Satanists Claim Abortion a Religious Ritual

[Sheldon]

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

I never said it did, you don't seem to understand when someone is offering an opinion.

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

Nope, I just expressed an opinion that your assertion was particularly stupid. Which of course it was.

Your ignorance is not an argument.

Weren't you just whining about ad hominem?

What argument am I avoiding?

Oh I don't have enough time to cover them all. Lets stick with your claim, that was so spectacularly stupid.

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

If you say so...

 

[Fallen Prophet]

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


@Darkstorn did not do this.


@Darkstorn did not do this.



@Darkstorn did not do this.

Therefore, no ad hominem.

I find it so interesting that someone could have access to correct information and still get it so wrong.

So - before I begin - how come the four dictionaries and their definitions of "ad hominem" weren't enough?

Do you not consider them to be accurate sources?

Anyways - you shared three different types of ad hominem - but you intentionally chose a source that gave slightly ambiguous definitions.

The abusive ad hominem fallacy - also known as a "personal attack" - occurs when someone verbally attacks the person making an argument, rather than criticizing the validity of their claim.

Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack): Definition And Examples - Fallacy In Logic

Which is what I have been saying from the start.

Now - I know what you are thinking - because you said something like it before - "They was just childishly name calling you - so not a logical fallacy."

However - if @Darkstorn had offered a valid argument along with the childish name calling - then it would not have been a fallacy.

Most of @Darkstorn's comments to me have been abusive ad hominem fallacies because - instead of offering a valid argument or counter argument - they just call me a "man child" or claim that I hate women.

Your own source agrees with me - but you are just too biased with your "tunnel vision" to see it.

Your source claimed that, "The abusive ad hominem fallacy involves saying that someone’s view should not be accepted because they have some unfavorable property."

Is @Darkstorn's calling me a "man child throwing a tantrum" and claiming that I hate women - without offering any explanation or counterargument - attempts to get others to accept or reject my views?

Did @Darkstorn ever argue against the validity of my arguments?

Technically - @Darkstorn's claim that I hate women is a circumstantial ad hominem - because they argue that I only hold the views that I do because I hate women.

The "self-interest" would be me sating my hatred for women.

As to the last ad hominem - tu quoque - it would be impossible for @Darkstorn to use it because they do not know me at all.

@Darkstorn used name calling and other accusation to argue against my views - without ever tackling the validity of my claims.

You can use any ambiguous source you want - but I will always have more sources agreeing with me - because I am right.

It is pure ad hominem.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

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

I have talked about "bodily autonomy" on this thread already.

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

Human life begins at conception.

A mother, father and child are created at conception.

Killing not-yet-born children is murder and should be avoided.

 

[ppp]

I find it so interesting that someone could have access to correct information and still get it so wrong.

I find it completely expected that you didn't bother to read the article that you supplied for content.

From your article:
Its logical form is as follows:

In other words, it’s an attempt to discredit someone’s argument by directing the focus on their supposed failings – that are unrelated to the issue at hand – such as their character, intelligence, physical appearance, or morals.

• Person A makes argument X.
• Person A is an idiot.
• Therefore, argument X is false."

Which is exactly what I said. Show me the post where @Darkstorn says that your argument bus wrong because you are acting like a petulant man child. Your opinion is irrelevant until you can produce that evidence.

 

[ppp]

I have talked about "bodily autonomy" on this thread already.

I doubt that you even know what the bodily autonomy argument is.

Human life begins at conception.

A mother, father and child are created at conception.

Killing not-yet-born children is murder and should be avoided.

That is not an argument. Neither in the formal sense or the casual. The first two propositions are not connected to one another and do not contain or reference terms that are in the conclusion

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I find it completely expected that you didn't bother to read the article that you supplied for content.

From your article:
Its logical form is as follows:

In other words, it’s an attempt to discredit someone’s argument by directing the focus on their supposed failings – that are unrelated to the issue at hand – such as their character, intelligence, physical appearance, or morals.

• Person A makes argument X.
• Person A is an idiot.
• Therefore, argument X is false."

Which is exactly what I said. Show me the post where @Darkstorn says that your argument bus wrong because you are acting like a petulant man child. Your opinion is irrelevant until you can produce that evidence.

You are focusing on only a small and most irrelevant detail. Read this definition again -

"In other words, it’s an attempt to discredit someone’s argument by directing the focus on their supposed failings – that are unrelated to the issue at hand – such as their character, intelligence, physical appearance, or morals."

@Darkstorn never once mentions the "issue at hand" - all they did was direct the focus on my "supposed" failings.

You don't need to say - verbatim - "Therefore, argument X is false" or speak in absolute terms - all one needs to do is personally attack someone while ignoring their claims.

It is an implicit refutation.

When you look at the totality - the four dictionary definitions, your earlier source and this newest source here - it is clear.

Do you believe @Darkstorn considers my views credible based on their personal attacks?

Yes or No?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I doubt that you even know what the bodily autonomy argument is.

It should be a slam dunk for you then.

That is not an argument. Neither in the formal sense or the casual.

You told me to be "short, sweet and to the point".

I supplied three of my positions.

The first two propositions are not connected to one another and do not contain or reference terms that are in the conclusion

You wouldn't know how many times I have had this discussion with "pro-choice" activists - so I am cutting through the BS.

When I say, "Human life beings at conception" - they cannot dispute that fact - so they label it something else.

"Sure - it's a human "thing" - like a blood cell - but it's not like it's a baby or anything."

Since the biological sex is determined at conception - it is someone's son or daughter - therefore a mother, father and child are created.

No word games or obfuscating labels. Blastocyst, zygote, embryo, fetus - doesn't matter - he/she is a child.

Since at the moment of conception a human child is created - killing that child would be murder.

And murder is wrong.

I don't use the term "abortion" to keep it all clinical and sterile - it's murder.

I await your claims to "legality", "bodily autonomy" or "viability" or whatever lame-*** excuse you want to use to justify murdering the not-yet-born child.

 

[Darkstorn]

Do you believe @Darkstorn considers my views credible based on their personal attacks?

Yes or No?

No. But i haven't argued your views, i only commented about your behavior. And your behavior is that of a petulant man child.

I didn't use this as a way to reinforce my argument: I didn't have any. I didn't use it to discredit your argument; I don't believe you have any.

But i do believe you're acting with emotions and those emotions seem to be anger, frustration, and general child-like behavior.

Which is why i'm refusing to engage you on your terms.

/E: And this is basically the most you'll get out of me. Take it or leave it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Point one:
Why stop with abortions? If they're protected so is human sacrifice.

Can you tell us how to make this equivalence without relying in any way on your religion?

Second point:
Whether you agree with abortion as a right or not. What kind of sick religion thinks it's a sacrament?

If we're allowed to strip away rights from religions we think are sick now, then I have some other ideas about how to use this newfound power.

Take a moment to reflect on any beams in the eye of your own church and then ask yourself if this a road you want to go down.

 

[ppp]

You are focusing on only a small and

All you are doing is quoting stuff that supports my statement. I'm bored.

 

[ppp]

When I say, "Human life beings at conception" - they cannot dispute that fact - so they label it something else.

Irrelevant to my position. As I said, you don't comprehend bodily autonomy. You keep trying to argue about stuff that would not affect my position even is your claims were sound and well considered.

 

[ppp]

It should be a slam dunk for you then.

Yep. You are not arguing against my position. You are arguing against a position that is assumed by the script you are following. Dunked.

I supplied three of my positions.

I asked you for your argument. Not your positions. Come back when you understand the difference.

 

[Sheldon]

Human life begins at conception.

A facile observation, that certainly doesn't justify enslaving women by taking away their bodily autonomy. This position is not an argument against abortion, it gets a big so what?

A mother, father and child are created at conception.

No they're not, this simply inaccurate hyperbole, and only a woman's body is being affected at this point. Again this is not a sound argument against abortion, or for enslaving women.

Killing not-yet-born children is murder and should be avoided.

Abortion does not involve children, and murder is defined as unlawful, as has been explained to you exhaustively, this is not argument against abortion, it is a facile misrepresentation of the facts.

 

[Sheldon]

Irrelevant to my position. As I said, you don't comprehend bodily autonomy. You keep trying to argue about stuff that would not affect my position even is your claims were sound and well considered.

I'm reminded of a comment by Matt Dillahunty, facing the same claim he told a caller, and I'm paraphrasing, "I don't care, I don't care if you think it's in there writing poetry, you cannot assign it rights that take away a woman's bodily autonomy."

 

[Fallen Prophet]

No. But i haven't argued your views, i only commented about your behavior. And your behavior is that of a petulant man child.

I didn't use this as a way to reinforce my argument: I didn't have any. I didn't use it to discredit your argument; I don't believe you have any.

But i do believe you're acting with emotions and those emotions seem to be anger, frustration, and general child-like behavior.

Which is why i'm refusing to engage you on your terms.

/E: And this is basically the most you'll get out of me. Take it or leave it.

This is all ad hominem.

All personal attacks - pointing out some supposed flaw in my personality or behavior - with no attempt to address the validity of my views - while simultaneously arguing that I am wrong (I don't even have an argument) because of the supposed flaw in my personality or behavior.

The only way this could not be an ad hominem is if you had also provided an argument to challenge my views.

I mean - you don't even back up your claims about the supposed flaws in my personality or behavior - you just state them as if they are fact.

It is all ad hominem - which is the path of the ignorant, lazy or immature - perhaps all three.

 

[Darkstorn]

This is all ad hominem.

All personal attacks - pointing out some supposed flaw in my personality or behavior - with no attempt to address the validity of my views - while simultaneously arguing that I am wrong (I don't even have an argument) because of the supposed flaw in my personality or behavior.

The only way this could not be an ad hominem is if you had also provided an argument to challenge my views.

I mean - you don't even back up your claims about the supposed flaws in my personality or behavior - you just state them as if they are fact.

It is all ad hominem - which is the path of the ignorant, lazy or immature - perhaps all three.

I don't accept your definition of ad hominem. Using it calling you "pretty" would be an ad hominem.

I never argued that you're wrong. I also never argued that you are right.

Besides, why so angry all the time?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

All you are doing is quoting stuff that supports my statement. I'm bored.

Than you agree that @Darkstorn engaged in abusive ad hominem attacks - because the sources I quoted from would support that statement.

Either way - you sure are bending over backward to defend your "comrade-in-arms" who engaged in petty and childish name calling.

Irrelevant to my position.

Considering that I am seemingly unaware of your position - this shouldn't be a surprise.

I was stating my position and sharing my past experience - not making any case about you and yours.

As I said, you don't comprehend bodily autonomy.

Yes - a remarkably baseless statement to make.

Why not share your case of "bodily autonomy"? You've had several chances.

I told you that if I am so ill-equipped to handle that position - it should be a "slam dunk" for you.

You keep trying to argue about stuff that would not affect my position even is your claims were sound and well considered.

Again - I am still unaware of your position.

You can share your opinion about my claims all day - but that wouldn't prove anything or convince anyone.

Why not present your case - explain why my claims are "unsound" and not "well considered"?

Yep. You are not arguing against my position. You are arguing against a position that is assumed by the script you are following. Dunked.

All you keep doing is telling me that I don't know or comprehend the "bodily autonomy" argument - while I keep telling you to share it.

Again - I am unaware of your position - therefore I am not arguing against it.

I am presenting my claims and sharing my past experience with other "pro-choice" activists.

I asked you for your argument. Not your positions. Come back when you understand the difference.

No. I believe what I have shared is sufficient and you are unwilling - or unable - to challenge them.

 

[Sheldon]

It is all ad hominem - which is the path of the ignorant, lazy or immature - perhaps all three.

Irony overload...

 

[Fallen Prophet]

A facile observation, that certainly doesn't justify enslaving women by taking away their bodily autonomy.

How am I taking away anyone's "bodily autonomy"?

This position is not an argument against abortion, it gets a big so what?

It is a fact that the "pro-choice" activists want to keep hidden from women who are considering murdering their children.

It is a statement of fact - not an argument for or against anything.

No they're not, this simply inaccurate hyperbole, and only a woman's body is being affected at this point.

No - it is completely accurate.

I challenge you to prove that it isn't.

Yes - the mother's body is being affected - as is the body of the child - and possibly the next eighteen years or so of the father depending on the choices made by the mother.

Again this is not a sound argument against abortion, or for enslaving women.

I clearly stated that it was my position - not an argument.

It is a fact that you don't want anyone considering - for obvious reasons.

Abortion does not involve children

A child is someone's son or daughter and the biological sex of the not-yet-born is determined at the moment of conception.

The not-yet-born fit all the criteria of "child" - but you take issue with it because you want people to remain ignorant.

and murder is defined as unlawful, as has been explained to you exhaustively

Yes - you have explained that you believe that slaveholders murdering their recaptured slaves was justified - but that doesn't "fly well" today.

Abolitionists at the time were correct when they argued that the enslavement, rape and murder of Black people was wrong and should be abolished.

I am correct today and the law will reflect that in time.

this is not argument against abortion, it is a facile misrepresentation of the facts.

The facts are that human life begins at conception - as does the creation of a child, mother and father.

You can keep sharing your opinion about these facts - but they remain unaffected by your opinion.

You don't have to believe that murdering a child is wrong - just like you do not agree with a slaveholder murdering their slave was wrong - but that doesn't make the not-yet-born children any less dead or victims of murder.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I don't accept your definition of ad hominem.

Obviously and it's not surprising.

Those who engage in reprehensible behavior tend not to describe their behavior as such.

Using it calling you "pretty" would be an ad hominem.

You could and many people have.

I never argued that you're wrong. I also never argued that you are right.

Correct - which is proof that you engaged in ad hominem.

Besides, why so angry all the time?

More ad hominem.

You are trying to use the claim that I am angry to undermine my position.