Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

[Seth]

I find it incredibly boring to preach to the choir which is often seen in this sort of fora so I quite often take contrarian positions in order
to expand my knowledge and understanding of the issues. That is what I do. My statements change as the discussion changes in order to
pose contrarian viewpoints that elicit more debate. You can ask anyone who has been around me if this is the case

When you were last asked to actually demonstrate this position you said there was no reason to do so
You clearly have forgotten that for that is the only explanation for you saying the total opposite here
Now if you want credibility as a serious debater then you cannot be posting contradictory statements

Classic example of the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy there. Each debate is distinct from every other debate and I can take any position I please in any debate. The only important thing is whether the arguments are rational and logical within a particular debate, not whether or not I have stated something else in the past.

[Seth]

I find it incredibly boring to preach to the choir which is often seen in this sort of fora so I quite often take contrarian positions in order
to expand my knowledge and understanding of the issues. That is what I do. My statements change as the discussion changes in order to
pose contrarian viewpoints that elicit more debate. You can ask anyone who has been around me if this is the case

When you were last asked to actually demonstrate this position you said there was no reason to do so
You clearly have forgotten that for that is the only explanation for you saying the total opposite here
Now if you want credibility as a serious debater then you cannot be posting contradictory statements

Classic example of the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy there. Each debate is distinct from every other debate and I can take any position I please in any debate. The only important thing is whether the arguments are rational and logical within a particular debate, not whether or not I have stated something else in the past.

[Seth]

I told you, my position is that of the Socratic interlocutor.

I do not recognize that position. That's not a position on the issue. That's you placing yourself outside of discussion, as if you are controlling and guiding it from above. You aren't.

Recognize it or don't, that is, and pretty much has always been my position in every forum I've ever participated in for the last 20+ years. I'm neither "guiding" the discussion,nor am I "controlling" it.

If you are not guiding the discussion, then you're not a Socratic interlocutor. A person who is engaged in the Socratic method is teaching via Socratic interrogation. So, if you're not guiding, then you may be an interloctuor, but not a Socratic one.

"Guiding" implies that others have some obligation to follow. Nobody here has to follow anyone or anything. My posts certainly have the objective of causing the reader to think in a different way from what the other author intended, but it's all voluntary.

But let's suppose arguendo that I am "guiding" the discussion. So the hell what? If you don't want to be guided by the Socratic process, then you are free to fuck off somewhere else, are you not?

[surreptitious57]

I find it incredibly boring to preach to the choir which is often seen in this sort of fora so I quite often take contrarian positions in order
to expand my knowledge and understanding of the issues. That is what I do. My statements change as the discussion changes in order to
pose contrarian viewpoints that elicit more debate. You can ask anyone who has been around me if this is the case

When you were last asked to actually demonstrate this position you said there was no reason to do so
You clearly have forgotten that for that is the only explanation for you saying the total opposite here
Now if you want credibility as a serious debater then you cannot be posting contradictory statements

Classic example of the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy there. Each debate is distinct from every other debate and I can take any position I please in any debate
The only important thing is whether the arguments are rational and logical within a particular debate, not whether or not I have stated something else in the past

Now I was anticipating some mental gymnastics and you did not disappoint. So contrary to what you might think you actually fail to take any position you please when it comes to debate. As you always adopt a right wing libertarian one which anyone who has engaged you for any time shall quickly discover. Not that there is anything in principle wrong with that now though it gives lie to the notion that you choose how to debate. You actually said the forum did not provide you with the intellectual rigour required to justify debating from the perspective of devils advocate. And yet here you are now saying the complete opposite. The fact of the matter is that you cannot debate a position in good faith you do not actually hold to be genuinely true. This is true of anyone who is honestly engaging and you are no exception and you fool absolutely no one in thinking otherwise. All you have to do is be honest and state your actual position. And there is no need now be pretending that it may not be what you really think as all the evidence shows that to be total fiction

[Seth]

I find it incredibly boring to preach to the choir which is often seen in this sort of fora so I quite often take contrarian positions in order
to expand my knowledge and understanding of the issues. That is what I do. My statements change as the discussion changes in order to
pose contrarian viewpoints that elicit more debate. You can ask anyone who has been around me if this is the case

When you were last asked to actually demonstrate this position you said there was no reason to do so
You clearly have forgotten that for that is the only explanation for you saying the total opposite here
Now if you want credibility as a serious debater then you cannot be posting contradictory statements

Classic example of the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy there. Each debate is distinct from every other debate and I can take any position I please in any debate
The only important thing is whether the arguments are rational and logical within a particular debate, not whether or not I have stated something else in the past

Now I was anticipating some mental gymnastics and you did not disappoint. So contrary to what you might think you actually fail to take any position you please when it comes to debate. As you always adopt a right wing libertarian one which anyone who has engaged you for any time shall quickly discover.Not that there is anything in principle wrong with that now though it gives lie to the notion that you choose how to debate.

Of course I choose how and whom to debate.

You actually said the forum did not provide you with the intellectual rigour required to justify debating from the perspective of devils advocate.

Indeed.

And yet here you are now saying the complete opposite.

Wrong.

The fact of the matter is that you cannot debate a position in good faith you do not actually hold to be genuinely true.

Sure I can, I do it all the time, just not here because of the behavior of members here who consistently trot out circumstantial ad hominem fallacies, like this one you just posted, when I do.

This is true of anyone who is honestly engaging and you are no exception and you fool absolutely no one in thinking otherwise.

Depends on what you mean by "honestly engaging." I take it that you mean that unless one exposes ones true feelings and beliefs and only argues based on that, you consider it to be "dishonestly engaging," which is of course crap. Your whole attempt here is a circumstantial ad hominem attack that has nothing whatever to do with the OP or abortion at all, it's an intensely personal attack on me because you don't like my arguments but you are incapable of rebutting them or formulating rational arguments of your own. It's just that simple. Any time you have to resort to discussing the individual behind the post you are evading the OP, and you are doing it here quite deliberately.

All you have to do is be honest and state your actual position. And there is no need now be pretending that it may not be what you really think as all the evidence shows that to be total fiction

Don't wanna, don't hafta, not gonna.

I'll state whatever opinion suits me that I think moves the debate forward. If you don't like that, then fucking off is a valid option.

[surreptitious57]

Your whole attempt here is a circumstantial ad hominem attack that has nothing what ever to do with the OP or abortion at all it is an intensely
personal attack on me because you do not like my arguments but are incapable of rebutting them or formulating rational arguments of your own

I have no time for ad hominem arguments and am not interested in any of yours unless I can actually disprove them
I also am less interested in generally winning arguments anyway and could not care less if you won every single one
from now on. I would expect you to try your best however when engaging in debate but as that is a decision for you
and you only I have no say in that. As I am more interested in just listening to what others have to say regardless of
what it actually is. And so you say what ever you want to about abortion because it does not bother me in the least

[Seth]

Your whole attempt here is a circumstantial ad hominem attack that has nothing what ever to do with the OP or abortion at all it is an intensely
personal attack on me because you do not like my arguments but are incapable of rebutting them or formulating rational arguments of your own

I have no time for ad hominem arguments

Self-evidently you do, as your last couple of posts here have had nothing whatever to do with abortion, they have been about me and my style of argumentation. It doesn't get any more ad hominem than that, since the meaning of ad hominem is literally "to the person" and that is precisely where your comments are directed.

and am not interested in any of yours unless I can actually disprove them

Any of my what?

I also am less interested in generally winning arguments anyway and could not care less if you won every single one
from now on.

Glad to hear it, I've always said that it's the journey not the destination that's important, and therefore I don't care about "winning" any argument at all, ever.

I would expect you to try your best however when engaging in debate but as that is a decision for you
and you only I have no say in that.

Engaging in debate is what I DO. It's what I've been doing for decades.

As I am more interested in just listening to what others have to say regardless of
what it actually is. And so you say what ever you want to about abortion because it does not bother me in the least

Glad to hear it, but quite a lot has already been said, so if you have something new to add, please do so and I'll respond, although I'm heading out for a road trip in a day or two so response might be delayed.

[surreptitious57]

I have always said that it is the journey not the destination that is important and therefore I do not care about winning any argument at all

It has taken me fifty one years to realise the destination can never be reached and so the journey is everything. I have already decided there is nothing more to do and as far as I am concerned it is all over. I am not bothered by it for I accept it unconditionally and as I am as free as can be I have no right to complain anyway. The only reason I now do this is to pass the time but beyond that it has no real significance. So it makes no difference to me whether God exists or not or whether one and one
is two or not or whether it will snow on Christmas Day or not. But having said all that I still think one has to have some framework for understanding so called reality
no matter how provisional that may be. Otherwise the curiosity would be unbearable. However in the grand scheme of things it matters not a jot as far as I can see
Now I could be wrong. But I could also be right so I am none the wiser on that score. But I do not want to be wise anyway. I just want to be. That and nothing else

[mistermack]

I find it incredibly boring to preach to the choir which is often seen in this sort of fora so I quite often take contrarian positions in order to expand my knowledge and understanding of the issues. That is what I do. My statements change as the discussion changes in order to pose contrarian viewpoints that elicit more debate. You can ask anyone who has been around me if this is the case

No, when people point out that what you've posted is bollocks, you use that as an excuse for the sheer stupidity of the post.

"I'm not really stupid, I was just being "contrarian" your honour. "

[Seth]

I find it incredibly boring to preach to the choir which is often seen in this sort of fora so I quite often take contrarian positions in order to expand my knowledge and understanding of the issues. That is what I do. My statements change as the discussion changes in order to pose contrarian viewpoints that elicit more debate. You can ask anyone who has been around me if this is the case

No, when people point out that what you've posted is bollocks, you use that as an excuse for the sheer stupidity of the post.

"I'm not really stupid, I was just being "contrarian" your honour. "

Pointing something out as "bollocks" is substantially different from producing a rational, logical, well-supported counter-argument that is persuasive enough to rebut the arguments provided. Usually, pointing something out as bollocks is just stupidity and ignorance doing what stupidity and ignorance always do: making an ass of the person who made the statement.

That being said, it is possible that the Socratic method requires the interlocutor to make leading statements to try to guide the student down the path of logic and reason that to an untrained student may appear to be "bollocks" until they discover the truth behind the statement through the application of logic and reason.

Then again, I generally don't expect much of people who habitually engage in such behavior, and I don't really care if they proceed down the path towards enlightenment, so they become useful idiots and foils for my rhetoric and make great examples of just how stupid ignorant people can actually be as a cautionary tale for any lurkers who might be following the debate.

[mistermack]

The Socratic method is bollocks.

But thousands of years ago, they had an excuse.

[Seth]

The Socratic method is bollocks.

But thousands of years ago, they had an excuse.

People who say that are immune to reason and logic so they think it's bollocks. They're wrong.

[Brian Peacock]

Someone fed me this link via Facebook...

COLORADO SPRINGS – The man who admitted to killing multiple people during a rampage at the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood last month called himself a "warrior for babies" during an outburst in court Wednesday afternoon.

Robert Dear, 57, is charged with 179 counts in the rampage that left three people – including a police officer – dead and wounded nine others.

"I'm guilty – there is no trial," Dear said.

The shooter repeatedly interrupted the judge and his own attorney during the hour-long hearing Wednesday afternoon, emphasizing his anti-abortion views and distrust for the people representing him.

Investigators haven't publicly disclosed a motive on the Nov. 27 shooting, which officials have been barred from discussing due to a court-imposed gag order.

"Seal the truth, huh?" Dear said Wednesday. "And also, uh, kill the babies! That's what Planned Parenthood does."

During court, Dear repeatedly targeted his attorney, Daniel King, the chief trial deputy for the Colorado Public Defender's Office.

King previously represented the convicted Aurora theater shooter, who is currently serving multiple life sentences after a jury was unable to unanimously sentence him to death for killing 12 people and wounding 70 others.

"Do you know who this lawyer is?" Dear said Wednesday. "He's the lawyer for the Batman shooter who drugged him all up. That's what they want to do to me."

+video: http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/c ... /77057470/

I see the Governor has called the shooting an act of domestic terrorism. I tend to agree.

[pErvinalia]

Absolutely.

[Forty Two]

Definitely terrorism - the use of violence to terrorize in furtherance of political change. It fits the definition perfectly.