Message from @Malign
Discord ID: 540298007661379624
?
state mandated retroactive abortions!
its the only way
Only if their 18+
yeetus that foetus
My argument isn't designed to convince you that my opinion on abortion is correct, it is intended to demonstrate to *most* people that argue against it that they will *always* agree to at least one form of it, or they have cognitive dissonance.
Argue my argument, no ad hom plox.
i never insulted you
Insult =/= ad hom.
Example:
You are an idiot - Insult
You are wrong because you are a Canadian. - An ad hom... And an insult.
Arguing my personal view of abortion will not disprove my argument against others.
"My argument isn't designed to convince you that my opinion on abortion is correct" isn't this kinda weird? so you have multiple, possibly contradictory opinions about things and deploy one or the other to fuck with people?
'The ocean is made up mostly of water.' Is that meant to convince you that I prefer salt water over fresh water?
Hellstorme you are wrong, fresh water is better
I do not have multiple opinions, I have one I have not stated clearly because it is irrelevant.
@Ellen I guess bullshit, i like to drink salt water
it's not irrelevant now, when someone wants to know what it actually is
Explain why my personal view applies to the proof I offered?
Do I have to believe that the ocean is mostly made up of water for it to be true?
I don't have time to teach you how to not ad-hom. You've still not once gone after the actual proposition.
dude you gave a position. you weren't just generically talking about something in the world. you took a position on the topic
If you believe in lethal self defense, you will, inherently, always agree with at least 1 form of abortion... Or it is cognitive disonance.
that's fine. and that 1 form of abortion seems to me to mean "life-threatening pregnancy," hence the self-defence parallel. but you disagree?
I don't need to, it seems you see the source of the logic.
If you disagree, argue against it.
Also, there is that 't' word.
Language matters, eh? Aboot? Looney?
Life-Endangering pregnancies.
Or dangerous pregnancies. Or harmful pregnancies.
'threat' is gaseous.
we both agree that abortion should be restricted to that 1 case. the problem we're facing are all these laws that have expanded abortion far beyond restricted cases. it sounded like you were flirting with that a bit but now we've worked it out
I never should it should be restricted to that one case.
Stop stating my positions for me.
That isn't the argument.
This is an ethical line in the sand... One which tons of people, of BOTH color ties, are afraid to look at.
One side wants capital punishment for criminals and the right to carry guns for lethal self defense... But declares all life inherently worth saving when it comes to abortions.
The other side wants to argue that there are 0 occassions in which a human life should be sacrificed, and inherently seekt o de-humanize fetuses/children in utero to do so...
I have constructed an ethical argument that shows there is a third position, an ethical super-position if you will, that people must resolve before they take a stance.
Either human life is inherently sacred, or it is not. Pick one.
NO WHERE in this ethical dilema/proof I offer do I state my personal stances.
I won't let you, or anyone else, do so.
you're mistaking dialogue for an attempt to put words in your mouth