Law of Charity and Theory of Choice

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by RussellCrawford, Jan 5, 2014.

  1. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    I will take that as your admission that your speech is false, obscure, and incorrect.

    You should be disappointed that your misuse of these terms required me to object to them.

    Indeed unreasonably false, obscure and incorrect claims require us to decode your speech as best we can in order to try understanding them, and this does limit us. However, that reflects an increase, not a decrease, in the mental powers of your readers. And as long as you cling to the notion that obscurity is equivalent to revelation, that will pretty much limit your understanding about much of the world around you.

    Since you have attached the spurious idea science of abortion to what is actually an abortion of science there was no point in visiting your site.

    Since you have attached the spurious idea Laws of Science to what are actually the Laws of RussellCrawford there was no point in visiting your site.

    Neither any information propounding an abortion of science nor the Laws of RussellCrawford are reasonable, therefore by avoiding your site I have reduced my risk of being infected by unreason.

    My struggles to decode your cryptic speech were set in motion when you decided to violate the standard rules of rhetoric.

    Said the person who introduced abortion to the Biology forum.

    The Laws of RussellCrawford are rendered invalid by definition. Your lack of concern about Roe v Wade is made evident by your disrespect for the work done by the Court in its probe into the questions you have raised here. Indeed, while the Court involved itself with the Science of Abortion, the Laws of RussellCrawford have entirely concerned themselves with the Abortion of Science, hence your clash with the superior wisdom of the Court is understandable.

    Viability is not a claim but an element of the offense of criminal abortion, and was made relevant once you laid the factual predicate that the Court's wisdom is inferior to yours.

    Independent events are not mutually exclusive, therefore the claim you are killing one to save the other is false.

    "Right foundation" and "abortion of science" are incongruent, therefore the obscurity you are revealing is useless to me.

    I have read all or most of what you posted here, which is more than enough to detect the difference between Science of Abortion and Abortion of Science.

    Advice to be clear and accurate is always useful, which is why you also said your remarks will be of great assistance to me.

    Indeed your lack of learning and communication skills are your second- and third-most fatal weaknesses.

    I'm convinced you believe you were successful with them. In any case your failures to yourself linger in what you've posted here.

    So it's settled then. You will deliberately persist with the use of obscure speech.

    Deliberately, from the admission above.

    By your own admission the reader cannot be blamed for decoding errors that may occur while unraveling your cryptic speech.

    Deliberate obscurity is not innovative, nor is the use of abortions of science -- to leverage spurious beliefs -- anything new.

    I'll take that as an admission that you obtained help in doing so.

    The art of deception is very old.

    My zone of comfort is lies within the candid speech of scientists, which is why I recommended you should try applying it yourself.

    There is no correct way to lie.

    Having laid this factual predicate you forfeit any rightful complaints about references to Roe v Wade.

    Since the complexity of this topic is exceedingly shallow, this explains why you're bogged down here.

    For that reason my references here shall mean The Laws of RussellCrawford, et al.

    If you were "exposed as a complete idiot" and it was a consequence of my desire to bring the Science of Abortion into conjunction with the Abortion of Science, then this was as much as reflex response as anything, having long resented the social conservative agenda and its relentless attacks on Roe v Wade.

    Your statement, that you were "exposed as a complete idiot" was a statement of your opinion, not mine. Indeed I think you have not been fully exposed.

    I have been the first to observe and write about the deliberate obscurity of the Laws of RussellCrawford, et al., which state that the Science of Abortion is inversely proportional to the Abortion of Science.

    You are the only person here claiming authorship of laws. I only claim discovery of the above law, not that I authored it. You authored it.

    Your ability to persuade illiterate people demonstrates that narcissism is the fodder of naiveté.

    In fact controversy precedes you.

    Which is why I am encouraging you to cease and desist.

    Your belief that science-illiterate people understand you comports with the Laws of RussellCrawford, et al., demonstrating once again that the Science of Abortion is inversely proportional to the Abortion of Science. A corollary to this is that the science-literate people will not understand you.

    Since the above mentioned laws impart to you the status of a demigod who reigns not only over the Supreme Court but over all of science, it's fair to say that you can claim anything you like without violating your own laws.

    Indeed with power comes responsibility. Use it to clean up this thread.

    Answering in code may work for demigods, but mere mortals need the PIN number.

    The first sign of trolling is friction with the mods, particularly one as bright and mellow as he, and may result in instant demotion from demigod status.

    That should tell you that the power of persuasion is inversely proportional to the rate of obscurity,

    Leaving the reader to decode obscure, cryptic and absurd speech is hardly a matter of making distinctions.

    No, all of your language errors are entirely the reader's fault, since demigods are by definition indemnified and held harmless.

    Allow me to tell you how the Laws work among mere mortals. Down here we have a law that states statistically independent events cannot be mutually exclusive. Now, as cryptic as that may seem to a demigod, it's actually just part of the Science of Abortion which, owing to its inverse proportionality to the Abortion of Science does not comport with any mnemonic devices or milestone markers you may need to "acknowledge the distinction", it nevertheless does reign over us -- and I hate to say this but: at the Supreme Commander of the Universe level, quite a few pay grades ahead of yours. So, unlike you, we must submit to its will.

    Perhaps this post will apprise them of said Laws, such that any such future remarks will be properly classified as ad semideum.

    And from now on they become ad semideum as well.

    Maybe you were filled with the glory of the above said Laws.

    Once you cripple the dialogue you are not in a position to complain of walls..

    Evidently you equate fairness with swallowing lies.

    Blaming the reader is no cure for your admitted language errors.

    Recognizing that you are not in a position to condemn anyone but yourself, your generosity in doing so is duly noted.

    The up or down vote on your credibility was decided, among other things, once you proclaimed that statistically independent events are mutually exclusive.

    As these threads tend to run in shallow waters, we have customarily posted first principles of science and math in them, which, by definition, attack ignorance of same. Thus, we will universally state (and BTW that underlined bit is a HUGE requirement to distinguishing a law): statistically independent events are NOT mutually exclusive.

    On the contrary the posters apply those same first principles every day within their professional capacities.

    It is understandable that you attach shame to first principles of math and science.

    If in fact you wanted to be understood you should have applied the principles of your freshman class in rhetoric rather than blaming readers for the state of this thread.

    You have entirely based your thesis on the covert statement that the Supreme Court erred in its decision.

    Independent events are not mutually exclusive, therefore the claim you are killing one to save the other is false.

    Ignoring the obscure genotype->phenotype reference, the non-viability of any fetus within the first trimester renders [whatever is hidden behind the obscure usage] moot. Thereafter, the question of viability is a matter of expert medical judgment, which renders [whatever is hidden behind the obscure usage] moot. Therefore the entire question of [whatever is hidden behind the obscure usage] is rendered moot for all cases, from conception through delivery or termination.

    You have not given any foundation for applying this to your denial of the Court's opinion. It is therefore frivolous..

    Your understanding of phenotype and genotype is evident from the context of your posts, which have provided no grounds for injecting either one into the conversation.

    Having laid the factual predicate for referring to Roe v Wade you forfeit all such complaints.

    The Laws of RussellCrawford et al. are rendered invalid by definition.

    Viability is of critical value to any person on trial for destroying a fetus.

    If they die simply because they were not viable, then that is irrelevant. If they die for any other reason, it is moot.

    It was your premise they were viable, not mine. Make up your mind.

    There are at least as many ways to prove an embryo is alive as there are ways to prove that a viable fetus was killed.

    The spurious notion "enough DNA" is ungrounded and therefore falls.

    Since all humans possess human DNA, this falls by definition.

    There is no way to prove a hypothetical, so the fragment "to live as a human" is spurious.

    There is no way to prove a hypothetical, so the fragment "if it will be alive at birth" is spurious.

    There are at least as many ways to prove by sonogram that an embryo is alive as there are ways to prove that a viable fetus was killed.

    There is no way to prove a hypothetical, so the fragment "will live to birth" is spurious.

    Humans live in uncountable ways, none of which is afforded to a fetus if it is destroyed, and either none or one of which is afforded to any culprit found guilty of destroying it. However, all of that is moot, since there is no way to prove a hypothetical, and therefore your statement is also spurious.

    There is no factual predicate linking "phenotype" to "abortion", nor are there any grounds for qualifying the phenotype as "correct ", therefore the claim " the DNA must "express" the correct phenotype" must be rejected.

    There is no way to prove a hypothetical, so the clause "if the embryo will produce a living baby" is spurious.

    You should be sorrier that the reader doesn't know what you are talking about.

    The opposite is being disputed: that the deprivation of a potential life from a viable fetus constitutes an element of the offense of criminal abortion.

    The premise "the fetus cannot be proved to be alive " is ungrounded, therefore the rest of the sentence falls.

    A human fetus is by definition human. This therefore also falls.

    Independent events are not mutually exclusive, therefore the claim you are killing one to save the other is false.

    The subject of "forcing birth" is ungrounded and therefore falls.

    Independent events are not mutually exclusive, therefore the claim you are killing one to save the other is false.

    The factual predicate for attaching the relevance of "phenotype" to "abortion" has not been laid. More specifically, the technical relationship remains ungrounded in any fact or evidence adopted here. This claim therefore falls.

    As you have already admitted, the language of your claims is inherently incomprehensible, despite repeated requests for you to use candid plain speech. Here no one asked for your guidance in technical subjects. It’s merely been noted that this is ungrounded and therefore falls.

    Roe v Wade is central to this thread since you are attacking the decision. It is relevant in connection to the biological definition of fetal viability since the case explains the science that informed the Court in its decision.

    Since Roe v Wade is relevant to this thread, and for all the reasons stated in Roe v Wade which establish the relevance of the Constitution to the topic of this thread, the Constitution is relevant to this thread, and it is relevant in connection to the biological definition of fetal viability.

    The Laws of RussellCrawford are rendered invalid by definition.

    Since Roe v Wade was a state claim resolved at the Supreme Court, and for the reasons listed above, the topic of state laws regulating abortion is relevant to this thread.

    The Laws of RussellCrawford are rendered invalid by definition.

    Since Roe v Wade decided (a) case(s) at bar in the courts of common law, the common law is relevant to this thread.

    Having laid the factual predicate by introducing moral considerations of abortion, you made religion relevant to this thread.

    Since the question of abortion revolves entirely around the discussion delivered by the Court in Roe v Wade, and since the ethical and legal boundaries in which abortions shall or shall not be conducted hinged entirely on a Court informed by science, the ethical and legal reasons to protect the right of life retained by the viable fetus will never be moot, but especially because of the absurd premises you have propounded here, and made so under the law which states statistically independent events are not mutually exclusive,

    Independent events are not mutually exclusive, therefore the claim you are killing one to save the other is false.

    Independent events are not mutually exclusive, therefore the claim you are killing one to save the other is false.


    The status quo incorporates the Law of Independent and Mutually Exclusive Events. When you learn to propound clear, candid and plain speech, to be reasonable technically accurate, and to state claims within the conventions of standard rhetoric, you may achieve the status of a mentor. When you learn the Law of Independent and Mutually Exclusive Events, you can discard your Laws of RussellCrawford. Until then you are impeding yourself.

    Only an open mind can inform itself of the facts which hold you in check.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. RussellCrawford Banned Banned

    Messages:
    125
    That is simply another ad hominem. If you have a valid remark that would disprove the law, then I would go away. See how simple that is.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RussellCrawford Banned Banned

    Messages:
    125
    You are making a false assumption fallacy, and because most of what follows is based upon that false assumption you wasted your time.


    That is an unsupported fallacy.


    You haven't proved any incorrect claims. And the rest of your statement is based upon your assumption fallacy. You see the first thing you have to do is prove there is an incorrect statement. And your "opinion" of a law is not valid because laws can be disproved with solid facts.


    That is an Ad Hominem based on a False Assumption.


    That is based on a false assumption.


    That is another ad hominem based on a false assumption fallacy.


    Other people understand and you don't. Sounds like your problem to me.


    Another ad hominem!


    Another ad hominem based on a false assumption fallacy.


    The laws have no relationship to Roe vs Wade. You are attempting to build a Straw Man Fallacy.


    No one said they are, if you think you have an argument, then make it. Being vague is what you accuse me of, right?


    This is based on a False Assumption Fallacy.

    That is based upon your false assumption fallacy. You assume you know what I am saying and you don't.


    You have really made a false assumption fallacy here.


    Another ad hominem


    Another ad hominem


    Others understand, so the speech is not obscure.


    False assumption fallacy


    False assumption fallacy


    False assumption fallacy


    False assumption fallacy


    You should know.


    Meaningless self aggrandizement.

    spurious comment



    Roe vs. Wade is immaterial to the laws.




    Ad hominem


    ad hominem


    False assumption fallacy


    False context fallacy, False assumption fallacy


    ad hominem


    ad hominem


    ad hominem


    This is another ad hominem when in context.


    ad hominem



    ad hominem


    ad hominem


    ad hominem


    ad hominem


    ad hominem


    Fragment of an ad hominem.


    As you said people of lesser intelligence than you understand.


    My claim is that normal people understand. What I say is very clear to those that do not live in a world filled with ad hominem thoughts. Perhaps you should value other people?


    There are no statistically independent events claimed.


    ad hominem


    ad hominem


    ad hominem


    ad hominem


    ad hominem


    ad hominem


    false assumption fallacy


    false assumption fallacy


    False assumption fallacy


    Some readers on a site that base their ideas on ad hominem fallacies, false analogy fallacies and false assumption fallacies may agree with you. But simply saying in one place "statistically independent events are mutually exclusive" and saying in another "statistically independent events cannot be mutually exclusive" will not cover both bases. You need to not only choose which you are standing behind, but explain why it applies to anything I have said.



    Which of those two principles do they apply. Or do they apply both in arguments, as you have done.


    ad hominem


    I don't blame readers, some readers understand and others don't. According to you, the less intelligent do understand and the intelligent don't . I am fine with that. I suspect that the intelligent do understand as well.


    I admire the rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States and revere their opinions, especially with regard to abortion. I support the Constitution of the United States. Your claims otherwise are simply calculated falsehoods.


    That is an "Intentional Fallacy" some would call it a lie. If you had done your homework you would know that no one claims that anyone is killing one to save another. My claim is very clear, 7 billion people are dying a person choses which to save. As a result the others die. Do you understand the difference? In your claim a person is killing one to save the other, in my claim one is choosing to save one when all are dying. I have given analogies and proof in every form, by you choose not to read the proof.


    Medical judgment has no impact. A zygote/embryo/fetus cannot be proved "scientifically" to be alive or human until it is born. A medical judgment is valid to determine the risk the fetus will either live or die by a medical judgment cannot prove a fetus will be born. This is not debatable.


    Another "Intentional Fallacy", I agree with the opinion of the court. It is based upon science of the period. It is not based upon the "Scientific Abortion Laws". In fact the viability portion of the ruling is brilliant.

    I don't agree.


    False assumption fallacy


    ad hominem


    Intentional Fallacy


    I don't agree.


    Intentional Fallacy


    So what?


    ad hominem


    Simply stating a proposition will not prove the proposition to be true.


    Intentional Fallacy
    You are applying your rule to a fragment. No fragment can be proved.


     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2014
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    Ah, so it appears you didn't read that link I provided explaining what laws are in science and are continuing to dishonestly state your assertions are laws.
     
  8. RussellCrawford Banned Banned

    Messages:
    125
    If you would learn to read the Law it says nothing about 57 million a year. The Law says "There are more people dying than can be saved"

    That is what the Law says. You need to quote the law instead of making things up and then you won't make false allegations about what it says. And you might read in the sentence the word "analogy" and question what it may mean. Then you can pose a question that does not include a false attribution.
     
  9. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    Sorry, but that is not a law. You really should educate yourself in that regard.

    YOU are the one making stuff up.
     
  10. RussellCrawford Banned Banned

    Messages:
    125

    This is a quote from the site you suggest and my response is interspersed:

    Scientific laws:
    "1.summarize a large collection of facts determined by experiment into a single statement,"

    The "Law of Charity" states "There are more people dying than can be saved." The law is based upon the fact that throughout history all naturally born people have died and the implication is that all naturally born people will die in the future. In the course of the compilation of the Law it was determined that all empirical data supported the Law.

    "2.can usually be formulated mathematically as one or several statements or equation, or at least stated in a single sentence, so that it can be used to predict the outcome of an experiment, given the initial, boundary, and other physical conditions of the processes which take place,"

    The law is comprised of a single sentence "There are more people dying than can be saved."

    "3.are strongly supported by empirical evidence - they are scientific knowledge that experiments have repeatedly verified (and never falsified). Their accuracy does not change when new theories are worked out, but rather the scope of application, since the equation (if any) representing the law does not change. As with other scientific knowledge, they do not have absolute certainty like mathematical theorems or identities, and it is always possible for a law to be overturned by future observations."

    All empirical data supports the law as shown and it can be disproved if any conflicting data is found. For example if there are naturally born unaltered people that be found to live infinitely, the law is false.

    "4.are often quoted as a fundamental controlling influence rather than a description of observed facts, e.g. "the laws of motion require that..."

    Popular agreement is a time dependent requirement that can only come after the law is proved to exist for a period of time that people can generally be aware of its tenets. Regardless, as shown above, it is proved to be the fundamental controlling influence with regard to abortion.
     
  11. RussellCrawford Banned Banned

    Messages:
    125
    You are posting an "Intentional Fallacy" as proved by the fact that your statement as to whether or not the "Law of Charity" is or is not a law is disproved by your own citation.
    The scientific fact is that the tenets of the law are true and the law meets all the requirements for a law.

    Your claim must be supported by substantial evidence due to the fact that your own citation proves you wrong. If you have something, post it.
     
  12. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    No, it does not meet the requirements, you need educate yourself as to what laws are in science. Please do that.
     
  13. RussellCrawford Banned Banned

    Messages:
    125
    What are we playing "Hide the definition of the law".

    I have given you two definitions of what comprises a law and the Law of Charity fulfills all the tenets of both definitions. If you have some hidden definition of what comprises a law, then by all means post your definition. But it will make no difference because this Law meets at least one definition of what is a law. To disprove this law you would have to disprove all other laws based upon the same two definitions as met by this Law.
     
  14. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    Sorry, but that does follow logically.

    Again, that is not a law, it is merely an illogical assertion.

    You have not provided a shred of empirical data nor have provided any equations to support the law.

    No, that has not been proved.
     
  15. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125

    Again, and for the last time, you need to educate yourself as to what comprises a law in science.
     
  16. RussellCrawford Banned Banned

    Messages:
    125
    So you have no proof. Sorry, if you find proof, post it.
     
  17. RussellCrawford Banned Banned

    Messages:
    125
    I assume you mean "does not" rather than "does". But I may be wrong, it could be an admission of the truth of the statement.

    That is simply an ad hominem fallacy with no factual basis. If you believe it does not follow logically, prove it and it will not be a fallacy.




    That is an ad hominem fallacy that does not have any merit at all. If you can prove an illogical assertion, then do so and it will no longer be a personal attack.




    I have provided all the empirical data required on the page I linked: http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com If you want different data or more data, you are on the internet and can simply search Google. Perhaps you will find that some group of humans live eternally.

    There is no need to provide equations as they are not required.




    Yes it has. If you think not, explain why. I have already proved my points.
     
  18. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    You should probably educate yourself on fallacies, too. You don't appear to understand them, either.

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
     
  19. RussellCrawford Banned Banned

    Messages:
    125

    Thanks, your link supports what I say. Once you strip away the false analogies and false claims one is left with nothing but a personal attack.

    Like I said in an earlier post, if your statements are true, there is no ad hominem. But because your statements are pure fallacy, your statements are left with nothing but personal attack. Now support your false allegations and you will have proved me wrong. I will then remove my claim of the use of an ad hominem.
     
  20. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    I said, "Sorry, but that does follow logically" which is not a personal attack, you should educate yourself in that regard. I provided a link for you to do so.
     
  21. RussellCrawford Banned Banned

    Messages:
    125
    It is a false statement. There is nothing left after the false statement but a personal attack. If you had supported your claim with proof or attempted to support it with proof, it would not be an ad hominem attack. But because the obvious intent was to imply that I post work that does not follow logically, it is an ad hominem.

    Your link agrees with me. You cannot post personal attacks.
     
  22. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    Allow me to show you what constitutes a personal attack.

    "You are complete and total idiot."

    That is a personal attack. Do you understand the difference between that and...?

    "Sorry, but that does follow logically."
     
  23. RussellCrawford Banned Banned

    Messages:
    125
    If I am a complete and total idiot, that is not a personal attack.

    It is because I am not a complete and total idiot that it is a personal attack.

    I did not post anything that does not follow logically.

    So your insult that I do is a personal attack.
     

Share This Page