1
#11905
David D.G.
I feel as if some of ethang5's silliness might rub off on someone, yes.
Gads, this isn't even decent sophistry.
~David D.G.
1/25/2006 6:20:14 PM
#11908
Darth Wang
He's either clueless or being deliberately dishonest.
1/25/2006 6:48:19 PM
#11915
TDR
ye gods, there's nothing sadder than a fundy trying to appear intellectually superior.
1/25/2006 7:40:52 PM
#11923
Blurb
Yea, I know where the person etahng5's arguing with is coming from. The problem is, this particular pro-choice stance gets bogged down in semantics when dealing with ANYONE who is pro-life.
It's explained rather well here: http://elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html
1/25/2006 8:13:57 PM
#11927
glyptodon
Only vicariously.
1/25/2006 9:29:21 PM
#11933
Bum
Apples and oranges sure do have value! I particularly enjoy eating them. Is he suggesting I should be eating the unborn children? I mean, if they all have value, they all must have the same TYPE of value, right?
Right?
1/25/2006 10:32:15 PM
#11947
Polymerase
\"Both apples and oranges have value. One can compare that. Do you feel silly?\"
Mostly I feel appalled. :S
1/25/2006 11:45:37 PM
#11975
Plyss
\"Both apples and oranges have value. One can compare that. Do you feel silly?\"
It is this combination of ignorance and arrogance that can drive even the most patient person into fits of screaming rage.
Honestly, how DOES one miss a point like that?
1/26/2006 8:55:45 AM
#12100
King Spirula
I feel silly reading something someone pulled right out of their ass. Someone like this is why I am considering the espousal of involuntary euthanasia.
1/26/2006 9:56:12 PM
#12136
Yahweh
The fundie, ethang5, went from being surprisingly rational and intelligent at the beginning of the thread, but he degenerated in his successive posts.
He's at the point now where he is reduced down to a sniveling fussbucket.
1/27/2006 4:05:36 AM
#1054280
Yahweh,
You should have invited your lemmings to view the convo instead of posting a snippet here for them to all run off a cliff over. You lost the argument and ran away. You were invited to my site because one of your lemmings couldn't defend your flawed argument and ran back to you. You came, you lost, but you can always give out of context snippets to the lemmings as consolation. Hmmm?
11/11/2009 4:40:24 AM
#1054296
David B.
No, you resorted to fallacy and a continual redefinition of terms in support of a flawed argument.
Your quote, repeoduced above, reduces apples and oranges to a commodity and then uses an assigned value to compare them. This neither demonstrates that an apple is better (or worse) than an orange, nor supports your point. Or are you actually suggesting that embryos have 'value' as a commodity?
11/11/2009 5:38:00 AM
#1054303
Clown
ethang5, you just used some logical fallacies. Check them out here.
"Potentials can have value. Incidentally, this is true also in science. There is such a thing as potential energy, and it has real value."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
"Both apples and oranges have value. One can compare that. Do you feel silly?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextomy
Besides, even if we accept your premise that potential people do count, real live people count much, much more. Proof: We can use statistical analysis to decide how many potential people can real people produce. Same cannot be said for potential people.
11/11/2009 6:25:13 AM
#1054402
rw23
> [Suggesting there is no moral difference between potential people and actual people]
>
> Potentials can have value. Incidentally, this is true also in science.
> There is such a thing as potential energy, and it has real value.
Potential energy is defined in terms of a mass positioned in a gravitational field. Are you positing the existence of some sort of moral field?
No, you're not. You're confusing the various meanings of a common word, most likely because you are either ignorant or mendacious. You're no different to the quacks who claim their particular choice of alt-med works on 'the body's natural energy field' without ever describing how that energy might be empirically measured or described.
11/11/2009 11:52:21 AM
#1383731
Saringuy
in normal debate, actual logic is favored over word salads. try again.
3/19/2012 3:40:31 AM
#1407304
Frelus
I feel silly, yes, for reading this.
5/27/2012 3:14:18 PM
#1407374
David B.
"There is such a thing as potential energy, and it has real value.
Specifically, a negative one.
Ironically, ethang's equivocation is actually arguing potential people have negative value compared to real people's positive one.
Hence any utilitarian calculation of "moral impact" should seek to minimise the cost (and maximise the benefit) to real people, and
maximise the cost (minimise the benefit) to the potentials.
Basically, by ethang's way of thinking we should be screwing over future generations for our own short term gains, which...
Oh, I see... Well played, sir!
5/28/2012 3:54:46 AM
#1461825
Quantum Mechanic
No one can top you for silly, moron.
10/23/2012 5:19:38 AM
#1461827
Dr.Shrinker
A minute ago they were arguing about ethics. In ethics there is considerable difference between a deed and a potential deed.
Well, except in Christianity where just thinking about a deed will get you damned as sure and committing the deed.
10/23/2012 5:28:57 AM
#1461929
...on your behalf, yes.
10/23/2012 11:38:29 AM
1