NOW Spokeswoman asks, "Was It Born?"

Sofia wrote:

Possibly, the all-important straw man...

I don't get the nuances of throwing up these terms. I only know their usage seems to be a dodge of the real issue. As Blatham's argument on this subject seems to be.

Sofia,

These terms are only used to dodge issues by people who do not substantiate their claims. When you just tie them together and use them fecklessly they are an avoidance of the issue.

Fact is, sometimes the opposition's argument is entirely based on a logical fallacy.

e.g.

Man A argues that we can't do X or it would lead to XX and XXX.

Man B says that his argument is a "sippery slope" argument. You can't say something will lead to other things without proving the relationship between the two.

Now if man A says I think x leads to xx and even to xxx because studies have shown that people who do x do xx 5 days later 90% of the time.

THEN man b can't call it a slippery slope, it can still be a fallacy (most likely a Post hoc ergo propter hoc) but it did not fall under the slippery slope fallacy.

Now of course if your argument is called a straw man and to reciprocate you decide to call the other argument a straw man without susbtabtiating then the terms are reduced to nonsense.

0 Replies

Lazy Fingers

Sofia wrote:

And many members, who have been thumped with the labels of 'straw men' and 'red herring' would surely say the same thing.

Either these terms apply evenly to all, or to no one.

blatham wrote:

Quote:
Once more collateral damage to civilians is being used for psychologic war purposes and sheer and outrageous anti-American propaganda.
steissd

That's a straw man argument http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/straw.htm and more folks here ought to get clear on why this logical move is both stupid-making for the speaker and a waste of time for everyone else.

perception wrote:

Blatham

That's a straw man argument http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/straw.htm and more folks here ought to get clear on why this logical move is both stupid-making for the speaker and a waste of time for everyone else.

If everyone on this forum adhered to this rule the entire content would be reduced to a couple of pages IMHO

Craven de Kere wrote:

fishin' wrote:

Again, show me. Find me a single sports team (the example you chose) where the value of the team is based on the flesh of the members of that team. I've seen things like projected ticket sales revenue, players salaries, advertising revenue and a lot of other things included in those sorts of numbers but I've yet to see a price tag put of human flesh on any balance sheet.

I'm too lazy to find you an article but many sports allow you to "buy a player". You actually buy the "pass" or the rights to the player but you can trade the player or sell him/ for money. It would not be too much trouble to find but I think you know what I'm talking about and intend to argue that semantics say they are sold while the law makes it less implicit.

The flesh does not find it's way onto the ledger but the money spent to aquire the rights to said flesh does. The players , an asset to the company, are often insured and are frequently not allowed under the policy to engage in certain acts. Sky diving for example. For all intents and purposes they are a bought and sold commodity.

fishin' wrote:

Quote:
I'm too lazy to find you an article but many sports allow you to "buy a player". You actually buy the "pass" or the rights to the player but you can trade the player or sell him/ for money. It would not be too much trouble to find but I think you know what I'm talking about and intend to argue that semantics say they are sold while the law makes it less implicit.

Come on now Craven. You're being intellectually dishonest here. Are you trying to say that there is no difference between property (which has zero rights, has no say, has no right to any compensation and is not given any consideration in matters) and someone that signs a contract and agrees to sell their personal services? Sports teams don't buy or sell the player's flesh. They are buying the players services and the player has full say in whether or not they want to be involved.

Frank Apisa wrote:

However, as someone pointed out earlier, many of us who argue for a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy on demand --.

All these accusations of dodging the issue and Straw man arguments, and this little gem goes by, without an iota of questioning dissent.

You see Sofia, it seems that these terms are only thrown out there, when it serves a few of the members, when they are just plain being lazy.

0 Replies

just because we don't get involved in your argument does not mean our arguments are not valid. That's another logical fallacy.

I simply have no intention of wasting my time on your argument. If you start it deal with it. Don't complain that we don't bail you out.

0 Replies

If you care to enter a logical debate I will be happy to point our your fallacies as well. I have ignored them because i dislike tedium.

0 Replies

Time Wasted

Craven de Kere wrote:

just because we don't get involved in your argument does not mean our arguments are not valid. That's another logical fallacy.

But you are involved, and to continue this exercise, while allowing questionable statements to pass by without comment, while challenging other views that you consider a Straw Man approach, is hypocrisy.

This statement: "just because we don't get involved in your argument does not mean our arguments are not valid. That's another logical fallacy."

Sheer nonsense on your part... Your ignoring my direct question, and issuing your little vain attempt in dismissing my argument is laughable.

I initiated this thread, and this is my article, to see where it goes. I am the one with the questions to be answered or solved. I am the one directing the overall course of discussion (it obvious that there is no active Moderator.) For you to simply state: "I simply have no intention of wasting my time on your argument.," is a cop-out.

I would expect a direct answer or opinion of this direct quote:

"However, as someone pointed out earlier, many of us who argue for a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy on demand --.,"

or I would expect you to ignore it entirely. I don't need your laziness to point out some "pseudo nonsense of illogical fallacies," directed at me.

0 Replies

Just because you consider something uestionable diesn't mean I have to. Get a grip. I didn't even read most of your exchanges with Frank, all I remember is that a huge deal was being made over the word it.

No it is not sheer nonsense, I simply am uninterested in bailing you out of your argument. The fact that you started the discussion doesn't translate into you getting any help in your discussion with Frank.

But I'll amuse you, my opinion on that comment is that women should have a right to terminate pregnancy on demand. If you find that "questionable" it is your prerogative, I don't. Now quit begging people to find a statement questionable when to them it isn't.

0 Replies

Re: Lazy Fingers

ferrous wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

However, as someone pointed out earlier, many of us who argue for a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy on demand --.

All these accusations of dodging the issue and Straw man arguments, and this little gem goes by, without an iota of questioning dissent.

I wouldn't dissent from it because I largely agree with it. But, and you'll have to pardon a little vanity on my part here, I assumed that the "someone" that Frank was referring to was me. It's possible that he was referring to someone else though..

0 Replies

Re: Lazy Fingers

fishin' wrote:

I wouldn't dissent from it because I largely agree with it. But, and you'll have to pardon a little vanity on my part here, I assumed that the "someone" that Frank was referring to was me. It's possible that he was referring to someone else though..

It may very well have been you, Fishin'. I can't find the quote just now. But many of us are worried about allowing any kind of restrictions -- even the ones we feel may be justified -- simply because we worry that any resstrictions will be used by the anti-choice people as a lever to exact further restrictions.

A woman's right to terminate a pregnancy simply has to be maintained.

0 Replies

Re: Lazy Fingers

Frank Apisa wrote:

fishin' wrote:
I wouldn't dissent from it because I largely agree with it. But, and you'll have to pardon a little vanity on my part here, I assumed that the "someone" that Frank was referring to was me. It's possible that he was referring to someone else though..

It may very well have been you, Fishin'. I can't find the quote just now. But many of us are worried about allowing any kind of restrictions -- even the ones we feel may be justified -- simply because we worry that any resstrictions will be used by the anti-choice people as a lever to exact further restrictions.

A woman's right to terminate a pregnancy simply has to be maintained.

Abortion on demand, without a valid medical reason, should NEVER be maintained. Why should abortion MILLS be founded and funded?

0 Replies

Another State level court ruling in this realm (although in this case, the charges and ruling are actually in reverse of the prior discussion!):

Connecticut high court says fetus is body part
Ruling makes fetus akin to skin, teeth
Thursday, May 8, 2003 Posted: 12:02 AM EDT (0402 GMT)

HARTFORD, Connecticut (AP) -- Angering both sides of the abortion debate, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a fetus is a body part, akin to teeth, skin and hair that are eventually shed.

The ruling unanimously upheld the conviction of a man who tried to induce a miscarriage by slipping his girlfriend labor-inducing drugs. Edwin Sandoval argued he could not be charged with attempting to commit aggravated assault because the fetus was the target, not the mother.

Though the court held that the 5-week-old fetus was part of the woman's body, Chief Justice William J. Sullivan issued a separate concurring opinion saying a fetus might have "its own independent existence."

"In other words, the fetus may both be a part of its mother as well as its own individual being," Sullivan wrote.

Anti-abortion groups applauded the court's protection of the fetus, but criticized the identification of a fetus as a body part.

"It could have had a different blood type, and certainly it had different DNA," said Bill O'Brien, vice president of the Connecticut Right to Life Corp.

Sullivan's opinion, which declared that a fetus may be entitled to legal protection, drew criticism from abortion rights groups.

"Any time I hear about giving rights to fetuses, I get concerned," said Elaine Werner, executive director of the Connecticut chapter of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. "That's the slippery slope to eroding Roe vs. Wade."

Justice Sullivan: "The fetus may both be a part of its mother as well as its own individual being."
Sandoval was sentenced in 2001 to 12 years in prison for using ulcer medication in an attempt to induce a miscarriage. The woman later gave birth to a healthy son.

Gov. John G. Rowland is expected to sign a bill increasing the penalties for someone convicted of assaulting a pregnant woman and causing her to lose the fetus. The assault would be punishable by 10 to 25 years in prison.

Defense attorney Paula Waite said if the fetus is its own life form, the state's abortion laws are in question. If the fetus is a body part, laws increasing the penalty for assaulting a pregnant woman could be jeopardized.

Another defense attorney promised to appeal.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/07/fetus.ruling.ap/index.html

0 Replies

Skin and teeth are "terminal products " of human development. No way can they be compared to a developing embryo/fetus.

0 Replies

Re: Lazy Fingers

New Haven wrote:

Abortion on demand, without a valid medical reason, should NEVER be maintained.

Really!!!

Well the United States Supreme Court -- and the laws of the United States -- seem to think otherwise.

So get with the program!

New Haven also wrote:

Quote:

Why should abortion MILLS be founded and funded?

I might ask that same question about churches -- but why do so? What does a question like that have to do with this discussion?

0 Replies

Re: Lazy Fingers

Frank Apisa wrote:

New Haven wrote:
Abortion on demand, without a valid medical reason, should NEVER be maintained.

Really!!!

Well the United States Supreme Court -- and the laws of the United States -- seem to think otherwise.

So get with the program!

New Haven also wrote:

Quote:
Why should abortion MILLS be founded and funded?

I might ask that same question about churches -- but why do so? What does a question like that have to do with this discussion?

Does God care or even worry about the US Supreme Court and their decisions? Of course not! God's law is what counts. Keep that in mind as you approach the hour of judgement.

0 Replies

Re: Lazy Fingers

New Haven wrote:

Does God care or even worry about the US Supreme Court and their decisions?

God????

You have a particular god in mind, New Haven?

And if Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny don't care what the Supreme Court and their decisions say -- do we throw those decisions into the waste basket.

Quote:

Of course not! God's law is what counts. Keep that in mind as you approach the hour of judgement.

Aha!

So you must be referring to that monster from the Bible.

I understand why you are so frightened of that cartoon -- but some of us are adults -- and we can treat it with a bit of humor.

You ought to work on your sense of humor, NH. It sucks.

0 Replies

does Ashcroft have sense of humour? oh yeah i forgot about gallows humour never mind

0 Replies

NOW Spokeswoman asks, "Was It Born?"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know