur (in opinion, sentiment, etc.).

This is how michael used it:

The thing about "coincide" is that there must be something WITH WHICH a thing coincides. You can't coincide something, you coincide WITH something or someone. In almost every usage, the word "with" is used explicitly. In the usages in which "with" is omitted, it is nonetheless clearly implied. Michael's usage did NOT imply the "with" and instead attempted to use "coincide" to mean "agree". It is possible to say "I agree that ..." and "I agree with you that ..." and "I coincide with you that..." but NOT "I coincide that ... ." michael should have said "I coincide with the notion that the term ..." but by omitting the word "with," he misused the word.

Out of curiousity, michael, was English your first language? If not, what was?

reply from: yoda

Then why keep going on about it? I think we ought to drop the subject, and let everyone form his/her own opinion.

reply from: michael

i know it may not seem like it at times but english is my first language. I will try to tailor my writings to a higher degree of coherence; i tend to get lazy.

reply from: ForLife

Grammar, spelling or coherence does not matter that greatly to me. I try to make out what the posting means, and respond to that person's belief. I don't deliberately try to run anyone off the forum; however, if I believe someone's views are profane or murderous I state so. (Such as Skippy's position: Kill'em when they're nine months old.)

reply from: michael

Grammar, spelling or coherence does not matter that greatly to me. I try to make out what the posting means, and respond to that person's belief. I don't deliberately try to run anyone off the forum; however, if I believe someone's views are profane or murderous I state so. (Such as Skippy's position: Kill'em when they're nine months old.)

9 months? heck no. i wanna see that argument.

reply from: Tam

Grammar, spelling or coherence does not matter that greatly to me. I try to make out what the posting means, and respond to that person's belief. I don't deliberately try to run anyone off the forum; however, if I believe someone's views are profane or murderous I state so. (Such as Skippy's position: Kill'em when they're nine months old.)

9 months? heck no. i wanna see that argument.

Good luck. Straightforward, honest debate just ain't Skippy's style. But feel free to try.

reply from: cali1981

I have finally gotten around to updating the original post in this thread. Most of the new additions of instances of intellectual dishonesty were by Skippy.

reply from: Tam

Awww, Cali, that is just so cool that you are keeping track of this stuff. But let's not forget that Skippy doesn't *have* to respond to anything *I* say because she didn't like it when I falsely accused her of being Dmourning in disguise. That was so freaky and insulting an experience for poor Skippy that she just can't endure any sort of interaction between us, ever again! She was traumatized for life!! Of course, several posters thought she was probably Dmourning, but I went so far as to list the reasons I thought so and (this is the really insulting part, I'm sure) REFUSED to take her WORD for it that she wasn't! I mean, you can see why she'd be upset by that, right? After the honesty and integrity she's displayed, you can see why I was so out of line not to TRUST her implicitly! ROFL Poor, maligned little Skippy. In the end, it turned out that Valfar, not Skippy, was Dmourning returned. But maybe if I apologize for this horrible misunderstanding, Skippy will find it in her heart to respond to some of the actual debating points.

Skippy--I am pretty sure I admitted months ago that you're not Dmourning. I hereby apologize for not believing that until Dmourning confirmed it.

Now, are we all better? Pretty please, with sugar on top, will you address the issues, Skippy?

reply from: Tam

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=1223519

This explains SO much!!

reply from: cali1981

Just bumping this thread once again, since I don't think any of us can ever have too much familiarity with dishonest pro-choice tactics.

reply from: Tam

It is a rather odd usage, somewhat antiquated perhaps, but nonetheless linguistically correct.

I take that back. I just now re-read this and realized that I was totally wrong about that--it wasn't correct. The thing about "coincide" is that there must be something WITH WHICH a thing coincides. You can't coincide something, you coincide WITH something or someone. In almost every usage, the word "with" is used explicitly. In the usages in which "with" is omitted, it is nonetheless clearly implied. Michael's usage did NOT imply the "with" and instead attempted to use "coincide" to mean "agree". It is possible to say "I agree that ..." and "I agree with you that ..." and "I coincide with you that..." but NOT "I coincide that ... ." michael should have said "I coincide with the notion that the term ..." but by omitting the word "with," he misused the word.

Sorry--my mistake! Or, rather, michael's mistake. Yoda, I coincide with you after all. I'll edit my post to reflect this.

reply from: yoda

You mean I'm "validated" at last?!?!?!? ;-)

How about my conclusion that only a non-native speaker would make that mistake... do we "coincide" on that too?

reply from: Tam

No. It could be a non-native speaker, a lazy and sloppy person who doesn't pay attention to his words, a person with low IQ, or a person without much education. Or any combination, or all, of the above.

reply from: yoda

Hmmm.... I've never heard anyone use that word that way that was a native speaker.... maybe there's a dialect I don't know about...... even we hillbillies know better.....

reply from: Tam

Well, yoda, just because you've never seen it doesn't mean it never happened! Remember? (ok, that's an inside joke)

reply from: yoda

Yeah......... that logic is hard to beat, isn't it?

reply from: cali1981

I'm curious about this inside joke.

reply from: yoda

cali, I believe that was a reference to a moronic comment by a proabort on another forum....... PLViews on delphi.....

reply from: cali1981

Looks like this thing is soon to be updated again...

reply from: cali1981

Okay, update done. I know the latest intellectual dishonesty from Skippy is rather new - but actually, she has made that particular error repeatedly without acknowledging it, so I feel comfortable believing that she will also continue to be dishonest on this fifteenth or so time that it has come up.

reply from: Hiswaywalker

Cali,
Thank you for bringing this to light. I would like to say that intellectual dishonesty is also called word doctoring. A person who is this type of doctor is often called a spin-doctor. Of course any pro-abort that is worth their weight in spit would be able to spin the meaning of a word. That is the only way to truly be able to lie to ones self (a practice that I like to call “The Art Of Fabrication”). The ultimate “spin-doctoring’ begins when someone has convinced themselves that they have the right to kill someone else in order to maintain their lifestyle. If that were the case then I would have the right to rob banks in order to support a drug habit that could maintain the ultimate lifestyle, “ignorance and apathy.”

reply from: yoda

Absolutely. That's why proaborts almost universally despise my practice of posting online dictionary definitions of words used in this debate. They even go so far as to claim "superior knowledge" to such dictionaries. It would be laughable if it were not being done for such a henious reason.

reply from: Tam

For the sake of argument, I will assume that people can be divided into two classes, the "elite" and the "masses." You contend that words are defined by the "elite," and that dictionaries outline these definitions, correct? Who draws up our legal documents, the "elite" or the "masses?" I will assume you are not naive enough to attempt to suggest that the "masses" were responsible for drafting our constitution.

If we need to settle a dispute concerning the intended meaning of a word within a legal document such as the U.S. Constitution, what better source than a dictionary containing meanings composed by the "elite" to determine the intended meaning of an author of the same class?

reply from: yoda

Yes, poor little michael's argument is left without any clothing. His disdain for dictionaries cannot overcome their well established authority in both elite circle and in the masses.

And so it is with those who seek to decieve by distorting language, their house of cards must surely fall in an embarrassing way.

reply from: yoda

Quite true. It is only the edict of the supreme court that excluded unborn humans from the class of humans represented by the word "person" in the constitution.

reply from: cali1981

Another thread we haven't looked at in a while. In the time that I've been gone, it looks like there have been some potential new additions!

reply from: laurissamarcotte

I have one to add to your collection, cali.
Posted in the thread Life possibly saved tonight
mybodymylifegetoveritI DO care, the difference being that i care about those who are AWARE of their suffering. Yes the "baby" might suffer during abortion, depending on the gestation, but to be blunt that suffering will be over in a matter of minutes after which they will not be aware of that suffering. Abused children (i'm talking born children) are suffering for longer than a matter of minutes and even once their suffering has "finished" they will remember it forever - it is those children who are my priority.
yodavaterIsn't that just amazing? How very considerate of them to want to make sure they kill the baby so it won't suffer too long.......
Wow, yeah, that makes it okay to abuse or molest as many kids as you want to, as long as you kill them quickly after you're done, right?
Wow........
mybodymylifegetoverit[does not respond]
laurissamarcotteWhat if someone beat a child for a minute, and then killed it? Would you be against it then?
mybodymylifegetoverit[still does not respond]

reply from: cali1981

Great! I will edit the first post yet again and add it. Thank you!

reply from: yoda

Can't let this one slip away........

reply from: cali1981

BUMP
because I'm going to refer to this thread in a new thread soon...

reply from: xnavy

i have enjoyed reading this thread, i love the way yoda distroys arguments of pro aborts, keep up the good work.

reply from: AntixFlag06

Thats Bull. Personhood at conception is a religious belief, not a provable biological fact. It takes hours to even start. And what about the morning after pill? why would anyone pro-life be ok with that if it was already a "human being". Nothing can stop it. Not everyone has the great "morals" that all you geniuses on here have. So I'm beginning to wonder if a better place for that coat hanger might just be in your head. Maybe then you'll open your eyes.

reply from: AntixFlag06

I agree. thats about it. I agree completely.

reply from: Shiprahagain

The fact that you are a person at conception is a scientific belief. Here's an explanation of it by Dr. Diane Irving. http://www.all.org/abac/dni005.htm If you believe there is another scientific definition of personhood, you are welcome to cite a scientist who feels that way. Prolifers who believe in the MAP generally don't know it's abortifacient. Some prolifers know they can't ban abortions and MAP simultaneously so to save the most lives they temporarily don't fight against MAP (like is S. Dakota.) I'm glad you think our morals are great, but I just think they're pretty basic. But even if everyone doesn't share our morals -- what difference does that make? Everyone didn't have the "great morals" to believe that slavery was wrong. Does that mean abolitionists shouldn't have fought against it?

reply from: cali1981

LOL So when, according to you, does personhood become a provable biological fact? And when it does become that, how exactly do you prove it? I'm really interested to hear this.
Also, I have basically no religious beliefs, and I know that is the case for many other pro-lifers on here. So it's pretty funny for you to tell me that the fact that personhood begins at conception is a "religious belief."
You're right; no one who is pro-life should be okay with that, since the morning-after pill prevents the implantation of an already formed child.
I'm not sure what your point is; if you mean that not everyone finds it immoral for a healthy mother to deliberately kill a healthy baby, then I am certainly in agreement with that.
Maybe YOU should open your eyes to the fact that abortion is the deliberate killing of a child. Even some high-profile pro-choicers acknowledge that and have criticized their fellow pro-choicers for trying to say that it is not, because that is so obviously false. Your side better get its story straight.

reply from: yoda

I'm having a difficult time taking this post seriously, it reaks of trollishness...... and cali has destroyed any hint of an "argument" in it already......
But as an agnostic, I must comment about the entire ludicrous concept of "personhood" being a religious concept, at any age...... or science having anything to do with it....... what a dufus....... !!

reply from: cali1981

Oh, I agree with you...I usually just figure that even a trollish post is a good opportunity to publicly destroy common proabort arguments; we certainly can't do that often enough, can we?

reply from: yoda

Especially not when they give us a straight line to pounce on!


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics