Abortion 201

[Lursa]

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?

I asked you for the definition of 'universality' as you understand it and are using it in this argument.

The above pretty much proves you dont even understand it yourself...you cannot articulate it. Please provide an actual definition as used in the study and application of philosophy.

Otherwise I call BS. (And psssssssssssstttt...your little ditty above shows circular 'logic.' Because viewing what I bolded, the question once again arises: "who says?")

 

[Wan]

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

"Backed up" opinions are still not facts, though. They are just opinions that have been backed up.

Why would an opinion need backing up anyway? If I am of the opinion that Trump is a good president, I don't need to seek any validation for said opinion whatsoever. My opinion stands on its own. I do not need to "prove" to anyone that my opinion is "correct".

 

[Quag]

"Backed up" opinions are still not facts, though. They are just opinions that have been backed up.

Why would an opinion need backing up anyway? If I am of the opinion that Trump is a good president, I don't need to seek any validation for said opinion whatsoever. My opinion stands on its own. I do not need to "prove" to anyone that my opinion is "correct".

Thank you for agreeing with me that Angel has failed (yet again)
Angel needs to back up his opinions because he makes "arguments" out of them then claims that he has PROVED his position and it is the ONLY correct one.

 

[Angel]

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

Please give your obsession a rest.

So let's get these two things straight about Quag, based on his latest revelatory posts:

1. Quag has posted upwards of 1000 posts in the last eighteen months condemning Angel's threads and posts as merely the opinions of Angel and as such worthless, whereas Quag's own opinions, according to Quag, are of unquestionable value, particularly Quag's opinions of Angel's threads and posts, because in Quag's opinion, Quag's opinion is "backed up" -- backed up by what, you ask? By Quag's opinion, of course.

2. Quag has derogated and derided Angel's threads and posts on morality and logic for eighteen months or more, and when challenged to discuss morality and logic with Angel in the Philosophy forum, Quag declines and in declining continues his derogation and derision of Angel's threads and posts on morality and logic.

"You gotta have a swine to show you where the truffles are!"
Edward Albee
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?​

https://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/352437-four-fallacies-abortion-40.html#post1069982904

 

[Angel]

I asked you for the definition of 'universality' as you understand it and are using it in this argument.

The above pretty much proves you dont even understand it yourself...you cannot articulate it. Please provide an actual definition as used in the study and application of philosophy.

Otherwise I call BS. (And psssssssssssstttt...your little ditty above shows circular 'logic.' Because viewing what I bolded, the question once again arises: "who says?")

The limits of your understanding are not my problem, ma'am.
Moral universality does not mean universal agreement on morality; it means universal bindingness.

 

[Quag]

Please give your obsession a rest.


https://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/352437-four-fallacies-abortion-40.html#post1069982904

Interesting alternative history you have going on there
I am not harassing you I am pointing out the flaws in your "arguments" if you dont like me doing that then either stop making the same illogical errors or stop posting altogether.

BTW dont think for one second your attempted diversion from the fact you have not and never do back up your claims will succeed.

 

[Angel]

Interesting alternative history you have going on there
I am not harassing you I am pointing out the flaws in your "arguments" if you dont like me doing that then either stop making the same illogical errors or stop posting altogether.

BTW dont think for one second your attempted diversion from the fact you have not and never do back up your claims will succeed.

What "flaws" have you pointed out? You just keep repeating in post after post for the last year and a half: "That's only your opinion, Angel," and it's worthless."
When I called your attention to the inconvenient fact that your opinion of my argument is an opinion, you went into your tapdance about how your opinion is different from my opinion.
I have challenged you to discuss Morality and Logic with me in the Philosophy forum, and you have gone into your ballroom dance.

Isn't your bad faith becoming apparent to you?

 

[Quag]

What "flaws" have you pointed out? You just keep repeating in post after post for the last year and a half: "That's only your opinion, Angel," and it's worthless."
When I called your attention to the inconvenient fact that your opinion of my argument is an opinion, you went into your tapdance about how your opinion is different from my opinion.
I have challenged you to discuss Morality and Logic with me in the Philosophy forum, and you have gone into your ballroom dance.

Isn't your bad faith becoming apparent to you?

Why are you so completely dishonest?
I mean seriously I have stated over and over what the flaws in your "arguments" are
See post 471, 471,475 And that is only going back 1 page

Stop being dishonest I have stated quite clearly what your problem is and you divert insult and deny but you never actual deal with the problem.

Back up the claims you make in your "arguments" or realize your arguments are worthless and just your personal opinion

 

[Angel]

Why are you so completely dishonest?
I mean seriously I have stated over and over what the flaws in your "arguments" are
See post 471, 471,475 And that is only going back 1 page

Stop being dishonest I have stated quite clearly what your problem is and you divert insult and deny but you never actual deal with the problem.

Back up the claims you make in your "arguments" or realize your arguments are worthless and just your personal opinion

You're being dishonest, sir. The only "flaw" you keep pointing out is that my argument is merely my opinion -- a charge that has backfired on you since your opinion of my argument is merely your opinion.

 

[Lursa]

The limits of your understanding are not my problem, ma'am.
Moral universality does not mean universal agreement on morality; it means universal bindingness.

You didnt define it as asked. Why? Are you incapable? Did you not come across it in all your studies of philosophy and morality?

What is 'universal bindingness?' And who did the binding?

 

[Angel]

You didnt define it as asked. Why? Are you incapable? Did you not come across it in all your studies of philosophy and morality?

What is 'universal bindingness?' And who did the binding?

Reason.

 

[Lursa]

You didnt define it as asked. Why? Are you incapable? Did you not come across it in all your studies of philosophy and morality?

What is 'universal bindingness?' And who did the binding?

Reason.

Nope...certainly not 'reason' provided by you because you have not demonstrated the correct or competent use of reason yet.

But if you can support it with other sources from all your studies in philosophy and morality...please do. Otherwise, your personal view of reason is not remotely valid...my opinion based on your own writing.

So please provide the definition requested.

 

[Angel]

Nope...certainly not 'reason' provided by you because you have not demonstrated the correct or competent use of reason yet.

But if you can support it with other sources from all your studies in philosophy and morality...please do. Otherwise, your personal view of reason is not remotely valid...my opinion based on your own writing.

So please provide the definition requested.

No, not my personal view of reason, ma'am; my use of reason -- something your posts suggest is in short supply in yourabouts.

 

[Lursa]

No, not my personal view of reason, ma'am; my use of reason -- something your posts suggest is in short supply in yourabouts.

Prove that it's not only your personal view of reason. The request was for sources, links, to something that concurs with your personal opinion from legitimate sources from your philosophy or morality studies.

So...please define 'reason' as requested.

 

[Wan]

my use of reason -- something your posts suggest is in short supply in yourabouts.

Brilliance.

 

[Quag]

You're being dishonest, sir. The only "flaw" you keep pointing out is that my argument is merely my opinion -- a charge that has backfired on you since your opinion of my argument is merely your opinion.

Stop being so dishonest Nothing backfired because I backed up my statement and you failed TO even try to bak up yours.

Your "argument" is based on your unsupported opinions and thus the conclusion is just your opinion.

 

[Angel]

Prove that it's not only your personal view of reason. The request was for sources, links, to something that concurs with your personal opinion from legitimate sources from your philosophy or morality studies.

So...please define 'reason' as requested.

"Sources, links" are immaterial to a logical progression. They only have relevance to matters of fact, and there's only one matter of fact in my argument and it comes from basic biology. I'm not going to post links supporting the survival instinct simply because you're a contrarian.

 

[Quag]

"Sources, links" are immaterial to a logical progression. They only have relevance to matters of fact, and there's only one matter of fact in my argument and it comes from basic biology. I'm not going to post links supporting the survival instinct simply because you're a contrarian.

Translation: I cannot support my claims and you are being a meanie for asking! !

 

[Wan]

Translation: I cannot support my claims and you are being a meanie for asking! !

The fact you said this tells me you don't know the difference between logical progression and matters of fact. Haha.

 

[Lursa]

"Sources, links" are immaterial to a logical progression. They only have relevance to matters of fact, and there's only one matter of fact in my argument and it comes from basic biology. I'm not going to post links supporting the survival instinct simply because you're a contrarian.

No...when you claim that 'your personal moral view' is universal and self-evident, you have to support that. You have to show how your personal moral view parallels a universal and self-evident moral belief beyond your own. :doh

Your personal 'logical' progressions fail...because we dont accept your premises just because 'you said so.' The one about self-preservation being a moral disposition or whatever...is wrong. It's like you claiming unicorns exist. They dont...unless you support it.

You have been incapable of even providing definitions of the words you use :doh

 

[Angel]

No...when you claim that 'your personal moral view' is universal and self-evident, you have to support that. You have to show how your personal moral view parallels a universal and self-evident moral belief beyond your own. :doh

Your personal 'logical' progressions fail...because we dont accept your premises just because 'you said so.' The one about self-preservation being a moral disposition or whatever...is wrong. It's like you claiming unicorns exist. They dont...unless you support it.

You have been incapable of even providing definitions of the words you use :doh

"My personal moral view" is your strawman.

 

[Quag]

The fact you said this tells me you don't know the difference between logical progression and matters of fact. Haha.

The fact that you said this means you do not

 

[Wan]

The fact that you said this means you do not

I am not the one who thinks people need to provide sources, links..etc in a logical progression. Allow me to quote you:

Translation: I cannot support my claims and you are being a meanie for asking! !

Either you dont know that we are arguing in a logical progression or that you think it's necessary to "support one's claims" in a logical progression.

 

[Peter King]

The fact you said this tells me you don't know the difference between logical progression and matters of fact. Haha.

Normally logical progression comes from facts and figures. You know, legal facts and not biological opinions. Because the problems with biological opinions is that people will disagree with them and can point to facts and opinions (legal and otherwise) to back that up. But they are still opinions.

A fact is: a ZEF does not have personhood rights

An opinion (one I disagree with) is that from conception it is a human being completely with equal rights and properties than a born individual. That is an opinion.

 

[Wan]

Normally logical progression comes from facts and figures. You know, legal facts and not biological opinions. Because the problems with biological opinions is that people will disagree with them and can point to facts and opinions (legal and otherwise) to back that up. But they are still opinions.

A fact is: a ZEF does not have personhood rights

I am not necessarily arguing that zefs should have personhood rights. But the fact corporations are given rights but not actual humans (aka the unborn) bothers me.

An opinion (one I disagree with) is that from conception it is a human being completely with equal rights and properties than a born individual. That is an opinion.

As far as I know, nobody is saying we should confer the entire suit of rights on the unborn. But the unborn is a live human. And the deliberate killing of a live human is murder. Do you agree?