• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

And the COUP continues... EPA blocks CNN and Associated Press.

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
interchange said:
I'm only asking because that's the only way I could justify a stance that supports legal abortion under the condition that abortion is defined as murder.
Click to expand...

Really? That's the only way you could justify it? If I accept the condition that abortion is murder and I still support legal abortion then it must follow that I think ALL murder should be legal? Am I reading your comment right?

If I am, let's substitute the death penalty for abortion and see what we get:
"If I accept the condition that death penalty is murder and I still support the death penalty then it must follow that I think ALL murder should be legal."

Does that STILL seem logically sound to you?

No, it would mean that I think murder in some cases is justifiable. Not all cases.

If you can't refute it, then it follows that whether or not criminalizing abortion is in the interest of the country depends solely on whether abortion is murder. And thus that this Republican policy is in the nation's interest if you are of such belief. And thus conceding that whether or not at least one Republican policy is in the interest of the country is a matter of opinion. And thus that your question is loaded. Which is what started all this back and forth in the first place.
Click to expand...
I believe I have successfully refuted it. Please correct me if I am wrong.
 
blackangst1 said:
Nah. Theres enough of that crap here already.

And now that youve put qualifications on your challenge (that you believe is good for America that the Democrats do not support.) why would I do that? So you can retort with how you think its wrong and why?

How about Democrat policies I think are good for America that the GOP doesnt? Oh wait...youve already painted me in a corner so thats not interesting to you.

You arent interested...AT ALL...about possibly seeing a different point of view from yours, but rather all youre interested in pointing out how those that dont agree with you are just wrong. Thats your MO.

Ill pass and agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
The qualifications were already there. If both Democrats and Republicans support a policy then it isn't a GOP policy now is it? It's a bipartisan policy. I asked for a GOP policy that is beneficial to the country. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear enough.

And yes, I asked for them because you claimed that both sides have ideas and ideals that benefit the country. Maybe you'll surprise me and provide one that does. Maybe you'll provide a bunch. I doubt it though, because I have actually been paying attention. I pay attention to what Democrats support and vote for. I pay attention to the GOP as well. I know that a bill is not one policy but a collection of policies. Some may be good and some may be bad. I understand that when a party votes against a bill it doesn't necessarily mean they hate everything in that bill but instead just be some parts that are so bad that they cannot accept it just to get the other good parts. I also know when a party is talking out of both sides of their mouths. Like claiming to be for small government while supporting policies antithetical to that.

So when and if you do decide to continue to try to prove your claim, you can bet your ass I will analyze your evidence and point out when it does not prove what you think it proves.

I'm not interested in Democrat policies because I already agree with you that they have a lot of good policies. Why would we debate about something when we already agree?

I am very interested is seeing a different point of view which is why I asked in the first place. I point out things I think are wrong and you have every opportunity to pick apart my evidence and/or logic, but you don't do that. You instead ignore the rebuttals or flat out claim they are wrong without explaining why and just move on to the next claim. Just look at this post of yours for an example. You tried to claim I added qualifiers when I did no such thing. Are you going to admit this mistake or just ignore it? Perhaps it is you that is not interested in learning things? Perhaps you are afraid you might find out that the GOP has very little, if anything, to offer?
 
Amused said:
ATTENTION:

You have been distracted by whataboutism and false equivalencies, thus this thread is now totally off topic.

This thread is about the tyranny of a government that limits the free press' access to question them directly.

This thread is, by extension, about the tyranny of a government that slanders and seeks to undermine the free press.

Anything else is off topic, and should be ignored.
Click to expand...
I believe the last on topic post was Tuesday at 8:56pm. As such, this thread would have fallen off the first page of P&N by now. If you want to necro this thread, be my guest.
 
Somewhat related as it involves preferential admission and exclusion, this man

emmet-t-flood-1-804x450.jpg


was at the meeting with Nunes and Gowdy, the lawyer representing Trump in the investigation.

This is like 20x Schumer headshakes.
 
dank69 said:
Really? That's the only way you could justify it? If I accept the condition that abortion is murder and I still support legal abortion then it must follow that I think ALL murder should be legal? Am I reading your comment right?

If I am, let's substitute the death penalty for abortion and see what we get:
"If I accept the condition that death penalty is murder and I still support the death penalty then it must follow that I think ALL murder should be legal."

Does that STILL seem logically sound to you?

No, it would mean that I think murder in some cases is justifiable. Not all cases.

I believe I have successfully refuted it. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...

Reread my post. I didn't say all. I said any. The death penalty is a reasonable case of any, though I personally think that to be morally wrong. But even if you disagree, I think that any thinking you could use to accept killing people on death row would not apply to the unborn. You could try to extend that example. Or provide another one which accepts murder of unborn children.

Again, we are working under the constraints that we accept that fetuses are people no different than infants. Neither of us seems to agree with that, but we are only tasked with examining whether Republican policy is good for the nation under this belief.
 
interchange said:
Reread my post. I didn't say all. I said any. The death penalty is a reasonable case of any, though I personally think that to be morally wrong. But even if you disagree, I think that any thinking you could use to accept killing people on death row would not apply to the unborn. You could try to extend that example. Or provide another one which accepts murder of unborn children.

Again, we are working under the constraints that we accept that fetuses are people no different than infants. Neither of us seems to agree with that, but we are only tasked with examining whether Republican policy is good for the nation under this belief.
Click to expand...
Okay sorry, hopefully you can understand my confusion. The question "So are you arguing that homicide of someone who isn't requesting to die should be legal under any circumstance?" is kind of ambiguous. So the question then is "can I think of any circumstance when it would be okay to kill a person who isn't requesting to die?" and a fetus or zygote or whatever is now defined as a person, correct?
 
dank69 said:
Okay sorry, hopefully you can understand my confusion. The question "So are you arguing that homicide of someone who isn't requesting to die should be legal under any circumstance?" is kind of ambiguous. So the question then is "can I think of any circumstance when it would be okay to kill a person who isn't requesting to die?" and a fetus or zygote or whatever is now defined as a person, correct?
Click to expand...

Yes. I don't see what's ambiguous about it, but it seems like you understand now.
 
interchange said:
Yes. I don't see what's ambiguous about it, but it seems like you understand now.
Click to expand...
Great. Well I can think of many instances when it would be okay to kill a person who isn't requesting to die. Like if they are trying to kill you, or rape you, or kill or rape someone else. Or say if they find a way to attach themselves to another person like a parasite and the only way to remove them would result in their death.
 
dank69 said:
Great. Well I can think of many instances when it would be okay to kill a person who isn't requesting to die. Like if they are trying to kill you, or rape you, or kill or rape someone else. Or say if they find a way to attach themselves to another person like a parasite and the only way to remove them would result in their death.
Click to expand...

Are you so impatient as to imagine the only way this "parasitic" relationship can end is abortion? I'll let you walk that one back and start over if you like. But I'll buy the situation where someone is imminently forcing you into serious danger. So if a pregnancy poses serious imminent risk to the life of mother, that sounds a good exception. A tragic one, though, as the fetus would bear no responsibility in creating the situation unlike a would-be rapist/murderer.
 
interchange said:
Are you so impatient as to imagine the only way this "parasitic" relationship can end is abortion? I'll let you walk that one back and start over if you like. But I'll buy the situation where someone is imminently forcing you into serious danger. So if a pregnancy poses serious imminent risk to the life of mother, that sounds a good exception. A tragic one, though, as the fetus would bear no responsibility in creating the situation unlike a would-be rapist/murderer.
Click to expand...
What do you mean imagine? Are you aware of some way to remove a zygote without killing it?
 
I really dont know what from my post makes you think I "hate liberals". I would not say I "hate" either group, since it is a waste of energy and changes nothing. I am just frustrated with the liberals, because they seem to be so obsessed with issues that dont really help the middle class, and actually give ammunition to the ultra conservatives.
 
frozentundra123456 said:
I really dont know what from my post makes you think I "hate liberals". I would not say I "hate" either group, since it is a waste of energy and changes nothing. I am just frustrated with the liberals, because they seem to be so obsessed with issues that dont really help the middle class, and actually give ammunition to the ultra conservatives.
Click to expand...

What? Either you know jack shit about what actually counts as liberal policy these days, or you're just intentionally being stupid. Health care doesn't matter to the middle class? Education? Equal rights? Stopping Gerrymandering? Doing something about rape culture? Taxes? I mean, you do know that Obama actually extended tax cuts for many, but rescinded them for the rich, right?
 
dank69 said:
Okay teacher. I can't wait til tomorrow. I'm not sure I'll be able to sleep tonight.
Click to expand...

Ms. Dank69,

I have to share some news with you. Your tests came back positive for a sexually transmitted disease. It is a parasitic illness called pregnancy. Common symptoms include increasing abdominal girth, nausea/vomiting, breast engorgement and tenderness, back pain, fluid retention, and increased urination. Rarely, at different stages of the illness, things can become more serious and lead to serious symptoms such as intractable vomiting, high blood sugar, hypertension, kidney failure, liver failure, and seizure. In extreme cases, the illness may be fatal involving cardiac complications, hemorrhage, or blood clots. Those cases are often related to an underlying disorder a person has unrelated to pregnancy.

There is a 100% effective cure. That cure is murder of a human child.

However, the good news is that, in 99.89% of cases in the US the illness is self-limited without intervention, lasting approximately 9 months. However, we still take this seriously and recommend daily vitamin intake and regular exams with certain lab work and ultrasound at specific points along the illness.

Thank you for electing Dr. Interchange & associates for your medical care. As you can see, although there is effective cure, due to your body's natural ability to expel the parasite, it would be patently absurd to suggest human sacrifice as an appropriate intervention unless serious complications arise.
 
interchange said:
Ms. Dank69,

I have to share some news with you. Your tests came back positive for a sexually transmitted disease. It is a parasitic illness called pregnancy. Common symptoms include increasing abdominal girth, nausea/vomiting, breast engorgement and tenderness, back pain, fluid retention, and increased urination. Rarely, at different stages of the illness, things can become more serious and lead to serious symptoms such as intractable vomiting, high blood sugar, hypertension, kidney failure, liver failure, and seizure. In extreme cases, the illness may be fatal involving cardiac complications, hemorrhage, or blood clots. Those cases are often related to an underlying disorder a person has unrelated to pregnancy.

There is a 100% effective cure. That cure is murder of a human child.

However, the good news is that, in 99.89% of cases in the US the illness is self-limited without intervention, lasting approximately 9 months. However, we still take this seriously and recommend daily vitamin intake and regular exams with certain lab work and ultrasound at specific points along the illness.

Thank you for electing Dr. Interchange & associates for your medical care. As you can see, although there is effective cure, due to your body's natural ability to expel the parasite, it would be patently absurd to suggest human sacrifice as an appropriate intervention unless serious complications arise.
Click to expand...
This human child I have to kill, is it the one causing these problems without my consent?
 
dank69 said:
This human child I have to kill, is it the one causing these problems without my consent?
Click to expand...

Well. If you acquired this illness through forcible non-consensual means, it could be an interesting ethical question of whether such a sacrifice is indicated to alleviate a temporary illness. But if we're playing the odds, you very much consented.

Stepping aside from our little story, your argument is horrifying. Let's use your criminal rapist/killer analogy. In that case, the rapist/killer was clearly through volitional act responsible for creating the scenario. In the pregnancy case, the fetus clearly had zero responsibility for creating the scenario. In the rapist/killer case, it is acceptable to defend yourself through lethal action because you are by reasonable judgment at serious imminent risk. In the pregnancy case, it is unlikely that you are at any serious risk, especially imminent risk. A criminal analogy would be being persistently annoyed by an obviously intellectually disabled person with no visible weapon and making no specific threats to you. Would you say killing that person is justified? Hell no. And, like pregnancy, there is an increased chance that such a person could act violently toward you compared to them not being there at all. And, like pregnancy, it is possible that this violent act could happen suddenly without your capacity to intervene. But the chances of that are extremely small, and it's obviously reasonable to simply tolerate your annoyance until it goes away on it's own and obviously criminal to kill that person.
 
interchange said:
Well. If you acquired this illness through forcible non-consensual means, it could be an interesting ethical question of whether such a sacrifice is indicated to alleviate a temporary illness. But if we're playing the odds, you very much consented.

Stepping aside from our little story, your argument is horrifying. Let's use your criminal rapist/killer analogy. In that case, the rapist/killer was clearly through volitional act responsible for creating the scenario. In the pregnancy case, the fetus clearly had zero responsibility for creating the scenario. In the rapist/killer case, it is acceptable to defend yourself through lethal action because you are by reasonable judgment at serious imminent risk. In the pregnancy case, it is unlikely that you are at any serious risk, especially imminent risk. A criminal analogy would be being persistently annoyed by an obviously intellectually disabled person with no visible weapon and making no specific threats to you for nine straight months, 24/7. Would you say killing that person is justified? Hell no. And, like pregnancy, there is an increased chance that such a person could act violently toward you compared to them not being there at all. And, like pregnancy, it is possible that this violent act could happen suddenly without your capacity to intervene. But the chances of that are extremely small, and it's obviously reasonable to simply tolerate your annoyance until it goes away on it's own and obviously criminal to kill that person.
Click to expand...
Made a small edit to your post to make it a bit more analogous.

I also see you're appealing to the responsibility of the attacker, mixing in an appeal to emotion: "think of the child," and attempting a "consent to sex is an implicit consent to carry any resulting pregnancy to term." Let's address these one at a time:

If it were possible that when one human came into contact with another human there was a small chance (let's say equivalent to the chance of pregnancy) that one of them would spontaneously enter into a parasitic relationship with the other through no fault of their own, and that relationship would produce all of the symptoms and risks associated with pregnancy, and severing the relationship would kill the parasitic human, do you think the host human should be forced by law to allow the parasite to remain for 7 months until the relationship could be ended without killing the parasite? Or should the host's rights to a healthy life override the life of the parasitic human?

In the above case, does it matter if the parasite is a child or an adult? Would it be okay for example to kill the human a day after their 18th birthday but not the day before? If you had made your original case as "There is a 100% effective cure. That cure is murder of a adult human" do you perceive that to weaken the argument, assuming we are continuing to accept the premise that the child or human is indeed feeding off of me?

Also in the above case, do you think consenting to human contact should imply consent to submit to the parasitic relationship? What if the host followed rigorous procedures to reduce the chance of infection to 0.01% but just happened to be the 1/10000 that was unlucky? Do you think it would be good for society to have a law that basically forced women to completely abstain from sexual intercourse their entire post-pubescent/pre-menopausal lives except for the window where they are willing to get pregnant? Do you think such a law could be construed as "fair" or "just"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top