I think the problem is that we ask reasonable questions and, IF they answer them, it exposes holes in their arguments and hypocrisy in their positions. So, rather than answering reasonable questions directly, they opt to obfuscate and dodge, to claim they've answered what they haven't answered and hope no one notices.
Faced with engaging in adult dialog and answering questions and admitting to the holes, they are opting for not engaging in adult dialog and then blame others for not being nice
I think the problem is that we ask reasonable questions and, IF they answer them, it exposes holes in their arguments and hypocrisy in their positions. So, rather than answering reasonable questions directly, they opt to obfuscate and dodge, to claim they've answered what they haven't answered and hope no one notices.
Faced with engaging in adult dialog and answering questions and admitting to the holes, they are opting for not engaging in adult dialog and then blame others for not being nice enough.
Given the indisputable fact that Dan doesn’t even bother to asleep the questions he’s asked, the fact that he has a history of deleting answers to questions then lying about those answers, and that this is in response to my direct answer to a question, it’s pretty rich.
The difference between Dan and I, is that I at least try to answer questions.
If you have questions about my position, ask them here. If I ask questions, answer them. If you are interested only in ammunition to misrepresent my positions, then just be honest about it.
9 comments:
"asleep" the questions? A typo perhaps?
This Dan quote is blatant projection.
Dan...the lying, cowardly fake Christian...deleted a response I gave to that most rare of questions: a reasonable one asked by feo. I could not be more clear in my response, more unequivocal, more direct. My response was backed by "expert" testimonies...we all remember "experts", those whom Dan regards as beyond reproach and scrutiny...that informed and backed my position. No obfuscation, no dodging.
So apparently I am no longer welcome to comment there at all, because Dan hasn't the ability to overcome the truth I bring to the table. feo just ignores it and pretends to the contrary. I'm left with simply responding at my own blog or here, where true discourse can take place.
So there's no longer any doubt. Dan's just deleting every comment I post.
Looks that way. He’s ceased to be interested in dialogue and simply craves control. Much like any other left wing social media outlet.
He’s a dude, any power he has inevitably leads to corruption.
Turns out he just wants me to answer his questions...AGAIN. He had the answers in the comments he deleted. Those are the comments I posted at my blog.
Good point about the corruption thing.
That’s all he wants period. Is us answering the same questions over and over until he gets what he wants. He’s clearly let the power he wields go to his head and is all about abusing those he can.
1. Do you realize that I've never claimed that, and in fact have answered that question already?
2. Do you realize that the "unproven opinion" is that I've claimed that "a one day old fetus is fully human deserving of All rights of a human who has been born?"?
3. Do you realize that you've asked essentially the same question 3 times, and all three are based on your "unproven opinion" about something I've never claimed? Do you realize that I've already answered this?
4. A unique genetic makeup, and the ability or potential to move from it's current phase of development to subsequent phases of development?
A fetus is deserving on the three basic rights endowed by our Creator. Beyond that "All rights" would include those that are age based, which would be idiotic to suggest.
I think maybe the disconnect is that you seem to think that a conversation involves one person asking the same (or similar) questions over and over, while demanding answers. Then denying or deleting those answers. All while misrepresenting the positions of others and refusing to answer questions yourself.
I'd love to have a two way conversation, but you stopped reciprocating quite some tome ago?
I'll ask one more question and see what happens.
If a fetus is not "fully human", then what percentage of a human is
Since I don't want to risk more than one question at Dan's I'll add some here.
If the fetus is not "fully human", at what point does it become "fully human"?
Define "fully human"?
At what point in gestation does the fetus go through Haekle's phases?
Do you realize that defining things as less than "fully human" has been the justification for slavery, The Holocaust, and genocide?
Do you realize that Margaret Sanger (a women that the left praises and names awards after) believed that blacks were not "fully human"?
Do you disagree that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare"?
Does the magic reside inherently in the birth canal, or is there some other magic that transforms the fetus from less than "fully human" to "fully human"?
Do the pre-born have any rights at all?
Since the chances that these questions will be answered is virtually zero, I think these are plenty for right now.
We wouldn't want Dan to have to leave his safe space and actually take a stand on anything.
I'm sure this will be deleted as well, even though it answers the question.
"The question is, is a human fetus fully deserving of all the rights of a birted human?"
Yes, that's the question you keep asking. But It doesn't accurately reflect what I've said. It's been answered, a deleted answer is still an answer.
I do appreciate that you've condescended to answering one question. I hope that you weren't inconvenienced or strained in any way to do so. I gratefully appreciate you choosing to grace this thread with this one answer.
One clue to the answer you seek, would be to look and see if I've ever claimed that a fetus was endowed with "All the rights" of a "birthed human"? If I haven't, then it's a safe bet that my answer would be no.
FYI, If your too dense, obtuse, or drunk with power to clue in, the answer is no. Of course, you already knew that.
Post a Comment