Tucker Case

Thus the comparison is totally invalidated since the reasons for the inconvenience must be equivilant for the comparison to be valid.

Otherwise you are comparig apples to oranges.

American

I know it's tough, but you should start your own stump.

__________________
It's Obama's fault!

Tucker Case

It seems you went OT far before I ever did.

American

Yeah, but I got you first!

Tucker Case

Fair enough then.

Goobieman

Don't agree. Two items need not be identical for a comparisn to be valid.
You're not arguing 'apples and oranges', you're arguing 'apples and rocks'.

__________________
Haven't you noticed? We've been sharing our culture with you all morning.
-- King Leonidas

Tucker Case

But they do need to be comparable.

It's not about perception, it's about objective reality.

A DS baby is always defective. That is why they are aborted at a 90% rate without an outcry.

If they were not defective, then there would be an outcry.

The comparison is invalid because the children in one scenario are defective, while the children in the other scenario are not. That is the root cause of the lack of outcry.

So saying "Imagine the outcry if 90% of X people was aborted like how 90% of Y people are aborted" is only a valid comparison if X is comparable to Y independent of the scenarios.

Otherwise, it is comparing the incomparable, which is an invalid comparison.



Soooooo, if you want to show that the comparison is valid you must show that X is comparable to Y, or in this case, that "Downs Syndrome" is comparable to "Black Skin".

That is the challenge to support the comparison.



P.S. Equivilant does not mean "identical". Although it can mean "virtually" identical, we are discussing logic, which means that definition 2 is applicable.

Goobieman

They -are- comparable. just as apples and oranges are comparable.

Your focus is in the wrong place, as noted before.
The root cause in both cases is convenience, or lack thereof

Tucker Case

But the comparisons are not valid since they are comparing on superficial grounds.



As also noted befre, since almost every abortion is caused by inconvenience, the difference between groups becomes the root cause of the inconvenience.

In one case the root cause is almost universally the disorder itself. The vast, vast majority of the women who abort DS babies would not have chosen to abort healthy babies if all other factors are equal.

The same cannot and can never be true of the compared hypothetical scenario.

Whetehr or not it is hypothetically possible that a rare individual in group 2 can have the same reasoning as the genreal populous in group 1 is irrelevant because that could nbever be the reasoning of the 90% created by the hypothetical scenario (Although that irrelevancy is the entirety of your argument).


Here's the order ofteh conversation:




Please note that motivations are not present ion any statement so far.


Then I responded with
AS an explanation of why they are not comparable. Now to your invalid comparisn you finally bring up motivations.


But that is a non sequitor from your initial statement.

niftydrifty

Samuel Augustus Maverick (July 23, 1803-September 2, 1870) was a Texas lawyer, politician, land baron and signer of the Texas Declaration of Independence. From his name comes the term "maverick", first cited in 1867, which means "independent minded." Maverick was considered independent minded by his fellow ranchers, because he refused to brand his cattle. In fact, Maverick's failure to brand his cattle had little to do with independent mindedness, but reflected his lack of interest in ranching. He is the grandfather of U.S. Congressman Maury Maverick, who coined the term "gobbledygook" (1944).

Samuel Maverick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________
"I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." - Bill Kristol