Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

How Materialists Mutilate Language in the Service of Evil

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

download

 

From the sign that reads Arbeit Macht Frei (“work makes (you) free”) over the gate at Auschwitz, to the Doublespeak forced on the population by the totalitarian government in 1984, the mutilation of language has long walked hand in hand with evil.  As yet another example, we get this bizarre episode from frequent commenter Zachriel:

In a prior thread I asked Z whether he is in favor of chopping up little unborn babies and selling their parts like meat.

He responded:

The sale of human tissue is illegal in the U.S. As far as we know, no one in the current kerfuffle has been charged with such a crime, but if the evidence supports such a charge, they should be prosecuted.

I suspected Z was playing a word game with me centering on the definition of “sale.”  So I pressed on.  It turns out I was right:

Z:  They get reimbursed for the costs of acquiring, storing, and transporting the tissue, just as they do with any other tissue donation. They can’t legally make a profit . . . . We support current laws which criminalize the sale of human tissue.

So I asked the question this way:

Zachriel are you in favor of allowing Planned Parenthood to chop up little unborn babies and distribute their pieces like meat as part of their fetal tissue donation program?

And we finally got to the truth:

When a woman decides on a legal abortion, donating the tissue for medicine is appropriate.

This really didn’t make sense to me, so I interposed the following:

Zachriel at comment 52:

Q. Are you in favor of chopping up little babies and selling the pieces like meat?
A. No.

Zachriel at comment 62:

Q. Are you in favor of allowing Planned Parenthood to chop up little unborn babies and distribute their pieces like meat as part of their fetal tissue donation program?
A. When a woman decides on a legal abortion, donating the tissue for medicine is appropriate.

Which one is the lie Z? They can’t both be true.

He replied:

The first is a question about selling, the latter is a question about distribution.

So there you have it, dear readers.  “Selling” pieces of babies  – bad.  “Distributing” pieces of babies – good.

But wait a minute.  My dictionary defines “selling” as “to transfer goods to another in exchange for money; dispose of to a purchaser for a price.”  And Planned Parenthood admits that it receives money in exchange for the pieces of babies.  Why isn’t that selling?  Because there was no profit, answers Z.  Nonsense.  If GM breaks even this year does that mean it did not “sell” any of its cars?

And why does the hyper-technical distinction between “selling” and “distributing in exchange for a cost reimbursement” make any difference to begin with?  Both ways a baby is still getting crushed and dismembered, and her pieces are still being delivered to others in exchange for money.

And what if the bean counters make a mistake in the prices they set and Planned Parenthood accidentally makes profit.  Now it’s wrong when it wasn’t before?

People who chop up little babies and sell their pieces are evil.  People like Zachriel who advocate that practice are also evil.  And they compound that evil when they not only mutilate babies but also mutilate language.

Comments
Barry, I look at liars as pathetic people. Murder is evil. Compared to murder lies are a joke. If liars are evil then they the clowns of evil.Virgil Cain
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT
Virgil Cain make up your mind. First you say Zachriel is not evil. Then you say he is a pathological liar (which is true enough). But pathological liars are evil. So your first statement cannot be true if your second statement is true.Barry Arrington
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
Zachriel isn't evil. Zachriel is an ignorant and insipid troll who is in love with substance-free double-talk. And yes, Zachriel is also a pathological liar. But hey, what else would you expect from an evolutionist?Virgil Cain
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
If buildings could self-assemble and grow to maturity the way a fertilized egg does, then yes.Silver Asiatic
August 24, 2015
August
08
Aug
24
24
2015
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
Immoral person: A fetus is not a person. Moral person: A fetus, in fact a zygote, has a separate DNA, making them a person, and making abortion murder.
So, having a unique blueprint of how to build a person makes them a person? Does having a unique blueprint of how to build a building make it a building?Popperian
August 24, 2015
August
08
Aug
24
24
2015
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
The problem, which Barry seem to have difficulty grasping, is that all words are ultimately undefined. As such it's not possible to make a pure moral statement outside of a particular moral problem to solve. All we can hope to achieve is to define words well enough so that we can all understand their usage in the context of a specific problem. Yet, Barry is demanding that Zachriel somehow do otherwise as if it were possible, in practice. It's unclear how this is a reasonable or even rational request. I've seen arguments here along the lines of: if same sex manages are good then everyone should have same sex marriages and the entire human race would go extinct. But this completely ignores the fact that what we face, in practice, are moral problems which require moral solutions. People actually find themselves feeling attracted to and falling in love with people of the same sex. This is a concrete moral problem, not some abstract statement. Another moral problem is the problem of unwanted or dangerous pregnancies. Unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing preventing us from achieving it is knowing how. This includes solving this moral problem. For example, if we knew how, we could build an artificial womb and transplant unwanted pregnancies so they could go to term for couples that cannot conceive a child. All we need is knowledge of how to achieve it. Yet, I suspect this would be met with resistance here as the natural order of things would be violated. To be more specific, implicitly included in Barry's 'argument' is the assumption that everything has an ultimate essence and purpose, which includes a ultimate, unchanging, precise and perfect moral form. However, Barry still hasn't explained how he can infallibly identify an infallible source or how he could manage to interpret it infallibly should if he identified one in the first place. In the absence of such an explanation, when actually faced with moral problems in practice, it seems Barry's only recourse is to conjecture solutions to moral problems and rationally criticism them. For example, how does Barry Arrington infallibly distinguish his personal views on same sex marriage, abortion, etc. from this supposed infallible source of essence? The very idea that there is a infallible source requires the concept of criticism to distinguish that source from others, decide under what conditions it is infallible and how to interpret it. Again, reason and criticism always comes first. So when actually faced with a moral problem, it's unclear how Barry has any other recourse other than to conjecture solutions to moral problems and rationally criticism them. Furthermore, I would suggest that if anything is morally wrong, promoting the dichotomy that there can be no knowledge or morality unless our folk views of morality and knowledge are true qualifies. Essentially what Barry is doing is denying our ability to make progress on ideas because his ideas assume that no progress an actually be made. However, it's unclear why he would expect our folk views of anything to be right in the first place. Again, some philosophical view is at work here, which he hasn't explicitly presented or argued for.Popperian
August 24, 2015
August
08
Aug
24
24
2015
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT
Zachriel, "We apologize for not making the original statement clear, but did add a comment to indicate ..." There's a vast stretch between harvesting the organs of a dead person and, “splitting a baby’s face in two to extract his brain while his heart is still beating”, then “chopping them into pieces, and distributing the pieces”. Happy to accept your apology when the "but" part is taken away. You say that I am happy to support abortion "where continuing the pregnancy would result in physical danger to the woman." This is not my position. My position is that in the rare case that the woman's life is in peril, I would support abortion under the principle of self-defense. Self-defence has always been a reasonable defense for homicide. That said, if there were any way that a fetus/child's life could be saved while protecting the mother's life (such as replanting the fetus/child in a surrogate) then I would only support the option that protects the child's life. This, Zachriel, is how a person with an independent moral code works out his values. Courts and legislations do not determine right and wrong. They only determine what is currently lawful.bFast
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT
Zach has no problems a good exorcist couldn't take care of. The number included in the "we" he uses so often instead of "I" might be legion though, so it could take a while.harry
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
asauber at 13 Z and whomever argues from legalism is broadcasting that they are not interested in a serious discussion. absolutely. moral person: The Constitution guarantees the right to life for every person. Immoral person: A fetus is not a person. Moral person: A fetus, in fact a zygote, has a separate DNA, making them a person, and making abortion murder. IP: But abortion is legal by definition. MP: The definition of murder is ' the unlawful intentional killing if one person by another." IP: Right so by definition it isn't murder. MP: So you agree with the definition? IP: Why yes. If the government allows a person to kill their offspring, it's none of my business. MP: Right, so then a fetus is a person being killed? IP: Well, yeah, I guess so. MP: So our Constitution guarantees life to persons. IP: Right, but it's a very old document and times have changed. the Constitution is subject to interpretation.....CannuckianYankee
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
Zachriel's argument is a nutshell: "Everything is gray, so go ahead and kill those little boys and girls, chop them into pieces, and sell their pieces like meat." Evil. Unspeakable evil. Facing evil like Zachriel's is exhausting and physically and emotionally draining. That we have to face the fact that some people are so evil that they openly defend the practice of slaughtering little boys and girls and selling their pieces like meat in a market is daunting enough. Having to refute lie after lie after lie as they try to make evil seem good is nauseating. I am quite literally sick of Zachriel and I need a break. Since he seems unwilling to stop his lies even for a moment, I have elected to put him in the moderation queue so I can get some rest. I will let him out in a couple of days. Barry Arrington
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
BFast: Could you point to where I said this? We apologize for not making the original statement clear, but did add a comment to indicate you only support abortion in cases where continuing the pregnancy would result in physical danger to the woman. If you support abortion in such cases, it inevitably means feticide. You also indicated you would support tissue donation in such cases. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/how-materialists-mutilate-language-in-the-service-of-evil/#comment-576959Zachriel
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
Zachriel compounds his earlier lie with another lie: Z told the following lie:
Most late term abortion are necessary due to health problems with either the mother or fetus.
I refuted that lie with the truth as set forth in this article: http://www.aaplog.org/american-issues-2/late-term-abortion/is-late-term-abortion-ever-necessary/ The article states that the killers themselves admit there is no medical reason for "vast majority" of the killings:
Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, shocked the general public in 1997 when he admitted that the vast majority of partial-birth abortions were performed on healthy mothers and babies
Z compounds his lie with another lie by linking this article and pretending it somehow refutes the article I linked. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/10119109/Irish-abortion-law-key-factor-in-death-of-Savita-Halappanavar-official-report-finds.html Click on Z’s link. It does not support his claim or refute the article I linked. It is about a single case. I never said late term abortion is never necessary. I said Z’s statement that MOST late-term abortions are necessary is a lie. And it is, as even the killers admit. Zachriel is evil and utterly shameless when his evil is pointed out.Barry Arrington
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
Zachriel
Most people simply do not assign the same moral value to a blastocyst as to a baby.
Notice how Zachriel seeks to shift the blame. It is he that does not assign the same moral value to a blastocyst, and for that reason, it is he that is happy to have it killed. The term "most people" is a calculated distraction. And, of course, he is all to ready to kill late-term babies as well, because he also doesn't assign any value to them either. So, there is no question that he supports the cutting up of even those fetuses who are old enough to feel pain. Again, the blastocyst ploy is a distraction.
So you advocate locking up women to prevent them from having abortions, or imprisoning them if they have had an abortion?
No. I advocate putting the abortionist in prison.StephenB
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
Voice in the Ceiling: And we will answer it as soon as you demonstrate it is not merely a distraction. You can demonstrate that by answering our question about the other 99%. Z: Ultimately, there’s no arguing values. If you place a very high value on a fertilized human egg, there’s no conclusive argument otherwise. You can show the implications of such a position, such as whether you would preferentially save a human baby, or a vat of human blastocysts from a fire at a fertility clinic. If you consider the value of a fetus on a gray scale, there’s no conclusive argument otherwise. You can show the implications of such a position, such as when exactly should rights be accorded, but it’s the nature of grays to have no strict dividing line, and lines that are drawn tend to be arbitrary. The U.S. Supreme Court drew the line at viability. Before then, the right to autonomy for the woman prevails. After that, states can legislate more protections for the unborn. That seems like a reasonable compromise. We support efforts to reduce the number of abortions, but do not support the criminalization of abortions early in pregnancy. UDEditors: "Ultimately, there’s no arguing values." And Z values slaughtering little boys and girls, chopping them into pieces, and selling the pieces like meat in a market. Hitler valued killing millions of Jews, homosexuals and mentally disabled. Who am I to say Zach and Hitler were wrong. There is no arguing values. Zachriel, you are more evil than Hitler for the simple reason that you have have his example to learn from and refuse to heed it. Zachriel
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
Comrade Zachriel "We already pointed out that just because something is legal doesn’t mean that it is morally justified." You were...eh? Problem is: your morality went to secularist gymnastics class, it's very flexible. Right now it's bending backwards to reach the latest Hollywood morality bandwagon.Eugen
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
Zachriel, "BFast says he would be okay with “splitting a baby’s face in two to extract his brain while his heart is still beating”, then “chopping them into pieces, and distributing the pieces”." Could you point to where I said this? If so I very much misspoke. In the interest if dignity of life, I see no justification whatsoever for killing humans by harvesting organs from them while they are living. I only respect the well established principle of self-defense in response to a pregnancy that is clearly being fatal to the mother. Once a child is dead, if the parents are innocent (haven't chosen to wantonly murder their child) they should be able to provide the authority for the child to donate organs. However -- "extract his brain while his heart is still beating" is EVIL!bFast
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
Barry Arrington: Notice Zachrial’s response to being caught. What has been true throughout the discussion is that you insist abortion decisions should be black and white, but most people find there are often shades of gray. Indeed, the fact that you resist answering simple questions, such as whether you are against abortion to prevent serious harm to the mother, suggests that you see the gray, but it leaves you conflicted.Zachriel
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
JimFit, When the fetus is dying it can be extremely dangerous to the mother. Voice in the Ceiling: http://www.aaplog.org/american-issues-2/late-term-abortion/is-late-term-abortion-ever-necessary/ "It was her first baby, first pregnancy and you know she was on top of the world basically" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/10119109/Irish-abortion-law-key-factor-in-death-of-Savita-Halappanavar-official-report-finds.html Voice in the Ceiling: A tiny fraction of 1% of abortions are necessary to protect the life or serious physical health of the mother. Yes, that was the question. Are you against abortion, even to prevent serious physical health consequences to the mother? UDEditors: And we will answer it as soon as you demonstrate it is not merely a distraction. You can demonstrate that by answering our question about the other 99%.Zachriel
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
In a sense, as disgusting as he is, I am glad Zachriel continues to post. His very vileness demonstrates how evil corrupts. He is OK with chopping little babies up and selling their pieces. Is there any wonder that he is also a liar?Barry Arrington
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
Notice Zachrial’s response to being caught. In 61 I hammered him and exposed his dishonesty. He got caught red handed. In 64 he posted another comment. He acted as if 61 never happened. Again, SteRusJon is spot on:
I am reminded of a snake, a writhing, lying snake. Zachriel is a son of a Serpent. And an apple that didn’t fall far from its tree.
Barry Arrington
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
Zachriel
Most late term abortion are necessary due to health problems with either the mother or fetus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenicsJimFit
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
Barry Arrington: Z suggests drugging late term babies when they are being slaughtered. Most late term abortion are necessary due to health problems with either the mother or fetus. UDEditors: That, like pretty much everything else you say, is a lie. http://www.aaplog.org/american-issues-2/late-term-abortion/is-late-term-abortion-ever-necessary/ Are you against abortion, even to prevent serious physical health consequences to the mother? UDEditors: A tiny fraction of 1% of abortions are necessary to protect the life or serious physical health of the mother. If we permitted those would you join us in opposing the other 99%? If not, then your question is merely a distraction, like much of what you say. Zachriel
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
Zachriel @ 60 says he would be against having executed Polish army officers’ bodies cut into pieces after their executions and then distributing the pieces in exchange for money that would reimburse the cost of the executions. But he is in favor of having executed babies’ bodies cut into pieces after their executions and then distributing the pieces in exchange for money that would reimburse the cost of the executions. Of course, the only difference is the babies are smaller, more defenseless and more innocent. Woe until those who call evil good and good evil.Barry Arrington
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
Whoever supports pro choice he must take a minute to think about his existence because he himself could be a victim, abortions became so easy that women today kill babies like ants. Imagine this, back in time, when you were in your mother's womb, your mother was thinking to drop you, some pseudoscientists have persuade her that its nothing to drop you, its not a sin, its not unhealthy, you are not even a person yet,your mother does it and you don't exist today, imagine how many humans didn't had the chance to make this existential question, you are so lucky that back in time to chance to drop you were so much lower than today...JimFit
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
Zachriel @ 52:
Fetal anesthetic can be used for late term abortions.
Barry @ 59
And one could hold babies who have been born down and inject them with anesthetics so their screams while they are being slaughtered won’t bother one. And it would be just as evil as what Z suggests.
Zachriel @ 60
Most people simply do not assign the same moral value to a blastocyst as to a baby.
For those unfamiliear with the term, a “blastocyst” is a structure formed in the early development of mammals. So Z suggests drugging late term babies when they are being slaughtered. I said that is just as evil as drugging a born baby while she is being slaughtered. Z responds by pretending we are talking about blastocysts. Zachriel, have you no shame? At long last, have you no shame sir? SteRusJon, talking about Zachriel, nailed it:
I am reminded of a snake, a writhing, lying snake. Zachriel is a son of a Serpent. And an apple that didn’t fall far from its tree.
Barry Arrington
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
Barry Arrington: would you be in favor of having the executed Polish army officers’ bodies cut into pieces after their executions and then have the pieces distributed in exchange for money that would reimburse the cost of the executions? No. Barry Arrington: And one could hold babies who have been born down and inject them with anesthetics so their screams while they are being slaughtered won’t bother one. And it would be just as evil as what Z suggests. Most people simply do not assign the same moral value to a blastocyst as to a baby. So you advocate locking up women to prevent them from having abortions, or imprisoning them if they have had an abortion?Zachriel
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
Fetal anesthetic can be used for late term abortions
. And one could hold babies who have been born down and inject them with anesthetics so their screams while they are being slaughtered won't bother one. And it would be just as evil as what Z suggests. I am sickened by the vile, evil, putrescent slime Zach spews into the UD combox. I am conflicted. On the one hand, I can ban him and prevent him from using this combox as a platform to spew his venom. On the other hand, evil must be exposed, confronted and stamped out like roaches scampering across the floor when the lights are turned on.Barry Arrington
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
The executions would go like this: after signing identification papers, (Polish) officers were led with their arms bound into a small room that was equipped with soundproofed walls, a drain, a hose, and a door or hatch- it was a room designed for executions. Forced to their knees, a member of the Kommandatura would deliver a single shot to the back of the prisoners’ heads, killing them instantly. Their bodies would be dragged through the second door or hatch in the ceiling, the room would be hosed down, and the next prisoner would be brought in.”
Zachriel, would you be in favor of having the executed Polish army officers' bodies cut into pieces after their executions and then have the pieces distributed in exchange for money that would reimburse the cost of the executions? After all, your logic is they've been slaughtered, might as well make good use of the carcasses. You are a nauseatingly evil bastard.Barry Arrington
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
mohammadnursyamsu @ 53
@Seversky Speaking as a materialist / atheist, you do not acknowledge people’s emotions / spirit because they are not material, and therefore you have nothing whatsoever to say about ethics
I have the same consciousness, the same emotions, the same subjective experiences as anyone else, as far as I can tell. I neither deny nor reject them What I am unable to do is provide a detailed account of how they arise from the physical brain. What we do know is that there is no evidence of consciousness existing apart from a physical substrate like the brain. What we observe is that when the brain ceases to function then consciousness disappears. If brain function can be revived then consciousness can reappear. If brain function cannot be restored then the associated consciousness is gone for good. That’s just the way things are.Seversky
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
Eugen: …everything was legal here We already pointed out that just because something is legal doesn't mean that it is morally justified.Zachriel
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply