Satanists Claim Abortion a Religious Ritual

[Fallen Prophet]

Actually statistically a smoker has a greater chance of not developing a cancer. The rate of lung cancer in smokers, for example is around 13%, so perhaps a poor analogy. Since smokers have an 87% chance of not getting lung cancer.

Though obviously the rate of lung cancer among non-smokers is substantially lower than 13%.

Are you claiming that smokers should be surprised if they get lung cancer?

You realize that what you said here was completely irrelevant and asinine - don't you?

I never claimed that smokers were guaranteed to get lung cancer - or over 50% likely to get - or any claim as to how likely they were to get it.

What I claimed was that they shouldn't be surprised to get it - since it has been proven that there is a direct link between smoking and various cancers.

My point was that smokers are more likely to get lung cancer than non-smokers - just like people who engage in irresponsible sexual activity are more likely to create a child than those are being more responsible.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

What a spectacularly stupid claim.

Really?

You don't remember Aziz Ansari?

You don't remember that PSA with the Indian girl claiming that she was raped, "When I heard my mother call another girl a ****"?

These people claim that having regret after you engage in consensual sex means that you were raped.

You're just not paying attention.

 

[ppp]

all anyone focuses on and talks about are what the "pro-choice" activists want them to - namely the desires, fears and "right" of the woman.

More baloney. What you really mean is that you are not the center of attention and it drives you nuts.

Explain exactly what you mean.

Are you claiming that you have some sort of "super human" blood that can become a full-grown human being?

Nope.

You understand that there is more than just blood incubating in the womb - don't you?

Yep.

Explain exactly what you meant here - because it sounds pretty dumb from where I am sitting.

What confused you? Because it seems pretty clear from where I am sitting.

No - blood is not "alive" - it is organic - but it is not a living thing.

Incorrect. Each red blood cell is alive with a metabolism.
Why are you putting the word alive in scare quotes?

I've been expecting this one to come out of the woodwork eventually - it always does.

Explain - exactly - what you mean here?

You cant have it both ways. Either you have been expecting something you know what it means, or you don't know and need it explained. Which is it?

Why do you assume that I am requesting that anyone donate body parts?

No assumption is necessary. You are telling women that they must donate their entire bodies to another life for around 40 weeks. And you insist on this with Absolutely No thought about the welfare of the woman.

This is not just crawling out of the woodwork; it is a stake through your cold grinchly heart

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

No.
I think abortion should be protected as a human right.
But if that's not possible, the Satanic Temple's approach is the next best thing.

This.

 

[ppp]

Nothing but ad hominem.

Please learn what an ad hominem fallacy is. There was no such fallacy in @Darkstorn's post

 

[Sheldon]

Really?

You don't remember Aziz Ansari?

You don't remember that PSA with the Indian girl claiming that she was raped, "When I heard my mother call another girl a ****"?

These people claim that having regret after you engage in consensual sex means that you were raped.

You're just not paying attention.

This was your claim:

Fallen Prophet said: ↑
but today anything can be constituted as "rape"

It remains a spectacularly stupid claim, adding another of your disjointed rants doesn't make it any less idiotic.

 

[Sheldon]

More baloney. What you really mean is that you are not the center of attention and it drives you nuts.

I think it's more that he can't insist others live their lives according to his beliefs, and yes, that does appear to trigger him, bless.

I've said it before, and I will say it again, if anyone doesn't like abortion, then don't have one. Just reciprocate, and stop trying to tell others what they can do with their own bodies.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Please learn what an ad hominem fallacy is. There was no such fallacy in @Darkstorn's post

Are you joking?

He directed his remarks against me rather than the position I am maintaining.

That is what an ad hominem is.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

This was your claim:



It remains a spectacularly stupid claim, adding another of your disjointed rants doesn't make it any less idiotic.

Again - you are not paying attention to what people are saying.

Maybe jump out of the hole you've been hiding in the last decade or so and see what these crazies are up to.

 

[ppp]

Are you joking?

He directed his remarks against me rather than the position I am maintaining.

That is what an ad hominem is.

No. An ad hominem fallacy would be if he said that your logical argument is incorrect because you "are acting like a sexually immature man child who's having a tantrum." He did not say that. And you made no argument, logical or otherwise.

Calling someone a name is not a logical fallacy.

 

[Darkstorn]

Are you joking?

He directed his remarks against me rather than the position I am maintaining.

That is what an ad hominem is.

That's not what an ad hominem is.

 

[Sheldon]

Again - you are not paying attention to what people are saying.

On the contrary, here is your claim again then for clarity:

↑
but today anything can be constituted as "rape"

It remains a spectacularly stupid claim, all your thrashing about won't change that assessment.

Maybe jump out of the hole you've been hiding in the last decade or so and see what these crazies are up to.

Weren't you just whining about ad hominem?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

No. An ad hominem fallacy would be if he said that your logical argument is incorrect because you "are acting like a sexually immature man child who's having a tantrum." He did not say that. And you made no argument, logical or otherwise.

Calling someone a name is not a logical fallacy.

First off - I have been the only one supplying medical research to support at least one of my claims - so there's that.

And also - no - I'm sorry - but that is not what an ad hominem is at all.

An ad hominem is a complete avoidance of addressing someone's argument - choosing rather to attack them personally.

"appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect"

"marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made"

Ad hominem Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

"directed against a person’s character rather than their argument"

ad-hominem adjective - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

"attacking an opponent's character or motives rather than answering the argument or claim."

"appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason."

Ad hominem Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

"(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining"

"in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining"

"in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person"

ad hominem definition - Search (bing.com)

An ad hominem fallacy requires someone to attack an individual personally rather than engage the argument they are making.

If they had "name-called" me - yet still addressed my argument - then it wouldn't have been an ad hominem - but they didn't - so it is.

It is a cowardly thing to do - a thing reserved for ignorant and immature people.

You don't know what an ad hominem fallacy is.

Also - isn't "name calling" against the Forum Rules?

So - it's "double whammy" - a fallacy and a forum rule violation.

Wasn't this embarrassing for you?

Thinking you know what you are talking about - but then get totally schooled instead and you look like a total chump?

God - that's embarrassing - isn't it?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

That's not what an ad hominem is.

Prove it.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

On the contrary, here is your claim again then for clarity:

It remains a spectacularly stupid claim, all your thrashing about won't change that assessment.

Again - you claiming that it is stupid does not make it so.

You are unaware of what people have been arguing - what they have been labelling "rape" - when it is not so.

Your ignorance is not an argument.

Weren't you just whining about ad hominem?

What argument am I avoiding?

You also don't know what an ad hominem is.

 

[Darkstorn]

Prove it.

Someone else already did.

Why so cranky?

 

[ppp]

First off - I have been the only one supplying medical research to support at least one of my claims - so there's that.

Your claims don't address bodily autonomy, therefore your claims are irrelevant to my position on abortion.

An ad hominem is a complete avoidance of addressing someone's argument - choosing rather to attack them personally.

What do you think your argument is? Make it short, sweet and to the point.

 

[ppp]

And also - no - I'm sorry - but that is not what an ad hominem is at all.

Let's ask the philosophers:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [ Fallacies (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) ]

13. The ad hominem fallacy involves bringing negative aspects of an arguer, or their situation, to bear on the view they are advancing. There are three commonly recognized versions of the fallacy. The abusive ad hominem fallacy involves saying that someone’s view should not be accepted because they have some unfavorable property.

@Darkstorn did not do this.

Another, more subtle version of the fallacy is the circumstantial ad hominem in which, given the circumstances in which the arguer finds him or herself, it is alleged that their position is supported by self-interest rather than by good evidence.

@Darkstorn did not do this.

The third version of the ad hominem fallacy is the tu quoque. It involves not accepting a view or a recommendation because the espouser him- or herself does not follow it.

@Darkstorn did not do this.

Therefore, no ad hominem.

 

[Sheldon]

First off - I have been the only one supplying medical research to support at least one of my claims - so there's that.

Nope, that's not true.

 

[Sheldon]

An ad hominem is a complete avoidance of addressing someone's argument - choosing rather to attack them personally.

Maybe jump out of the hole you've been hiding in the last decade or so and see what these crazies are up to.