A fetus is not alive? Waaah?

[Shogun]

The fact remains that a fetus is a genetically distinct human being. I'll go ahead and skip the part where the guy trying to make an equivalence between a chimp and a human baby is giving out advice on the strength of an argument.


Let's put it THIS way... Le's say I've got your child sitting next to a chimp and I'm going to shoot one of them in the face with a 9mm. Are you busy making equivalences or are you busy hoping that I shoot the monkey instead of your genetically distinct human offspring? Should I shoot your child because the chimp can interact with environment more than your 2 year old? No? Then spare me your silly lecture on this debate while you suggest that a human being is somehow less worthy of consideration than a ******* primate.

A fetus is not a child, you genetically distinct human dimwit!

that certainly IS your opinion.... Do you need someone to explain meiosis to you again?

 

[Agnapostate]

Again, if some bullshit conjecture from your high school debate class keeps you from having to place inherent value on the developmental stages of your own species then good for you. The INDISPUTABLE fact is that a human fetus is A) a Homo Erectus as opposed to a ******* baboon and B) a genetically distinct individual that, AGAIN, is not an insect, monkey or any other laughable learch at some comedic utilitarian excuse to kill HUMAN babies.

I've not seen any "utilitarian excuse to kill human babies." Perhaps you've been reading the Heritage Foundation's articles about Peter Singer? I don't especially care if you think the superiority of a human infant to a chimpanzee or similarly aware great ape is "indisputable." It was once similarly claimed that the doctrine of white superiority to blacks was "indisputable," which should indicate the value of asserting irrational conclusions without attempting to provide logical support for them.

No adult chimp is worth any remote equivalent to that of a human being. If this is what you think some bullshit ethical standard allows then it's pretty clear why you must reach for a long list of logical fallacy straw men instead of face the fact that human beings, in ANY stage of development, are superior to, excuse me while I laugh my ******* ass off at you, a CHIMP.

There has been no post of mine in this thread that can be accurately referred to as "[a strawman]," which makes me inclined to believe that you blindly used the term without knowledge of what it actually means. You have again committed a petitio principii fallacy (begging the question), in that you assume that your preconceived ideological conclusion must be accepted without challenge and is accurate regardless of your support of it through logical argument. To accept that would require me to abandon logical analysis, and that's not something that I'm willing to do.

 

[Agnapostate]

Meh... this guy's one trick is to pull some bullshit utilitarian excuses from his hat just to be argumentative. Agnapostate does the same thing when rationalizing 44 year old men ******* 13 year old girls.

I can conceive of no logically sound utilitarian justification for that. Perhaps you'd care to explain that more fully?

It truly is the ethical rule set that appeals because it can be twisted in any way according to individual opinion of value based utility.

That is not an accurate assessment. Any measurement of utility must necessarily be dependent on an objective and rational application of felicific calculus, and thus must necessarily consider intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent. Your reference appears to be to ethical egoism, though remains skewed and somewhat inaccurate.

I'd bet this guy is just flexing what he learned in ethics 101 this semester.

I'm afraid not, my boy. Ethics 101 came quite a while for me, though it would certainly aid your woeful ignorance.

 

[Valerie]

I'd bet this guy is just flexing what he learned in ethics 101 this semester.

Yep.

Any measurement of utility must necessarily be dependent on an objective and rational application of felicific calculus, and thus must necessarily consider intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent.

You lost me at an infant is not a person.

So tell me Nemesis, which were you derived from? A caterpillar or a chimp fetus?

 

[Valerie]

An infant is not a person?

No. An infant lacks self-awareness (the ability to conceptualize itself as an independently existing entity), and thus lacks the ability to suffer from its own death in the same manner that a normal human can, since it cannot conceptualize of its own death.

Just because he doesn't offer the argument or "define any element" does not mean it is not so. Get back to me when the butterfly or the chimp can argue otherwise.

I've not seen a fetus "argue otherwise." Conversely, a chimpanzee possesses a greater degree of basic sentience and self-awareness than a human fetus does and has a concept of time, therefore likely also having a concept of its own existence.

So what if your wife shoots you in the head while you sleep and you don't feel a thing -- no sentience or self awareness -- ?

 

[Valerie]

If you see no difference between the following then I feel sorry for your family if you were to be ever caught in a fire at the zoo. You can hide behind whatever jargon you learned in debate class all you want. If you make an equivelance between a human baby and a chimp then you fail this topic at the starting gate. Human feti are not caterpillars. They are not baboons. They are not dogs, cats, gerbils or bats. Their inherent value above animals SHOULDN'T have to be explained to another human being. But, again, feel free to talk debate fallacies with the roaring flame as you guide a chimp to safety instead of your own child.

Another logical fallacy, I see. This one is known as the argumentum ad misericordiam, or more commonly, the "appeal to pity." I shall again note that emotional partiality to a human infant (though I don't see how this applies to abortion, since an aborted fetus is obviously not an object of "partiality"), over a chimpanzee, for instance, does not endow the human with greater moral value any more than emotional partiality to one's own child over three stranger children endows one's own child with greater moral value than the stranger children.

Instead of advancing logical arguments, you've chosen to rely on repeatedly begging the question. Rather than argue about whether an adult chimpanzee could be of greater moral value than a human fetus, you instead claim that there is no argument, effectively constituting an "argument before an argument." You draw conclusions based on premises that you allege are "indisputable." Similar claims were once made about the inferiority of blacks to whites or women to men, yet those premises are obviously not logically sound. It is thus incumbent upon modern analysts to defend their premises and conclusions with the usage of the best logically sound arguments available, to therefore avoid falling prey to a similar pattern of irrational discrimination.

Of course, as was mentioned previously, you're under no compulsion to advance logically sound arguments, though similarly, others are obviously under no obligation to pretend that you had.

Again, if some bullshit conjecture from your high school debate class keeps you from having to place inherent value on the developmental stages of your own species then good for you. The INDISPUTABLE fact is that a human fetus is A) a Homo Erectus as opposed to a ******* baboon and B) a genetically distinct individual that, AGAIN, is not an insect, monkey or any other laughable learch at some comedic utilitarian excuse to kill HUMAN babies.

No adult chimp is worth any remote equivalent to that of a human being. If this is what you think some bullshit ethical standard allows then it's pretty clear why you must reach for a long list of logical fallacy straw men instead of face the fact that human beings, in ANY stage of development, are superior to, excuse me while I laugh my ******* ass off at you, a CHIMP.

Me too!

 

[Agnapostate]

Yep.

As mentioned, Ethics 101 came quite a while for me, though some here could undoubtedly profit from an elementary review of basic ethical concepts, as well as the nature of logical argument.

You lost me at an infant is not a person.

I understand that argument can be tedious for some. Still, try to keep up!

So tell me Nemesis, which were you derived from? A caterpillar or a chimp fetus?

Little of both.

Oh, wait...this comment serves no purpose other than being an irrational strawman based on a perverted misinterpretation and depiction of my remarks. A live chimpanzee possesses a greater awareness of its existence and surroundings and a greater capacity to feel pain than a human fetus does. It is evidently on such grounds that humans in general are considered superior to other animals; why is such a standard therefore not applicable here?

So what if your wife shoots you in the head while you sleep and you don't feel a thing -- no sentience or self awareness -- ?

An average person was previously self-aware prior to falling asleep and thus had the opportunity to form preferences and interests about the future. Killing such a person in his or her sleep would effectively constitute a denial of those preferences just as assuredly as killing him or her whilst in a waking state would. If one were to form a desire to go to the cinema on the weekend, as well as another to go to the beach, the desire to go to the cinema would not cease to exist simply because such a person was temporarily considering the plan to go to the beach. It would simply not be actively focused on. The same is true for the state of preferences and interests of a sleeping person.

 

[Ravi]

Jeesh...I can't believe Mani totally wussed out of this thread and refused to answer my question.

 

[Shogun]

Again, if some bullshit conjecture from your high school debate class keeps you from having to place inherent value on the developmental stages of your own species then good for you. The INDISPUTABLE fact is that a human fetus is A) a Homo Erectus as opposed to a ******* baboon and B) a genetically distinct individual that, AGAIN, is not an insect, monkey or any other laughable learch at some comedic utilitarian excuse to kill HUMAN babies.

I've not seen any "utilitarian excuse to kill human babies." Perhaps you've been reading the Heritage Foundation's articles about Peter Singer? I don't especially care if you think the superiority of a human infant to a chimpanzee or similarly aware great ape is "indisputable." It was once similarly claimed that the doctrine of white superiority to blacks was "indisputable," which should indicate the value of asserting irrational conclusions without attempting to provide logical support for them.

No adult chimp is worth any remote equivalent to that of a human being. If this is what you think some bullshit ethical standard allows then it's pretty clear why you must reach for a long list of logical fallacy straw men instead of face the fact that human beings, in ANY stage of development, are superior to, excuse me while I laugh my ******* ass off at you, a CHIMP.

There has been no post of mine in this thread that can be accurately referred to as "[a strawman]," which makes me inclined to believe that you blindly used the term without knowledge of what it actually means. You have again committed a petitio principii fallacy (begging the question), in that you assume that your preconceived ideological conclusion must be accepted without challenge and is accurate regardless of your support of it through logical argument. To accept that would require me to abandon logical analysis, and that's not something that I'm willing to do.

I'll tell you what, dude.. When the Martin Luther King of ******* CHIMPS become the apex of our decade of animal equality then, perhaps, you'll look less stupid for trying to compare ETHNIC SEGREGATION OF HUMAN BEINGS with EQUATING THE VALUE OF A HUMAN BEING AND A CHIMP

 

[Shogun]

Meh... this guy's one trick is to pull some bullshit utilitarian excuses from his hat just to be argumentative. Agnapostate does the same thing when rationalizing 44 year old men ******* 13 year old girls.

I can conceive of no logically sound utilitarian justification for that. Perhaps you'd care to explain that more fully?

It truly is the ethical rule set that appeals because it can be twisted in any way according to individual opinion of value based utility.

That is not an accurate assessment. Any measurement of utility must necessarily be dependent on an objective and rational application of felicific calculus, and thus must necessarily consider intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent. Your reference appears to be to ethical egoism, though remains skewed and somewhat inaccurate.

I'd bet this guy is just flexing what he learned in ethics 101 this semester.

I'm afraid not, my boy. Ethics 101 came quite a while for me, though it would certainly aid your woeful ignorance.

*yawn*


get back to me after chimps get their Malcom X day in the ethical sun, ************.





It was once similarly claimed that the doctrine of white superiority to blacks was "indisputable






This pretty much sums up the FAIL moment you are having here. With gems like this I can fathom why you'd have to duck and cover behind bullshit jargon from your ethics class.

 

[Agnapostate]

Similarly, when a fetus agitates for its own rights, then we can consider your argument sound.

Your ignorant ranting aside, the point was to illustrate the fact that an allegedly "indisputable" doctrine was in fact eventually considered irrational. Your distortion was based on the idea that I had directly compared differences in species to differences in race. I did not. The purpose of the comparison was to illustrate the folly of simply considering certain doctrines "indisputable" without logically sound analysis. I could have just as easily referred to belief in a flat earth or geocentric solar system. Your post was thus a strawman.

Not to worry. It's become quite clear to all rational observers that you're incapable of formulating an argument.

 

[HUGGY]

I'm not going to name names but I recently saw another poster make one the most dumbfounding statements I've ever seen posted on a messageboard. And it inspired this thread. The comment in question was that abortion doesn't kill a fetus because a fetus isn't alive. Yes, you heard that correct. I repeat, abortion doesn't kill a fetus because a fetus isn't alive.

So then I wonder, am I missing something? Because honestly, I can't imagine how anyone without seriously diminished intellectual capacity could actually believe that a normal, healthy fetus isn't alive. For the record, I am pro-choice. But I am certainly not capable of the mental gymnastics required to fool myself into believing that abortion isn't killing a fetus. That's simply absurd.

What do you make of this?

I think that according to Gunnys rules this thread is stupid, baiting, going over old ground trolling.

 

[Shogun]

Similarly, when a fetus agitates for its own rights, then we can consider your argument sound.

Your ignorant ranting aside, the point was to illustrate the fact that an allegedly "indisputable" doctrine was in fact eventually considered irrational. Your distortion was based on the idea that I had directly compared differences in species to differences in race. I did not. The purpose of the comparison was to illustrate the folly of simply considering certain doctrines "indisputable" without logically sound analysis. I could have just as easily referred to belief in a flat earth or geocentric solar system. Your post was thus a strawman.

Not to worry. It's become quite clear to all rational observers that you're incapable of formulating an argument.

A fetus, if given the chance to live, CAN levy for their own rights. When was the last Million CHIMP march, again?




Trust me, dude... your criticism is about as valid as a CHIMP throwing poo at the zoo cage after trying to draw a correlation between baby HUMANS and monkeys..

 

[Agnapostate]

A fetus, if given the chance to live, CAN levy for their own rights. When was the last Million CHIMP march, again?



Trust me, dude... your criticism is about as valid as a CHIMP throwing poo at the zoo cage after trying to draw a correlation between baby HUMANS and monkeys..

The logical unsoundness of the argument from potential has already been addressed through reference to the analogy involving the chicken and the egg. Simply because an organism has the potential to obtain greater awareness or sensory capacities in the future does not make it morally equivalent to itself in this advanced state, because in its less developed state, it does not have the capacity to suffer in the same manner as in its advanced state.

That being said, wanking brings about a potential person Holocaust, amirite?

 

[Shogun]

A fetus, if given the chance to live, CAN levy for their own rights. When was the last Million CHIMP march, again?



Trust me, dude... your criticism is about as valid as a CHIMP throwing poo at the zoo cage after trying to draw a correlation between baby HUMANS and monkeys..

The logical unsoundness of the argument from potential has already been addressed through reference to the analogy involving the chicken and the egg. Simply because an organism has the potential to obtain greater awareness or sensory capacities in the future does not make it morally equivalent to itself in this advanced state, because in its less developed state, it does not have the capacity to suffer in the same manner as in its advanced state.

That being said, wanking brings about a potential person Holocaust, amirite?

that certainly may be your OPINION filtered through some bullshit ethic 101 paradigm but I assure you that your silly ******* OPINION is about as significant as your Martin Luther Ape correlation.

You, sir, need to stop taking the Planet of the Apes movies so seriously.


wanking doesn't kill fertilized embryos. Perhaps you should have spent more time in the biology department instead of soft science ethical classes.

 

[manifold]

Jeesh...I can't believe Mani totally wussed out of this thread and refused to answer my question.

Liar.

 

[Ravi]

Jeesh...I can't believe Mani totally wussed out of this thread and refused to answer my question.

Liar.

Thanks for the rep, moron.

You did not answer my question on consistency. You pretended my question of consistency was between your paraphrasing and my actual statement. It was not.

 

[manifold]

Jeesh...I can't believe Mani totally wussed out of this thread and refused to answer my question.

Liar.

Thanks for the rep, moron.

You did not answer my question on consistency. You pretended my question of consistency was between your paraphrasing and my actual statement. It was not.

Your question was vague. I took a stab at interpretting it. If I'm wrong, perhaps you could work on being clearer rather than being a lying cuntrag.

 

[Ravi]

My question was clarified later on in the thread. And you still haven't answered it.

 

[Agnapostate]

that certainly may be your OPINION filtered through some bullshit ethic 101 paradigm but I assure you that your silly ******* OPINION is about as significant as your Martin Luther Ape correlation.

You, sir, need to stop taking the Planet of the Apes movies so seriously.

I understand that the perpetuation of your strawman allows you to avoid making legitimate comment about the arguments presented, but it would be a pleasant gesture on your part if you didn't do it so blatantly. As previously mentioned, I did not attempt to make a direct comparison between the civil rights movement and my comparison of great apes and human fetuses. Rather, my reference was intended to illustrate the fact that doctrines once considered "indisputable" (reference to belief in a geocentric solar system could also have sufficed), were no longer considered such after the application of a logically sound analysis. Again, your strawman has permitted you to circumvent the intent of the comparison, but that's enough of those games now. Don't be shy; advance a legitimate argument.

wanking doesn't kill fertilized embryos. Perhaps you should have spent more time in the biology department instead of soft science ethical classes.

This would be relevant if you had any sort of legitimate argument that supported the claim that fertilized embryos possessed any significant moral value. Since you have thus far failed to advance any such argument, you effectively can't argue that a fertilized embryo has any greater value than that cumshot you send out when you watch Planet of the Apes.