Page 153 of 154 FirstFirst ... 53103143151152153154 LastLast
Results 1,521 to 1,530 of 1533

Thread: Christianity Today Op Ed

  1. #1521
    Must...have...caffeine One Bad Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Inside the beltway
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    22,052
    Amen (Given)
    6553
    Amen (Received)
    12460
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam View Post
    Because my terms are perfectly clear and I'll waste a whole lot more of my energy if I have to keep going down a new chain of argument that is also going to end up being completely ignored.

    A show of active listening is, at this point, required.

    --Sam
    Listening to what? All you're doing at this point is refusing to answer the question, pointing back at a 152-page thread (not all of which is on this topic, but it's not like this topic came in just yesterday either). The least you could to is point to a particular post or posts.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio

    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

  2. #1522
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,020
    Amen (Given)
    159
    Amen (Received)
    764
    Quote Originally Posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    Listening to what? All you're doing at this point is refusing to answer the question, pointing back at a 152-page thread (not all of which is on this topic, but it's not like this topic came in just yesterday either). The least you could to is point to a particular post or posts.
    This is a conversation I've been having with Sparko; he didn't just drop into the discussion with these questions. I have explained to him (and this is not the first time), the argument as to when fetuses can be said to obtain the property of personhood. He has responded to that argument and should understand how the question he's asked is answered in those posts.

    If you haven't read the thread, that's not your problem. But it's also not your place to jump in and argue that I should be providing that information anew when he wasn't listening the first (or fourth) time.

    --Sam
    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"


  3. #1523
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,020
    Amen (Given)
    159
    Amen (Received)
    764
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    OK, here is what I stated:

    3. You also argue against the fetus being a person, at least until a certain age.


    you said, "What am I saying specifically in regards to #3? That's a pretty key issue with relevance your question!"

    Here is what you have been saying:



    Sounds exactly like you are saying that a fetus isn't a person when they lack the capacity to suffer. So "until they reach a certain age"

    How exactly did I misstate your position?
    If a fetus, at a certain point in gestation, develops the neurological capacity to process sensations and therefore obtains the required elements of personhood then why would you be asking me about infanticide?

    --Sam
    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"


  4. #1524
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    60,569
    Amen (Given)
    13078
    Amen (Received)
    27652
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam View Post
    And I'm reminded of the old adage that you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink.

    Seriously, if you want to snark then take a stab at it: restate the argument I've made here about fetal personhood in a paragraph. That's plenty of space to answer Sparko's question. What have I said is necessary for personhood, when does that capacity develop, how does that apply to the question.

    It's easy, though harder than just finding things to gripe about, and it'd be a good exercise in how teaching takes two.

    --Sam
    What's this with you and all the complaining about 'snarking', Sam? Why has your thin gotten so skin? And why do you have to be such an arrogant backside?
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

  5. #1525
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    57,942
    Amen (Given)
    1202
    Amen (Received)
    21185
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam View Post
    If a fetus, at a certain point in gestation, develops the neurological capacity to process sensations and therefore obtains the required elements of personhood then why would you be asking me about infanticide?

    --Sam
    So let's go back to people in deep comas, where someone's brain activity can essentially flatline but some recover. At that point they don't have the neurological capacity to process sensations if there is virtually no brain activity so I guess you're fine with pulling the plug on them. OTOH, unborn babies just 7 weeks old are exhibiting brainwave patterns -- more so than those in the coma.

    And going back to "processing sensation" which implies that it is fine to terminate a life if they cannot feel it. I guess a quick instant kill while someone is asleep or been drugged would be fine. And heaven help those with congenital analgesia.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

  6. #1526
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    57,942
    Amen (Given)
    1202
    Amen (Received)
    21185
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam View Post
    And I'm reminded of the old adage that you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink.
    I prefer the modern version: You can lead a liberal to knowledge but you can't make them think.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

  7. Amen Cow Poke, RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  8. #1527
    Must...have...caffeine One Bad Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Inside the beltway
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    22,052
    Amen (Given)
    6553
    Amen (Received)
    12460
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam View Post
    This is a conversation I've been having with Sparko; he didn't just drop into the discussion with these questions. I have explained to him (and this is not the first time), the argument as to when fetuses can be said to obtain the property of personhood. He has responded to that argument and should understand how the question he's asked is answered in those posts.

    If you haven't read the thread, that's not your problem. But it's also not your place to jump in and argue that I should be providing that information anew when he wasn't listening the first (or fourth) time.

    --Sam
    From what I've read, it appears that he has indeed understood your position correctly, but you have some sort of heartburn regarding his observations of the implications of your position.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio

    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

  9. Amen Cow Poke, RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  10. #1528
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    52,757
    Amen (Given)
    5366
    Amen (Received)
    23294
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam View Post
    If a fetus, at a certain point in gestation, develops the neurological capacity to process sensations and therefore obtains the required elements of personhood then why would you be asking me about infanticide?

    --Sam
    We are past that Sam. I accepted your answer on that.

    I asked you if what I stated was as position was true or not. Apparently it WAS. So why did you make a big deal about what I said? Saying I didn't understand what you believed and making me go back and re-read it all over again. Was it just a game to you? Or just more avoidance?


    So let's try again. Now we know #3 was correct. What about the rest? a yes or no would suffice.

    Oh and after this little fiasco, we can also check off #6 as being true.


    And yet when I state what I think you are saying, or what Ox is saying, I am accused of twisting your words.

    Here is what I have garnered from your logical and clear answers:

    1. You claim to be pro-life.
    2. You also claim to not want to change the laws to make abortion legal
    3. You also argue against the fetus being a person, at least until a certain age.
    4. You say the only recourse is to try to convince people abortion is wrong.
    5. You can't tell me what that argument (see 4) would be, or whether it would include all abortion, or just abortion after a certain stage of development.
    6. Instead when asked for a clear answer, you merely obfuscate and refer me back to your "clear answers" which are not clear at all.


  11. Amen Bill the Cat amen'd this post.
  12. #1529
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,020
    Amen (Given)
    159
    Amen (Received)
    764
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    We are past that Sam. I accepted your answer on that.

    I asked you if what I stated was as position was true or not. Apparently it WAS. So why did you make a big deal about what I said? Saying I didn't understand what you believed and making me go back and re-read it all over again. Was it just a game to you? Or just more avoidance?


    So let's try again. Now we know #3 was correct. What about the rest? a yes or no would suffice.

    Oh and after this little fiasco, we can also check off #6 as being true.

    [box]
    And yet when I state what I think you are saying, or what Ox is saying, I am accused of twisting your words.

    Here is what I have garnered from your logical and clear answers:

    1. You claim to be pro-life.
    2. You also claim to not want to change the laws to make abortion legal
    3. You also argue against the fetus being a person, at least until a certain age.
    4. You say the only recourse is to try to convince people abortion is wrong.
    5. You can't tell me what that argument (see 4) would be, or whether it would include all abortion, or just abortion after a certain stage of development.
    6. Instead when asked for a clear answer, you merely obfuscate and refer me back to your "clear answers" which are not clear at all.

    No, no no -- won't play that game. What you had asked is whether I consider infanticide illegal. I told you that my answer was already contained in the discussion we've had.

    Now, you're jumping and moving goalposts around.

    Go back to the headwaters and acknowledge that your question about infanticide was completely redundant given the conversation to that point.

    --Sam
    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"


  13. #1530
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    52,757
    Amen (Given)
    5366
    Amen (Received)
    23294
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam View Post
    No, no no -- won't play that game. What you had asked is whether I consider infanticide illegal. I told you that my answer was already contained in the discussion we've had.

    Now, you're jumping and moving goalposts around.

    Go back to the headwaters and acknowledge that your question about infanticide was completely redundant given the conversation to that point.

    --Sam
    No, what I asked was

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    You seem trying to obfuscate the matter instead of just answering me directly. I will try starting at the beginning.

    Are you personally OK with abortion before a certain level of development? Yes or No.

    If no, why not?
    To which you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Sam View Post
    What I'm trying to do is either 1) help you develop the skill of following and addressing a logical argument or 2) not waste a great deal of my time if you're incapable of that skill or unwilling to exercise it.

    My posts so far clearly answer your question. If you've been following the argument at all, you would know the answer. If you're willing to go back and figure out, that's a good indication we can move forward. If not, it's a good indication that I shouldn't keep running toward a wall.

    --Sam
    To which I answered:

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    And yet when I state what I think you are saying, or what Ox is saying, I am accused of twisting your words.

    Here is what I have garnered from your logical and clear answers:

    1. You claim to be pro-life.
    2. You also claim to not want to change the laws to make abortion legal
    3. You also argue against the fetus being a person, at least until a certain age.
    4. You say the only recourse is to try to convince people abortion is wrong.
    5. You can't tell me what that argument (see 4) would be, or whether it would include all abortion, or just abortion after a certain stage of development.
    6. Instead when asked for a clear answer, you merely obfuscate and refer me back to your "clear answers" which are not clear at all.

    So you are the one playing the games here Sam. Not me. If you don't want to just answer me, then just say so and stop responding to my posts. It's that simple. But if you do want to have a discussion and you want me to understand your position, then acknowledge my points above, or tell me where I got any wrong. This stupid "go back and read it again" nonsense has to stop. You can easily restate your position or correct my understanding with a simple sentence or two.

    I don't need your help in "developing the skill of following and addressing a logical argument" -- in fact, it seems you are the one having the problem in that regard.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •