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
If fetal tissue is being sold, then so are orphans. If one is bad, so is the other. You don’t get to hide behind legalism and then complain if others do likewise.
sean, You are blowing smoke again with your fuzzy logic. There is a big difference between paying an agency to help children and paying an agency to slice them up into parts for profit. That difference does not, in any way, nullify Barry’s original point that selling is tantamount to collecting a fee. This is more evidence that materialists allow their ideology to turn their minds into mush. First, Zachriel tries to legitimize torture and murder by arguing that it may be legal, and then you confuse yourself by sliding in and out of context and attributing your inconsistency to Barry. Just try to follow the arguments as they are presented. Don't try to latch on to what Zachriel says. You will just confuse yourself all the more.StephenB
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
I do have to hand it to Zach and Sean; if their goal was to distract from the main point they have succeeded. At the end of the day, it does not matter whether the money that changes hands is in exchange for goods (pieces of baby) or services (cutting the baby up and storing the pieces) or for reimbursement of the cost of cutting up the baby and storing the pieces. The only reason the distinction was interesting to begin with was to point out how Zach tries to hide behind hyper-technical legal distinctions to obscure his barbarism. The main point is that a baby is still getting crushed and dismembered, and her pieces are still being delivered to others in exchange for money. Zach and Sean support that, and that makes them unspeakably evil.Barry Arrington
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
Sean Samis's arguments have degenerated to the second grade "I know you are but what am I" level. Discussion ended.Barry Arrington
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
asauber @21
“That’s a nice legalistic distinction” Except for its not a legalistic distinction.
Except that “legalistic” distinctions are “objective”. Your dislike of legalism is “subjective”, but legalism itself is objective. sean s.sean samis
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
"That’s a nice legalistic distinction" Except for its not a legalistic distinction. It's an objective distinction. Andrewasauber
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
Barry Arrington @18
I have on my desk a copy of an invoice to one of the buyers. Under the description of the items being sold it says “fetal liver.” It does not say “services rendered.”
That’s a nice legalistic distinction, but as Andrew wrote:
...whomever argues from legalism is broadcasting that they are not interested in a serious discussion.
... so it seems you have a legalism bone to pick with Andrew. Enjoy. I understand you have an axe to grind and you are wearing your self-righteous blinkers. Still, you really need to stop it. You are embarrassing yourself. If fetal tissue is being sold, then so are orphans. If one is bad, so is the other. You don’t get to hide behind legalism and then complain if others do likewise. sean s.sean samis
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
"That may be the stupidist statement ever put in the UD combox." It's almost amazing that people pretending to be Super Smart can in reality be as dumb as a chunk of matter. Andrewasauber
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
Sean,
And what is being sold in the abortion context is not the fetal tissue but the services of the agency.
That may be the stupidist statement ever put in the UD combox. I understand you have an axe to grind and you are wearing your hyper-liberal political blinkers. Still, you really need to stop it. You are embarrassing yourself. As I write this I have on my desk a copy of an invoice to one of the buyers. Under the description of the items being sold it says "fetal liver." It does not say "services rendered." But I would like to thank you for demonstrating the point of the OP about how materialists such as yourself mutilate language in the service of evil.Barry Arrington
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
"what is being sold in the abortion context is not the fetal tissue" Facepalm. Andrewasauber
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
Barry Arrington @15
And what is being sold in the orphan context is not the children but the services of the agency, a distinction that any idiot could have worked out for themselves if they had not been intent on spewing snarky, smartass comments into the UD combox.
Facepalm. And what is being sold in the abortion context is not the fetal tissue but the services of the agency (for preparing, storing and transporting the tissue) a distinction that any idiot could have worked out for themselves if they had not been intent on spewing snarky, smartass comments into the UD combox. If all this is about is your dislike of abortion (a reasonable opinion) then the fee for fetal tissue is irrelevant. You made the fee the issue in your OP. sean s.sean samis
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
Sean,
“charging a fee” is the same as “selling”.
Yes, it is. And what is being sold in the orphan context is not the children but the services of the agency, a distinction that any idiot could have worked out for themselves if they had not been intent on spewing snarky, smartass comments into the UD combox. Barry Arrington
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
Barry Arrington @11 Asks if I “understand the difference between a fee for facilitating the placement of a whole, live person and cutting that person into pieces and selling the pieces.” Of course I understand this difference. But if “charging a fee” is the same as “selling” then we are “selling” orphans. The point of your OP was that “charging a fee” is the same as “selling”. Remember your OP? Wasn’t that long ago... If all this is about is your dislike of abortion (a reasonable opinion) then the fee for fetal tissue is irrelevant. You made the fee the issue in your OP. Do you recall your OP yet? sean s.sean samis
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
Z and whomever argues from legalism is broadcasting that they are not interested in a serious discussion. Andrewasauber
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
Zachriel @ 7 says that if the Supreme Court has made it legal then it is OK by him. So if Zachriel had been alive in 1857, he would have been OK with saying black humans are not persons (Dred Scott) just as today he is OK with saying unborn humans can be cut into pieces and sold. If he had been alive in 1896, he would have been OK with the apartheid regime the court approved (Plessy) He is now OK with forced sterilization (Buck v. Bell). Thanks for clarifying your position Z, which amounts to "I'm OK with splitting a baby's face in two to extract his brain while his heart is still beating, just so long as that is legal."Barry Arrington
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
My God! Sean Samis seems not to understand the difference between a fee for facilitating the placement of a whole, live person and cutting that person into pieces and selling the pieces.Barry Arrington
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words! " - Samuel Adamsbb
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
Better (more accurate) title for this thread: Arrington mutilates logic in the service of his evil. sean s.sean samis
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT
Hypothetical: Should we sell orphans like cattle? No. Should we facilitate their adoption? Yes. Should adoption agencies be able to charge fees to cover the costs of adoption? Seems reasonable. Since fees are just a selling price, it seems we should sell orphans like cattle. Correct? sean s.sean samis
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
Barry Arringinton:
Q. Are you in favor of chopping up little babies and selling the pieces like meat? A. No. 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.
Of course they can both be true. The first concerns the sale of tissue, the latter concerns a donation of tissue. Most anyone, even an attorney, knows that a gift and a sale have a different status in the law. Barry Arringinton: “Selling” pieces of babies – bad. “Distributing” pieces of babies – good. Turns out that it is legal to donate human tissue, but not legal to sell the same tissue. There are legitimate reasons for this law, in this case, to not encourage pregnancy and abortion just so the woman can make money. You made an accusation which was unwarranted, but have yet to correct your error. Barry Arringinton: 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? Whether Planned Parenthood did, in fact, sell fetal tissue is not the question, but whether fetal tissue donation should be allowed. Some abortions are done to save the life or health of the mother. Would you allow abortion in these cases? If so, are you against donating the fetal tissue?Zachriel
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT
@mahuna "I would point out that this 'reimburse' thing is part of the whole 'non-profit' thing. Non-profit organizations simply arrange their annual expenses (including salaries and decorating the lobby) so that there is no income left to declare as 'profit'." That's a common misconception, which is rebutted at http://www.blueavocado.org/content/nonprofit-budgets-have-balance-falseRalphDavidWestfall
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT
I would point out that this "reimburse" thing is part of the whole "non-profit" thing. Non-profit organizations simply arrange their annual expenses (including salaries and decorating the lobby) so that there is no income left to declare as "profit". Note that this business model encourages what any in for-profit company would be considered inefficiency. That is, if PP's reimbursements for selling pieces of babies produces "too much" income, then somebody has to get a raise. The last thing a non-profit wants to do is reduce costs.mahuna
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
01:54 AM
1
01
54
AM
PDT
It's not only Materialists, but liberals seem to have the same trouble when it comes to the US Constitution. The understanding of freedom of religion and what is and is not permitted in the US and the understanding of the phrase "separation of Church and State"(not in the Constitution)is changing. But I do not think the Founding Fathers intended to allow for such changes. That was the whole purpose of ratifying the Constitution and setting rules in place to make it hard to change. Words have lost their meaning. I think many people approach the Bible in the same way unfortunately.tjguy
August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT
Zach: "The first is a question about selling, the latter is a question about distribution." This is obviously much more consequential, but it's the same stunt he pulled with the term "niche" in Mass extinctions can accelerate evolution?. Z will mutilate language just so he can think he won, regardless of the subject at hand and its consequence. Materialist dodge? Reminds me of this Monty Python classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjk-M0cbb
August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT
And Zachriel lets judges, rather than scientists like himself, define what is "human". A baby in the womb is in no substantive way different than a baby that is born. Zachriel knows this. As with all materialists, he is amoral to the core.bFast
August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT
If a pro choicer doesn't think its a baby human that was killed then , logically, they would not care about selling the remains. Morally they would be right. The only contention in the abortion problem is whether abortion kills a human being. The vast majority of people are morall especially at the level of respecting human life. The pro-life cause , along with overthrowing court decisions and legislating pro-life laws, is to persuade enough people that abortion kills a child. Pro0lifers waste our time accusing the opposition of malice and then trying to make them good. Its a intellectual contention and not a moral one. Pro-choicers rightly ask why its , greatly, Evangelical Protestants and serious Roman Catholics who most oppose abortion? They say its proof we are convinced the fetus has a soul and thats what makes it a baby. The soul thing added to a opinion on its humanness from science etc is the source of our conviction. YET we argue only about the science. Pro-lifers must show that the belief in a fetus being a human is not based on the soul. Also its not, in this extreme issue, because observant Christians are more moral people. more civilized and more loving. its an intellectual contention. No way around it.Robert Byers
August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply