“A judge in the UK has ordered a disabled woman to get an abortion. I assume all of the liberal "bodily autonomy" advocates will be loudly protesting this atrocity, right?”
This is a great question. This goes against both the “bodily autonomy” and the “get the government out of my womb” arguments.
25 comments:
Yes, depending on the specific circumstances (ie, are you getting the details right?), I almost certainly would be protesting this loudly and strongly.
I don't even ... "She is too mentally deficient to make good choices; she might harm her child. So, to prevent that catastrophe, we'll kill it."
In one short comment Dan manages to attempt to insult me and open the door to contradicting his strongly held position from the previous thread.
However, it’s good to see that there is one circumstance where he’d actually protest an abortion.
Apparently she’s a Nigerian Catholic, so she’s definitely in need of white European secularists to make decisions about her “bodily autonomy”. All the while ignoring her family and social worker.
This isn’t the first time that white Europeans have tried to force abortion on African women. But everyone’s favorite abortion provider was founded on the premise that blacks should be exterminated like “weeds”.
Just to address your circle jerk over at Stan's where you all are about to break your arms patting yourselves on your backs, you say...
"Whatever the terminology used, the goal is to move the disputed item or concept into the realm of the subjective. Once something has been moved away from the realm of the objective, then it’s pis to make any claims or believe anything because it’s not objective. It’s a cheap and easy dodge intended to allow outrageous statements without having to worry about their accuracy."
That is absolutely 100% NOT THE GOAL. Not at all. Not with me and the many like me and I suspect with very few is it the goal to dodge by getting you to admit to the subjectivity of your claims. I'd be willing to bet that you can not support your ridiculously false claim that it's the goal to argue subjectivity in order to dodge responsibility. It's an unsupported claim and I'm certain that it's false, although I recognize we probably can't prove it.
And THAT is the difference between those like me and those like you: We are GLAD to admit that we can't prove some opinions that are subjective in nature. You all want to cling to YOUR interpretation of the Bible as if YOUR INTERPRETATION/hunch/opinion is fact and the same as God's, as if you know what God thinks demonstrably.
The point is humility. The point is factuality. The point is being precise. The point is seeking TRUTH and avoiding the hellaciously evil embrace of arrogance that your/our opinions conflate with god's word.
So, demonstrate that you have the humility and integrity to admit that you've almost certainly misspoken and made what is almost certainly a false claim in attempt to defend your almost certainly poor understanding of what God wants.
I'm not sending this to you to comment here, just to address the point that you've falsely made. Do with it what you will.
“That is absolutely 100% NOT THE GOAL. Not at all.”
When you make claims of fact like this, you need to be prepared to provide proof. Please do so.
I'm sorry if you misunderstood. It is factually 100% not my goal or the goal of anyone that I know who would make such an argument. That's a fact you can take to the bank.
It's on you to try to support your ridiculously stupidly false claim that our goal is to dodge. That is a Lie from the pits of hell. Do you understand?
Ironically, you make the empty-headed claim that our goal is to dodge and you don't even attempt to suggest you have any proof. You don't, of course, because you can't. You have no proof.
The reality is, I suggest, that you don't understand our position and your lack of understanding is leading you to make presumptions that are arrogant and stupidly false. You do not know our motives better than we do. Do you recognize that reality?
If it’s a “fact”, then please provide proof of your claim of fact. It shouldn’t be that hard to prove a fact. Unfortunately, given your willingness to engage in and to provide a forum for lies and misrepresentations, your word has virtually zero value.
So please, if you’re going to assert facts, then be prepared to prove them.
FYI, this clearly isn’t me misunderstanding you, you’ve gone out of your way to confirm they my initial characterization of what you said (a claim of fact), was spot on.
Your problem is that you are making assumptions about my claim. You’re assuming that I was speaking specifically of you. But, that’s always something you’ve been prone to do.
I will say, that your actions do lead one to that conclusion, but I’m usually not shy about calling you out when I mean you.
I’m not making a claim to know motives, just assessing actions.
Are you suggesting that it’s somehow wrong to make claims about people’s motives?
I will say that the fact that you’ve chosen to take this so personally does make me wonder if my general observation of an opinion might not be hitting a little close to home.
The fact that you misunderstand and think that I'm taking it personally when I'm defending truth rather confirms my point that you just don't comprehend our actual positions or the points were actually making.
To clarify one of your misunderstandings, I am not at all assuming that you were speaking specifically of me. I never said that, and you'd be mistaken to think that was my point. It wasn't. Do you understand now?
Rather, I'm addressing the common tactic of demonizing and misrepresenting others outside of their little circles that conservatives way too often do, especially if we're talking about liberals or progressives.
Re: Proof of my claim... I've already done that. You're speaking of others like me. And others, like me, do not do what you claimed for the reasons you claimed.
I know people well, and that's just not the reality. Beyond the small sampling of people I know, you just have no proof that by and large those who disagree with you are doing so to dodge. You have no data to support the claim.
Is it or is it not a fact that you are basing that ridiculously stupidly false claim solely on the the guess that you think they must be dodging?
That is, no one has ever told you that they are dodging, yes? You have no proof that they are dodging, do you?
And, even if you did have proof that someone individual was dodging, which I doubt, you have no proof that it is normative. That is the reality, is that safe to say? Show some integrity and answer the question.
Do you understand that simply repeating an assertion isn’t “proof”?
Do you understand that the fact that the entire context of your response in in the context of “me” and “I” (referring to yourself), and your “proof” is essentially you?
Do you understand that the above reality undermines your claims that this isn’t personal?
Are you suggesting that it is somehow wrong to make claims about the motives of other people?
Part of your problem may be that you don’t understand the claim that I made. The actual claim that I made is that when people shift the nature of a conversation away from the objective and into the subject of, that my experiences the result is usually an attempt to obvious gate, throw up a smoke stream, or to dodge. This is simply what I’ve experienced based on my interaction with a number of people.
I have to admit, that your insistence that I approve claims that I didn’t make, and that I answer questions, is so tightly bound with your refusal to prove the singular claim you made and to answer questions. Far be it from me to draw any inappropriate conclusions, but if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck..,
As to your questions.
I understand that you’re trying to invoke “rules” you claim don’t exist to condemn me to a place you don’t believe exists. I also understand that by you claiming that my observation is a “lie from the pit of hell”, that you’re assigning motive to my observation? Is it wrong to assign motives to other people?
I’ve never claimed to know anyone’s motives. Is it wrong to claim to know someone’s motives?
I understand that the entire context of your response has been about “me”, “I”, and “people I know”. If you want to claim that all that isn’t about you, that’s cool.
No, I’m basing my observation on the reality of experiences I’ve had in conversations.
No, how stupid do you think people are? No, I’ve based my observations on experience.
I’ve never claimed it was normative. Although I can’t see any reason to try to move from objective to subjective that doesn’t involve obfuscation, smokescreens, or dodging.
I’ve shown integrity and answered your questions.
Now, the bigger question is whether or not you’ll show “integrity” and do what you’ve demanded I do. Will you?
I’m still waiting for actual verifiable proof of your “fact” claim as well.
Maybe that’s an area where you can show “Integrity” as well.
But you’ve admirably diverted this thread away from its topic,m.
Oh, just to clarify,
The topic of the post that has tour g string all in a wad is “bad arguments”.
The reality is that saying “that’s just your opinion.” is literally a “bad argument”.
But, let’s not let reality divert from a good g string wadding rant.
I’ve never claimed to know anyone’s motives. Is it wrong to claim to know someone’s motives?
To your last question, yes, IF you are misrepresenting them. Thou shalt not bear false witness. To that end, you keep noting...
I understand that you’re trying to invoke “rules” you claim don’t exist to condemn me to a place you don’t believe exists.
1. My point is NOT that I believe the Bible should be used as a rulings book. But YOU ALL do. I'm holding you accountable to the rules YOU BELIEVE are given to you from God and expecting you to be consistent.
2. My point is NOT that I believe the Bible should be used as a rulings book, NOR is it to suggest that we should not adhere to some rules. Clearly, we should not demonize, we should not bear false witness, we should not oppress or harm others, etc. I believe in rules. That I don't think the Bible is rightly understood as a rulings book does not mean that I don't believe in right and wrong or expecting people to adhere to some basic life guidelines.
I cite the Bible as a shortcut to deal with those rules when talking with conservative/fundamentalist Christians because THEY believe the Bible to be a rulings book. If I were talking with an atheist, I might not (although, I might, since they are usually well aware of the rules given to ancient Israel and they would get the point.)
I’ve never claimed to know anyone’s motives. Is it wrong to claim to know someone’s motives?
What YOU SAID at Stan's, "I agree that it's usually a dodge."
IF you are making the claim that when you've dealt with people on these sorts of topics and they've disagreed with you that "usually it's a dodge," that is precisely YOU claiming to know people's motives.
Do you have ANY data to support that conclusion? Or is it, "They disagreed with me and I didn't understand why, therefore, they're probably just dodging..."? I suspect the latter and that you have NO data to support your claim.
I’m basing my observation on the reality of experiences I’ve had in conversations.
That's just it. You almost certainly absolutely are not. How many of these conversations have you had where the person told you their motive was just to dodge the question? Ten out of 100? five? zero?
I suspect the latter, but you tell me.
I’m still waiting for actual verifiable proof of your “fact” claim as well.
I'm someone you think is dodging, or so you've said in the past, because of my arguments to you. I'm telling you that I KNOW MY MOTIVATIONS. You do not. I KNOW THAT I am not motivated by dodging but by truth-seeking and noting the facts as they exist. ADDITIONALLY, I know other people like me who you would also disagree with and would, no doubt, think they are dodging because they disagree with you and you don't understand why. I can tell you that THEY are reasonable, rational, moral people who do not dodge questions in bad faith.
I'm not talking about me but about the types of debates you've engaged in with me and with other people like me. It's the arguments I'm discussing, not me personally. For instance, why don't you give a specific instance of the sort of people who YOU are speaking about when you say they are "usually dodging..."? We can nail it down with some specifics,but you almost certainly won't go there.
Your MO is to make vague and almost certainly stupidly false allegations and rely upon their vagueness for an out.
Be specific. You won't do it.
But you’ve admirably diverted this thread away from its topic
I said quite clearly, and I quote, "I'm not sending this to you to comment here, just to address the point that you've falsely made. Do with it what you will."
YOU chose to engage me on this topic here, it had not a single thing to do with me "diverting" anything. YOU had the choice not to post my admittedly off topic comment, and what I had said was "I'm NOT sending this to you to COMMENT HERE."
Stick to reality, please.
The reality is that saying “that’s just your opinion.” is literally a “bad argument”.
No, it's literally not.
NOT if someone is offering "just their opinion." USUALLY, I'd guess, when that line is offered by serious adults engaged in conversation, it's because someone (i.e., usually a fundamentalist type) is claiming to state something as a fact (i.e., God doesn't want the gays to get married... God is opposed to abortion... etc) that is NOT a fact, but a literal opinion.
Getting all parties involved in a conversation to recognize, as a starting point, that we are ALL offering opinions (not facts) about unproven/unprovable matters is an extremely reasonable place to begin and, thus, literally not a "bad argument." The reason it's important is because if someone is deluding into thinking that they are the ones speaking for God and that they can speak authoritatively for God about what behaviors other people should engage in, and IF that person can't distinguish between their opinions and facts, then one might not want to engage in a conversation with someone so deluded.
Responding to your gossip about me on Stan's blog...
No angst. It's just that people who THINK that they can speak about what is objectively true, when what they're actually speaking about is subjective opinion... when those people don't understand the difference between the two, those people are delusional on those points and potentially a threat to the Greater Community.
By all means, be specific.
For instance, you do not know as demonstrable objective fact that God is opposed to abortion. Can you admit that reality?
Or, do you prefer to delude yourself into thinking that you DO "know" objectively that?
Of course, reality is that you don't. The problem is, y'all think y'all know better than reality. Y'all think it's okay to presume to speak for God. Y'all haven't read what the Bible says about blasphemy, or at least, understood it.
If it’s wrong to assign false motives, why do you allow so much of it at your blog?
For someone who keeps insisting that you’re not taking this personally, that it’s not hitting too close to home, you’re pretty obsessed with how it’s all about you.
FYI, until you can objectively prove the claim you made. The one you characterized as “fact”. I see no reason to indulge you any further. If all you have is claims you won’t prove and your narcissism, I don’t see how indulging you serves any purpose.
I’ve demonstrated my integrity by answering your questions, it’s time for you to live up to your own standards. As long as you allow and encourage the assigning of false motives at your blog, I can only thing your g string wadding faux outrage is simply one more way you choose to divert.
You can’t keep demanding from others what you don’t have.
Yes, I chose to post your off topic narcissistic rant when I didn’t have to.
I did it because it’s the only place to do it. Because it isn’t going to happen at your safe space.
“You almost certainly absolutely are not.”
Please prove this claim objectively as well.
If you’re going to keep making claims, I’m going to keep asking for proof.
The fact that you haven’t proven your first claim, doesn’t give me confidence that your prove this one either.
Post a Comment