Some Things are Really Simple

_{Barry Arrington

August 27, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here is an example:

Barry to Popperian:

Anyone who cannot unambiguously condemn the practice of chopping little boys and girls up and selling the pieces like so much meat shares in the evil of those who do so.

Popperian responds:

Note how Barry is making my point for me. I wrote:

From time to time, old words become obsolete. For an non-essentialist this is not a problem. This is because non-essentialists view words as a tool, not a Thing with a capital T. If any word ceases to function as a tool, a non-essentialists will quickly let it go and find some other new tool to solve problems with. On the other hand, an essentialist will not do this. Why not? Because, for the essentialist, all words correspond with Things with a capital T. And Things do not just disappear. Because of this view, an essentialist is significantly less likely to change their opinion of anything, if at all.

However, an essentialist is sure that some Thing actually corresponds with his words. As such, he will try to figure out why a non-essentialist won’t admit there really is such a Thing as the Thing he is talking about. The essentialist might merely think the non-essentialist is merely ignorant, or that their intellect is on the fritz. Or he might even decide you are down right evil. But the essentialist certainly won’t agree the Thing he refers to with his word can be so quickly dismissed.

(emphasis in original)

Let’s examine this. It is 1943 and I say:

Anyone who cannot unambiguously condemn the practice of cooking Jews in ovens like so much meat shares in the evil of those who do so.

What would you think of someone who gave Popperian’s response? You would think they agree with the goals of the Holocaust and therefore share in the guilt of that unspeakable evil. And you would be right.

So yes, Popperian, I do say you are down right evil.

Popperian thinks he is oh-so-sophisticated. “Words are so ambiguous; I can’t possibly condemn the killers.” Meanwhile the slaughter of innocents continues unabated.

Damn your pseudo-sophisticated sophistry Popperian. It is counterproductive to dignify it by getting into the weeds and countering your logical fallacies point by point. Instead, like Dr. Johnson and his famous rock kicking demonstration, I refute your moral theorizing thusly:

Does your moral theory compel you unambiguously to condemn the practice of chopping little boys and girls up and selling the pieces like so much meat?

No? Then your moral theory is as worthless as a fresh steaming pile of dog feces.

Comments

I dunno, Mike. Are feelings of guilt and fear of punishment the only reason you don't chop people up and eat them?Learned Hand_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT}

You stated that the “right to choose” is a moral issue. In fact, it is a legal construct. The proper response on your part would be, “I stand corrected.” The “right to choose” is not a moral issue? I don’t have any idea what you mean by that. Or why you think “legal construct” and “moral issue” are mutually exclusive. I don’t think they are; I think our morals guide us in determining what rights exist. (I suppose you could mean that the strict legal question of whether the Constitution protects such a right is not a moral issue, but even that doesn’t read like a coherent statement to me.) “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.” So, it is clear they believe there should be no restrictions. They believe a woman’s right to choose remains legitimate up to the point of birth, or as they put it, “any decision.” That’s not actually what she said. She said the decision should also be up to the family and physician. Which is an odd thing to say if she’s talking about the overall right to abortion—I’m pretty sure PP doesn’t think that a woman’s family has the right to make the decision for her. So I’m a little dubious that she’s making a blanket statement about PP’s position on the right to choose. Yes, she says “any decision” – but does she, in context, mean “any decision that a woman makes about abortion, period”? The inclusion of the family and physician makes me skeptical. As does your decision not to provide any context for the statement. Do you have any evidence to support your position, or are you asking me to accept your doubts as evidence? My position is that I doubt that PP takes the position that the right to abortion should be totally unlimited. I don’t know how to provide evidence for that, or why I should. Let’s just say it’s self-evident! If you doubt my doubts, you must be a liar or something. (No, not really.) That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. You think that the ability of a fetus to survive outside the womb is contingent on what state law says about it? No. You misunderstood me. I think that in those states that bar pre-viability abortions, PP isn’t performing pre-viability abortions. Barry, this is an example of what I was talking about. Let these people talk long enough, and they will say something totally insane. Y’all work hard to find reasons to exercise your contempt for others. UDEditors: Why yes, we do hold you in contempt LH, because you support the practice of killing little boys and girls, chopping them into little pieces, and then selling the pieces like meat. That is contemptible. Therefore, having contempt for it is the right and natural response. Learned Hand_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

LH’s insistence – contrary to facts widely known in the legal profession – that Planned Parenthood is not absolutist on the “right” to abortion has grown tedious. Widely-known facts usually aren’t that hard to support with evidence. Maybe a statement from PP that actually takes the position you attribute to it? LH insists that Planned Parenthood would happily concede that some restrictions on abortion should be allowed. Nonsense. LH is a lawyer, and it is difficult to believe that any lawyer would be so ignorant as to believe that Planned Parenthood would ever under any circumstances concede any such thing. Planned Parenthood’s absolutism on the issue is widely known in the legal profession. Hmmm. In an adversarial context, I can certainly see an organization refusing to make any unnecessary concessions. In other words, under what circumstances would PP say, “This would be an acceptable limitation”, even if we assume it would accept certain limitations? Perhaps none! I don’t think that establishes what the organization’s position is one way or the other. After all, have they ever actually asserted that abortion should be legal up to the moment of natural birth? Or permissible without any limitation for minors? I think I recall PP asserting that minors should be able to get out of parental notification by showing that such notification would put them at risk, but I don’t know if they’ve ever taken the position you seem to attribute to them: that there should be no limitations on abortion whatsoever. Here’s one thing LH knows as a lawyer: when someone writes, “It’s widely known,” repeatedly, without actually supporting the statement, they don’t actually know what’s supposedly widely known. I shouldn’t exceed the limits of my own knowledge, either. I don’t know what PP’s position is. It’s certainly possible that as an organization dedicated to defending a right that’s under significant pressure, the subject of what limits the organization would accept has never come up. But maybe it has, I don’t know. I don’t think you do either. UDEditors: PP refuses to back down on the right to abortion even when the baby is 9/10 out of the mother. But nooooooo they're not absolutist. I want to thank you though. I write an article about insane, irrational denial, and literally hours later you give me another example. The readers know. Learned Hand_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT}

Mike at 97, No, no, no, no. Empathy compels you to act right lest you feel bad. hrun0815 assures us it so. I suppose he is just as sure that you cannot condition yourself to suppress empathy in the teeth of all the evidence that one can do that very thing. Barry Arrington_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT}

So then, after digesting all of this, the bottom line is, if I listen to the subjectivists and adopt their core philosophy, who do not believe there is any absolute morality, I am free to jettison those old pesky irrational moral feelings and go ahead and strike out and do whatever the hell I want, WITHOUT ANY RATIONAL BASIS FOR GUILT! Wahoo! I'm in! If I feel like it, I get to chop you up and eat you, without guilt. (With a side of fava beans, of course.) And do anything else I want. I LOVE IT. Count me in. I should have become a materialist, atheist, nihilist a long time ago. It sounds like FUN! My will be done.mike1962_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

Barry @94, I notice that we both made the point about PP and partial birth abortion independently. I wrote my comment @95 before I read yours.StephenB_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

LH
“You actually agree with me, you’re just lying.” Again. No, Stephen. I am not Stephen. I have opinions that are not yours.
You stated that the "right to choose" is a moral issue. In fact, it is a legal construct. The proper response on your part would be, "I stand corrected." [PP and company]: “Abortion represents a woman’s right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy, and this is a fundamental human right and reproductive freedom that is protected by the United States Constitution.”
Speech is a fundamental human right as well, and even the fiercest free speech advocates don’t believe that right is unqualified.
Irrelevant to PP's definition of the unqualified "right to choose." On the subject of partial-birth abortion, Alisa Lapolt Snow, speaking for the Florida affiliate of PP, said this: “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician." So, it is clear they believe there should be no restrictions. They believe a woman's right to choose remains legitimate up to the point of birth, or as they put it, "any decision."
Huh? PP thinks that the right to an abortion runs up to 8 months? I doubt that’s an official position of the organization.
Except that I just provided evidence to the contrary. Do you have any evidence to support your position, or are you asking me to accept your doubts as evidence? SB: Do you think that the babies that they slice up and sell as meat are not “viable?”
I think in those states with a viability limit, the fetuses are not viable. I don’t know in the others.
That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. You think that the ability of a fetus to survive outside the womb is contingent on what state law says about it? ------------------------------------------------------ Barry, this is an example of what I was talking about. Let these people talk long enough, and they will say something totally insane. Then you have something that you can save for posterity.StephenB_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT}

LH’s insistence – contrary to facts widely known in the legal profession – that Planned Parenthood is not absolutist on the “right” to abortion has grown tedious. LH insists that Planned Parenthood would happily concede that some restrictions on abortion should be allowed. Nonsense. LH is a lawyer, and it is difficult to believe that any lawyer would be so ignorant as to believe that Planned Parenthood would ever under any circumstances concede any such thing. Planned Parenthood’s absolutism on the issue is widely known in the legal profession. Consider a situation in which a viable baby is nine-tenths outside the mother. Indeed, if the doctor loses his grip on the baby and it slips the rest of the way out, killing her would be murder in every state. Should the doctor be able legally to suck the baby’s brains out before the head is allowed to slip out? Yes, says Planned Parenthood. See Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. A more absolute position on the abortion issue is scarcely imaginableBarry Arrington_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

LH: PP is an organization made up of human beings, who are generally very interested in morality. Let's try this: The Nazi Party is an organization made up of human beings, who are generally very interested in morality. Yeah, it doesn't work. What do the PP and the Nazis have in common? They both have the blood of millions on their hands. But a fetus is not human LH insists. Is that so? Are you saying that when a fetus gets chopped to pieces the blood that is shed is not human blood?Barry Arrington_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

LH:
I am not Stephen.
I would have bet $1,000 that LH would sooner or later employ his condescending "speak of your opponent by their first name -- i.e. there are other people than Stephen; I'm not Stephen, etc. It usually comes out after his someone (often Stephen) shoots his arguments to pieces. It is a sure sign of desperation. You are nothing if not predictable LH.Barry Arrington_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT}

I am sure that you know better than that. “You actually agree with me, you’re just lying.” Again. No, Stephen. I am not Stephen. I have opinions that are not yours. PP is not the least bit interested in morality.What would prompt you to say such a thing. PP is an organization made up of human beings, who are generally very interested in morality. And I don’t see that the people who make up PP are any different than the rest of us. They disagree with you about what is moral, but they do care about morality. They believe that restricting the autonomy of women is immoral, for example. It’s one of the chief reasons people volunteer to work for PP and similar organizations; they feel an important right is being trampled, and they value the protection of such a right. The issue is about legality. The right to choose is a legal construct, not a moral construct. It is defined by the abortion lobby (including Planned Parenthood and NARAL in the following way: “Abortion represents a woman’s right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy, and this is a fundamental human right and reproductive freedom that is protected by the United States Constitution.” I don’t know what could be more clear. For them, a woman has the unqualified right to continue or to end a pregnancy. Does the statement say that PP believes the right is unqualified? Speech is a fundamental human right as well, and even the fiercest free speech advocates don’t believe that right is unqualified. Again, there are probably some people here and there who would take that position, but I can’t think of any. Can you? Can you find someone actually saying that the right to an abortion should be totally unqualified? It seems like you’ve built a very detailed model of PP in your head; what are you doing to test whether that model is accurate? Are you saying that PP allows for exceptions to this fundamental right? If so, you will have to provide some evidence. You’ve decided that PP has an opinion, but you can’t find any actual statement of theirs that states that opinion. Rather than looking for it, you’ve asked me to find evidence that your opinion isn’t true. I’m on an airplane with slow internet, so no, I’m not going to go googling for you. Also, I don’t care very much. Your opinion isn’t based on facts, so why would I expect facts to change it? Irrelevant. According to PP (and all the others) that woman has the constitutional “right” to abort and PP is obliged to honor that decision, or even encourage it. For them, viability and reasonableness has nothing to do with “rights.” Huh? PP thinks that the right to an abortion runs up to 8 months? I doubt that’s an official position of the organization. And I doubt that it’s a popular opinion with the people in the organization, or anywhere else. Perhaps you could find some evidence supporting your opinions about what “all the others” believe? Because you seem to be running on intuition here. That’s not a very reliable guide to what people who don’t have Stephen’s opinions believe. If such people exist, which you seem to find doubtful. Where in the definition of the right to choose do you read anything about drawing a line? I don’t. Nor do I find anything stating that there is no such line. I assume, in the absence of a clear statement one way or another, that the people in the organization have the opinions that are most common among liberals: abortion should be legal, there can and should be reasonable limits on it. And I assume the people in the organization disagree about what those limits are. If anyone thinks there shouldn’t be limits, I haven’t seen any evidence of it. The entire abortion lobby is of one mind: A woman’s has the right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy. It is “a fundamental human right with respect to reproductive freedom. It is protected by the Constitution.” The free speech lobby is of one mind: Speech is a fundamental right. It is protected by the Constitution. But does that mean that the ACLU believes people should be free to say anything, at any time, even crying “fire” in a crowded theater? You’re making assumptions that aren’t supported by the plain evidence—there’s a reason you’re having a hard time finding anyone actually articulating the position you say that all pro-choice advocates have. Do you think that the babies that they slice up and sell as meat are not “viable?” I think in those states with a viability limit, the fetuses are not viable. I don’t know in the others.Learned Hand_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

LH
Yes, very easily. I’m assuming we’re talking only about morality here; obviously PP would and does accept health and safety limitations.
I am sure that you know better than that. PP is not the least bit interested in morality.What would prompt you to say such a thing. The issue is about legality. The right to choose is a legal construct, not a moral construct. It is defined by the abortion lobby (including Planned Parenthood and NARAL in the following way: "Abortion represents a woman's right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy, and this is a fundamental human right and reproductive freedom that is protected by the United States Constitution." I don't know what could be more clear. For them, a woman has the unqualified right to continue or to end a pregnancy. There are no exceptions because it is, as they would have it, no one's business. It is the woman's "private" decision based, among other things, on a perverted interpretation of the right to privacy. Are you saying that PP allows for exceptions to this fundamental right? If so, you will have to provide some evidence.
So for example, A goes for an abortion and meets with P, a Planned Parenthood counselor. A is 8 months pregnant at least. P says, “Post-viability abortions are illegal. This is a reasonable law; I think it is immoral to violate reasonable laws. It would be immoral for you to have an abortion. I will not assist you, and would not even if I could.”
Irrelevant. According to PP (and all the others) that woman has the constitutional "right" to abort and PP is obliged to honor that decision, or even encourage it. For them, viability and reasonableness has nothing to do with "rights."
On a broader level, P could say, “The viability limitation is a good one because we have to draw the line somewhere, and viability gives women a reasonable opportunity to exercise autonomy while setting a conservative lower limit on the age at which a fetus becomes a person with rights.”
Where in the definition of the right to choose do you read anything about drawing a line? For them, abortion is a private decision to be made between a woman and her doctor (the baby's killer). On reproductive issues, it is said that the woman can "choose" what she will do with her own body (they are too stupid to know that it isn't part of her body) and no one, least of all the state, may draw any lines. I have given you PP's definition of the right to choose and the rationale for it. Do you have any evidence that Planned Parenthood or NARAL rejects their own definition of "choice" and claims that someone other than the mother should be allowed to "draw a line."
This is, again, purely speculation. Have you ever looked up PP white papers or position statements? I have no idea whether such things exist, but I’ve never looked. Have you?
The entire abortion lobby is of one mind: A woman's has the right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy. It is "a fundamental human right with respect to reproductive freedom. It is protected by the Constitution." Do you agree with that definition or don't you? If so, then why do you carry on. If not, why not? Do you think that the babies that they slice up and sell as meat are not "viable?"StephenB_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

Is seems that Barry has failed to respond to or even quote one of my comments which is very reviling to the question at had. Specifically, I'm referring to..
Barry want’s me to condemn something with his terms, rather than decide on terms we can agree on. But that is the underlying problem in the first place. In setting it up that way, we won’t get anywhere.
And, for that I'm evil? UDEditors: No, Popperian, you are evil because you employ sophistry in the service of evil. Popperian_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

So, it seems, then, that your answer to my question is this: “No, I know of no case where Planned Parenthood would ever accept a restriction on a woman’s right to choose.” That's a very aggressive interpretation of what I said. PP doesn't fight every restriction on abortion; it accepts laws restricting abortion to non-viable fetuses, for example, as far as I know. I'm sure there are people in PP who would reject such restrictions if they had the choice, but I suspect it's a minority position. Maybe an analogy would help? I'm not aware of the ACLU ever identifying a good restriction on speech. But that doesn't mean that the ACLU's position is that the right to speech is completely absolute. Presumably it accepts the limitation that "I will kill you unless you pay me money" is punishable speech. But how would we know, from the outside of the organization? I think if your position is, "This organization believes X," you should be able to make some argument or provide some evidence that this is true. Otherwise you're just speculating. Which is amusing, but not very meaningful. So, my next question is this: Can you even imagine such a scenario. If so, can you describe it. (For my part, I cannot). So, my next question is this: Can you even imagine such a scenario. If so, can you describe it. (For my part, I cannot). Yes, very easily. I'm assuming we're talking only about morality here; obviously PP would and does accept health and safety limitations. So for example, A goes for an abortion and meets with P, a Planned Parenthood counselor. A is 8 months pregnant at least. P says, "Post-viability abortions are illegal. This is a reasonable law; I think it is immoral to violate reasonable laws. It would be immoral for you to have an abortion. I will not assist you, and would not even if I could." On a broader level, P could say, "The viability limitation is a good one because we have to draw the line somewhere, and viability gives women a reasonable opportunity to exercise autonomy while setting a conservative lower limit on the age at which a fetus becomes a person with rights." This is, again, purely speculation. Have you ever looked up PP white papers or position statements? I have no idea whether such things exist, but I've never looked. Have you?Learned Hand_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

LH,
I do not think that fetuses are people
In German this is expressed, "Lebensunwertes Leben."Barry Arrington_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Eugen, I wouldn't change that rule. I think "do not murder" is a good rule. I do not think that fetuses are people, so I do not think that rule applies to abortion.Learned Hand_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

LH
I don’t believe that your assertion is accurate. I don’t know how to test it, other than by asking you to support your position. As an organization pushing back against much stricter restrictions than it is prepared to accept, I don’t know under what circumstances PP would ever put out a statement saying, “here are the restrictions we’d accept.” That doesn’t mean they don’t want or wouldn’t accept any restrictions, though.
OK, good. You are now beginning to confront the issue. I appreciate it. So, it seems, then, that your answer to my question is this: "No, I know of no case where Planned Parenthood would ever accept a restriction on a woman's right to choose." So, my next question is this: Can you even imagine such a scenario. If so, can you describe it. (For my part, I cannot).StephenB_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

Learned hand We (try to) live by a simple Commandment "you should not murder". How would you change this Commandment to fit your liberal worldview? Think you are liberal god making Commandments for modern secular state. Again please be simple. You may be gifted with writing skills but so far you would not be hired by a wise East European king.Eugen_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

BA, I am pointing out that abortion is the willful inflicting of death on innocent human beings. To describe it as "safe" is then a travesty, as it is all about the deliberate taking of innocent life; usually for reasons of convenience and often with the brazen claim that there are rights to "choose" being exerted. It is a loss to gain the world at the expense of one's soul, we have on very good authority. KFkairosfocus_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

Barry, @71,
While I admire your tenacity with Learned Hand, are you not violating Matthew 7:6? [The metaphor that exhorts Christians not to cast their pearls before swine] LH is many things, but he is not stupid. He has understood you from the beginning. Pretending not to understand is one of his favorite deceptions. It is a tactic he employs to deflect an argument from the main topic to endless explanations he steadfastly denies understanding.
Ah, yes, Matthew 7:6 is a powerful exhortation. Fortunately, though, a public forum provides us with one additional factor: The onlookers can take the pearls and identify the swine by observing his reaction to them. Of course, I am aware of LH's tactics, but I find that after about five exchanges with a materialist, the answers become so increasingly bizarre (and dishonest) that even the lurkers start scratching their heads. Materialists seldom give me their craziest stuff right off the bat. Prompted by the right questions, though, they will not disappoint. The one question I want disinterested observers to ask themselves is this: "Why did that materialist, who sounds like my professor, feel the need to ignore?, lie?, evade?, or distract? Why is he using the language to obfuscate rather than to clarify? Doesn't the truth inspire confidence?"StephenB_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

KF @ 80: You misunderstand LH. When he says he wants abortion to be "safe," he does not mean he wants it to be safe for the little boy or (more commonly) little girl who is being killed and chopped into little pieces.Barry Arrington_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

LH, abortion is essentially 100% fatal for its intended victims, our unborn children. The promotion, entrenching and protection of this as a widespread practice across the world over the past generation has stained the ground with the blood of hundreds of millions. That blood cries up from the ground against our whole civilisation, but being directly implicated in bloodguilt or in enabling such a holocaust is extremely corrupting, benumbing and endarkening of conscience, heart and mind. I fear that only reaping horrific, undeniable consequences of our willful march of folly will begin to wake us up. As Lincoln and the White Rose martyrs warn. KFkairosfocus_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

The context of this entire discussion has been abortion. And yes, as SB studiously points out over and over and over, and you just as studiously ignore, liberals like those at Planned Parenthood believe that in the abortion context choice is an absolute good. In your words, the choice to have an abortion is “good under any circumstances.” Yes, liberals at Planned Parenthood “believe that choice is just plain always good.” The context was also "liberals," not "Planned Parenthood." Do you also believe that liberals generally always think the choice to have an abortion is good under any circumstances? When I go the PP site, I see materials discussing the choice between abortion, adoption, and parenthood. I see statements like "abortion is very safe, but the risks increase the longer a pregnancy goes on." That doesn't sound like they're saying that abortion is good under all circumstances. It sounds like they're real people, in a real world, with real opinions that are more complex than the hateful caricature you thrust at them.Learned Hand_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

Maybe that is because I didn’t use the term “absolute good.” Did you ever think of that? The term “absolute right” is not synonymous with “absolute good.” It appears that you injected that new phrase into the discussion as a conscious distraction. Is that what it was? Maybe? If you have a particular position, would you mind just stating it? This game of alluding to it and then getting outraged that I didn't understand you is a little tiresome. Especially as both you and Barry are doing it, which makes it very difficult to tell what you're trying to say. For example, no, you didn't say "absolute good." Barry did. I'm sorry I imputed his statement to you. OK, "absolute right." I have never seen PP (or anyone) assert that there should be an absolute right to terminate a pregnancy at any point, other than Peter Singer. I don't mean that there aren't such people, only that the opinion is not a popular one, even among liberals. Can you show us anything to support your assertion that PP, as an organization, wants an "absolute right" to abortions? I don't believe that your assertion is accurate. I don't know how to test it, other than by asking you to support your position. As an organization pushing back against much stricter restrictions than it is prepared to accept, I don't know under what circumstances PP would ever put out a statement saying, "here are the restrictions we'd accept." That doesn't mean they don't want or wouldn't accept any restrictions, though.Learned Hand_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

LH
I presume that by “absolute” you mean “good under any circumstances”; otherwise I don’t see how you could disagree with my criticism of Eugen’s logical formulation. That is, no actual liberals believe that choice is just plain always good
The context of this entire discussion has been abortion. And yes, as SB studiously points out over and over and over, and you just as studiously ignore, liberals like those at Planned Parenthood believe that in the abortion context choice is an absolute good. In your words, the choice to have an abortion is “good under any circumstances.” Yes, liberals at Planned Parenthood “believe that choice is just plain always good.”
I am not a liar; I have not lied in this thread or ever at UD, as far as I can remember.
The readers will decide for themselves whether you are a liar or if you are actually stupid enough to believe the false statements you make at UD.
I actually can’t think of any example of you engaging civilly with people who disagree with you on this blog.
I engage civilly with everyone who comes here and argues in good faith. It is true that I heap contempt on liars. I despise them.
“Liar” is not an argument.
True. I am not making an argument. I am making an observation.Barry Arrington_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

LH: Cf 50 above: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/some-things-are-really-simple/#comment-577848 KFkairosfocus_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

SB: What is it about the word “absolute” that you do not understand. You changed the subject and started discussing good and bad choices, which has nothing to do with his argument.
I don’t understand what you mean by choice being an “absolute” good, if you think the choice being made isn’t relevant.
Maybe that is because I didn't use the term "absolute good." Did you ever think of that? The term "absolute right" is not synonymous with "absolute good." It appears that you injected that new phrase into the discussion as a conscious distraction. Is that what it was?StephenB_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

Said every pro-abort ever who cares only that abortion is safe and legal and does absolutely nothing to make abortion rare. This is an assumption that is supported by nothing other than your desire to vent your disgust. In fact I do support measures that make abortion rarer, for example through sex education in public schools and greater access to contraceptives. Those might not be your preferred tools, but your assertion is factually wrong and obviously made in ignorance.Learned Hand_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

Who are these liberals?
He writes as if they were not quoted in comment 47. Pretending not to know something that you do know is another lie. What I asked was whether there are any people who believe that “choice” “is an absolute rather than a relative good.” What you quoted were people who believe that “choice” is a good thing, but not anything or anyone who believes that “choice” is an absolute good. I presume that by “absolute” you mean “good under any circumstances”; otherwise I don’t see how you could disagree with my criticism of Eugen’s logical formulation. That is, no actual liberals believe that choice is just plain always good; liberals, like everyone else, think choice is generally good but look through it to pass judgment on the actual choice being made. If you disagree with this, it’s hard to see how or why; your argument seems to boil down to insults and posturing. I am not a liar; I have not lied in this thread or ever at UD, as far as I can remember. I don’t expect you to agree with me. I expect you to gratify yourself by shouting insults at people you despise. You seem to greatly enjoy it, and to have trouble engaging constructively with such people. I actually can’t think of any example of you engaging civilly with people who disagree with you on this blog. It always seems to devolve into you heaping scorn and abuse on them, to your apparent gratification and the detriment of the conversation. I don’t expect this conversation to go any differently. As I consider civil, honest conversations to be a moral good, though, and something I work hard to support, I will endeavor to respond civilly to any actual argument you care to make. “Liar” is not an argument.Learned Hand_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

LH, kindly cf 47 above and my remarks at 50 above -- this, I now link: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/some-things-are-really-simple/#comment-577848 . . . where we need to know that taking away another human being's life is even worse than taking away his liberty. VC is right to say, there is a choice made before undertaking an act that all able to consent know is biologically directly connected to procreation. Our guilt and willful blindness cry up from the ground against us, where what is at stake is the fate of literally hundreds of millions, and the consequence of mass bloodguilt for our whole civilisation. I repeat, nothing is more corrupting than bloodguilt. KFkairosfocus_{August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply