Missouri bans Gay Marriage

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Yorick: Sure. One opinion paves the way for (seemingly) guiltless murder, while the other doesn't.

Look, I appreciate your commitment to your cause. However, since the OPINION in question is as to whether it's a human or not, then your statement here is absolutely logically flawed. In fact, neither opinion on the issue paves the way for murder. One opinion disallows murder of a human, and the other opinion can't be murder, because it isn't human. Again, say it louder and stronger, and with more emotional bile all you want, but that doesn't make it true.

Therefore, I hereby award this statement with

[img]graemlins/shine.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/shine.gif[/img]

THE WEEKLY MOST WONDERFUL RIDICULOUS STATEMENT AWARD!!!!!!

[img]graemlins/shine.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/shine.gif[/img]

[ 08-11-2004, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Sure. One opinion paves the way for (seemingly) guiltless murder, while the other doesn't.

Look, I appreciate your commitment to your cause. However, since the OPINION in question is as to whether it's a human or not, then your statement here is absolutely logically flawed. In fact, neither opinion on the issue paves the way for murder. One opinion disallows murder of a human, and the other opinion can't be murder, because it isn't human. Again, say it louder and stronger, and with more emotional bile all you want, but that doesn't make it true.

Therefore, I hereby award this statement with

[img]graemlins/shine.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/shine.gif[/img]

THE YEARS MOST ACCURATE AND COMPELLING STATEMENT AWARD!!!!!!

[img]graemlins/shine.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/shine.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Rather than spend time writing a colorful attempt at ridicule why not take just two seconds to think about what I said. Wouldv've saved us both time.

However you define it, one opinion allows life to be destroyed by devaluing that life, the other opinion seeks to protect that life by according it the same value as the opinioners.

Thus, the first opinion rides over the opinion the lifeform may have once it's able to develop the process of opinionating. In short, the proaborter craps all over any rights, life, or needs the developing human lifeform may have, will have, should have or could have.

That is my point which you so quickly attempted to sideline with your wonderful attempt at colourful ridicule. So cheers and have a nice day wonderboy.

[ 08-11-2004, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Timber Loftis]

Yorick, you just don't get it. I don't have the patience to teach you elementary logic.

However, to give you one more chance to reflect: Look at the following opinions:

First, since your original statement was about MURDER (the killing of a person) which you have now changed to the taking of LIFE generally, we have to parse out the three different possible opinions at issue.

1. Opinion that the fetus is not life: this opinion does not allow life to be destroyed by supporting abortion. In YOUR opinion it may, but that is based on a DIFFERENT opinion (yours) and is irrelevant for making a statement that this opinion by its own terms allows life to be destroyed. Under this opinion, it isn't a life, so life can't be destroyed.

2. Opinion that the fetus is a life but is not a human life: this opinion does allow life to be destroyed by supporting abortion, but does not allow murder because the life being destroyed is not human. Again, in YOUR opinion it may, but that is based on a DIFFERENT opinion (yours) and is irrelevant for making a statement that this opinion allows life to be destroyed or murder to be committed.

3. Opinion is that the fetus is a human life, and that abortion is therefore wrong: this opinion does not allow life to be destroyed because it does not support abortion.

4. Just for s*ts and giggles: TL's opinion -- a fetus is a human life, but abortion should be supported and encouraged because in the aggregate much more human mortality is needed to avert the impending overpopulation problem. This one of course does support the taking of life and murder, but this opinion was not one of the opinions we were discussing, so it also matters not.

So, to surmise: you were wrong, you are wrong, and you will probably continue to be wrong because I doubt you will take the time to read and understand this.

[ 08-12-2004, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Yorick]

Oh I uderstand it Timber, I just think it's a pointless way of using time. You're just distracting from the point of the issue. You know very well what is meant by the situation. Instead you're applying the opinions into SUBJECTIVE realities based on that opinion, instead of doing what I was doing - which was looking at the opinions as being determinatives for actions on an OBJECTIVE reality.

Again, really simple. And another pointless waste of time and energy.

[Yorick]

So Timber, due to you seeming failure to remember that not all of us reject the notion of absolute reality, not all of us adhere to the same existentialist view of subjective realities being actual rather than PERCEIVED realities, you get the award for:

[img]graemlins/shine.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/shine.gif[/img]

THE WEEKLY "I HAVE TOO MUCH TIME ON MY HANDS BUT WON'T TAKE MY HEAD OUT OF THE SAND" AWARD!!!!!!

[img]graemlins/shine.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/shine.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Yorick, you just want to make false assertions and then beat on someone until they accept them. All I did was take your own words and argue how your statements were flawed in and of themselves.

What sand? I don't think I'm failing to understand any point-of-view here -- I'm just trying to keep you from twisting things. If YOU think abortion is taking of life, that's fine.

But to say that someone else's opinion means something, you must assume the truth of that opinion -- because you are analyzing it by its own rules.

I'm not trying to distract from anything. In fact, I'm trying to bring a little substance to a discussion which has basically dwindled into "Yorick Repeats Self Ad Infinitum Once Again." I mean, we've seen your opinion 99,000 times already on this thread alone.

But, go ahead, say it again -- it might make it true this time.

[Dirty Meg]

Would it be in bad taste for me to declare both of you winners of the

[img]graemlins/shine.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/shine.gif[/img]

FLAMBOYANTLY COLOURED AD HOMINEM ARGUEMENT AWARD

[img]graemlins/shine.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/shine.gif[/img]

[Magness]

Dirty Meg, they're certainly giving a good try.

[Timber Loftis]

Goodbye.

[img]graemlins/troll.jpg[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Dirty Meg: Would it be in bad taste for me to declare both of you winners of the [img]graemlins/shine.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/shine.gif[/img] FLAMBOYANTLY COLOURED AD HOMINEM ARGUEMENT AWARD [img]graemlins/shine.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/shine.gif[/img]

I do not believe there is an e after the u in "argument" Meg. I thought you had your brain on hand to consult it before typing? Aren't you the careful one? Or were you finally taking poetic license?

[ 08-12-2004, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]