Abortion 201

[Lursa]

I'm saying these various views are reported in the piece of journalism; as such, they are neither valid nor invalid. The holders of those views presumably have reasons and arguments to offer to support their views. A piece of journalism about their views doesn't support or refute anything.

Then why did you post it as a source to validate your moral reasoning and position?

 

[Angel]

Then why did you post it as a source to validate your moral reasoning and position?

That's according to Quag and, by association, to you why I posted a link to a bit of journalism. That's the absurd straw man you and he are wasting bandwidth on.

 

[Lursa]

That's according to Quag and, by association, to you why I posted a link to a bit of journalism. That's the absurd straw man you and he are wasting bandwidth on.

No...you posted it as a source to defend your argument. Do not lie.

But hey...I am completely open to you providing other sources that support your argument. Please do.

 

[Angel]

No...you posted it as a source to defend your argument. Do not lie.

But hey...I am completely open to you providing other sources that support your argument. Please do.

Lie? It's an absurdity only the author of the absurdity would believe has an ounce of credibility.

My argument, as I have told you a half dozen times -- in one ear, out the other -- has its source in Reason. Stop asking for internet links and engage the argument with your portion of reason.

 

[Lursa]

Lie? It's an absurdity only the author of the absurdity would believe has an ounce of credibility.

My argument, as I have told you a half dozen times -- in one ear, out the other -- has its source in Reason. Stop asking for internet links and engage the argument with your portion of reason.

If you have nothing but 'your personal arguments' with nothing to back you up, of course we dont believe you. Why should we?

You have displayed little reason in your posting, it's ludicrous that we would accept your view that YOUR view of morality is based on reason, universality, or self-evidence.

You said you want to have an argument... but your only 'argument' is "I said so?" :doh

 

[Angel]

If you have nothing but 'your personal arguments' with nothing to back you up, of course we dont believe you. Why should we?

You have displayed little reason in your posting, it's ludicrous that we would accept your view that YOUR view of morality is based on reason, universality, or self-evidence.

You said you want to have an argument... but your only 'argument' is "I said so?" :doh

No, my argument is a reasoned logical series of premises binding on a conclusion.
Your "argument" is a series of standard internet cavils backed up by activist talking points.

 

[Lursa]

No, my argument is a reasoned logical series of premises binding on a conclusion.
Your "argument" is a series of standard internet cavils backed up by activist talking points.

Perhaps, but it is only 'your personal series of premises' thus far and not 'universal,' 'self-evident,' or proven to be based on reason.

I posted much more than talking points AND I backed it up with multiple sources.

 

[Angel]

Then why did you post it as a source to validate your moral reasoning and position?

I did not post the link for the reason you suggest. The reason you suggest is a reason made up by Quag and seized upon by you as an any port in a storm recourse because you are otherwise stymied by me and my moral argument.

 

[Lursa]

I did not post the link for the reason you suggest. The reason you suggest is a reason made up by Quag and seized upon by you as an any port in a storm recourse because you are otherwise stymied by me and my moral argument.

You are lying about that.

OTOH, you are still free to post sources that actually do support your claim that your moral opinion is 'universal' and 'self-evident.'

As previously noted, I provided sources that prove you wrong....so the onus is on you to move the argument forward and defend your argument. Please do so, with sources (as I did).

 

[Angel]

You are lying about that.

OTOH, you are still free to post sources that actually do support your claim that your moral opinion is 'universal' and 'self-evident.'

As previously noted, I provided sources that prove you wrong....so the onus is on you to move the argument forward and defend your argument. Please do so, with sources (as I did).

No, if anyone is "lying" here, it is you, to yourself.

No "sources" can prove anything.
Only arguments "prove" things.
You have no arguments.
You have sources that agree with you; that's all.

 

[Lursa]

No, if anyone is "lying" here, it is you, to yourself.

No "sources" can prove anything.
Only arguments "prove" things.
You have no arguments.
You have sources that agree with you; that's all.

Cool, then I reject your argument that *your moral view* is anything more than a subjective opinion that you hold and share with 'some' other people. It is NOT universal nor self-evident...and I did provide legitimate sources that prove that...because it's a matter of the prevalence of your personal moral view...which, proven by my sources...is NOT universal or self-evident.

There. We're done. You're argument is rejected and remains undefended.

 

[Angel]

Cool, then I reject your argument that *your moral view* is anything more than a subjective opinion that you hold and share with 'some' other people. It is NOT universal nor self-evident...and I did provide legitimate sources that prove that...because it's a matter of the prevalence of your personal moral view...which, proven by my sources...is NOT universal or self-evident.

There. We're done. You're argument is rejected and remains undefended.

Your rejection of my argument is nugatory without a counterargument.
Because there is disagreement about a moral view does not in itself defeat that moral view.
Your "sources" only show that there is disagreement.
You still need an argument for your belief, and a counter-argument to my belief.

 

[Lursa]

Your rejection of my argument is nugatory without a counterargument.
Because there is disagreement about a moral view does not in itself defeat that moral view.
Your "sources" only show that there is disagreement.
You still need an argument for your belief, and a counter-argument to my belief.

What part of 'I have proven your argument is wrong with my sources' did you not understand? :lamo It was you who failed to continue with additional defense of your opinion (oops, 'argument.') Thus, you failed.

Of course there's disagreement...that's the point. And I provided sources that proved so. Thanks for admitting that your personal moral view is not 'universal' or 'self-evident.'

Here it is again, for the cheap seats:

No "sources" can prove anything.
Only arguments "prove" things.
You have no arguments.
You have sources that agree with you; that's all.

Cool, then I reject your argument that *your moral view* is anything more than a subjective opinion that you hold and share with 'some' other people. It is NOT universal nor self-evident...and I did provide legitimate sources that prove that...because it's a matter of the prevalence of your personal moral view...which, proven by my sources...is NOT universal or self-evident.

There. We're done. You're argument is rejected and remains undefended.

 

[Angel]

What part of 'I have proven your argument is wrong with my sources' did you not understand? :lamo It was you who failed to continue with additional defense of your opinion (oops, 'argument.') Thus, you failed.

Of course there's disagreement...that's the point. And I provided sources that proved so. Thanks for admitting that your personal moral view is not 'universal' or 'self-evident.'

Here it is again, for the cheap seats:

What part of "sources only show disagreement and 'prove' nothing" did you not understand?

 

[Lursa]

What part of "sources only show disagreement and 'prove' nothing" did you not understand?

What part of 'prevalence' of your moral view isnt clear? Your claim is that yours is 'universal' and 'self-evident.'

I argued that it's not. Because we all know that millions of other humans dont concur with your personal view.

Take the sources or leave them...they only support *my argument.* You have been unable to support yours.

 

[Angel]

What part of 'prevalence' of your moral view isnt clear? Your claim is that yours is 'universal' and 'self-evident.'

I argued that it's not. Because we all know that millions of other humans dont concur with your personal view.

Take the sources or leave them...they only support *my argument.* You have been unable to support yours.

Universality as a moral claim is not dependent on or even related to universal agreement, or agreement at all. Or disagreement for that matter.
You're confused again, ma'am.

 

[Quag]

Ditto your views and opinions then. You're hoist by your own petard.

"Your view, that my views are nothing but my opinions, is nothing but your opinion and as such proves nothing ever, about my views particularly."

Nope I can show that your claims have not been backed up thus backing up my claim
You cant back up your claim therefore it is just your opinion

 

[Lursa]

Universality as a moral claim is not dependent on or even related to universal agreement, or agreement at all. Or disagreement for that matter.
You're confused again, ma'am.

OK...please define how you are using 'universality.'

I'm sure it's been defined in all your 'extensive' reading on morality. Please...enlighten me so that your usage is better understood.

However, it's still not self-evident which you've also claimed.

 

[Angel]

OK...please define how you are using 'universality.'

I'm sure it's been defined in all your 'extensive' reading on morality. Please...enlighten me so that your usage is better understood.

However, it's still not self-evident which you've also claimed.

Let's try an example.
Let's say that the Golden Rule is a universal moral principle.
That means that everyone ought to act according to the Golden Rule. That's its claim to universality.
It does not matter whether everyone agrees or disagrees that the Golden Rule is a universal moral principle.
It does not matter whether everyone acts according to the Golden Rule or not.
Does this example help?

 

[Angel]

Nope I can show that your claims have not been backed up thus backing up my claim
You cant back up your claim therefore it is just your opinion

Your posts become more and more ridiculous. So, my views are opinions and worthless, but your views are opinions and worth their weight in gold, yes?
Do me a favor and hound some other member.
Thank you.

 

[Quag]

Your posts become more and more ridiculous. So, my views are opinions and worthless, but your views are opinions and worth their weight in gold, yes?
Do me a favor and hound some other member.
Thank you.

You cannot back up your claims I backed up mine
So yeah your views are opinions mine are facts.

 

[Angel]

You cannot back up your claims I backed up mine
So yeah your views are opinions mine are facts.

Your opinions are "backed up" like my toilet is backed up.
You just assert your opinion, and then you assert that your opinion is backed up and so kid yourself into believing that your opinion has been backed up and so exempted from your own tiresome assertion about my views.
Harass another.
Or else desist.

 

[Quag]

Your opinions are "backed up" like my toilet is backed up.
You just assert your opinion, and then you assert that your opinion is backed up and so kid yourself into believing that your opinion has been backed up and so exempted from your own tiresome assertion about my views.
Harass another.
Or else desist.

No it is a fact your premises are not backed up, denying reality wont change that fact
If I am wrong you could easily prove it by showing where you have backed them up, but that os impossible because you havent.
Again I am not harassing you I am pointing out the flaws in your "argument" and why your "argument" fails
I strongly suggest you take some courses in logic to finds out why everyone is always pointing out that your "arguments" fail (well aside from your good buddy the Bobsey Twins, but he is banned for multi accounts, something everyone but you realized from the get go)

 

[Angel]

No it is a fact your premises are not backed up, denying reality wont change that fact
If I am wrong you could easily prove it by showing where you have backed them up, but that os impossible because you havent.
Again I am not harassing you I am pointing out the flaws in your "argument" and why your "argument" fails
I strongly suggest you take some courses in logic to finds out why everyone is always pointing out that your "arguments" fail (well aside from your good buddy the Bobsey Twins, but he is banned for multi accounts, something everyone but you realized from the get go)

The point, sir, is that your opinions of my views are not backed up and so, by your own standards, worthless.
Please try to read better and to think a little.

 

[Quag]

The point, sir, is that your opinions of my views are not backed up and so, by your own standards, worthless.
Please try to read better and to think a little.

Yes please read better you havent backed up the claims in your "arguments" thus the conclusions are nothing more than opinion
That is logic not opinion