Sarkus trolls a thread about abortion

Moderator note: This thread was split from the following thread:

Most Americans say abortion should be legal
---

I'd caution issuing definitions when discussing such terms in a philosophical context. There is no agreement in such as to a definition of consciousness, and likely not sentience either. While there may be such definitions in scientific circles - and sentience might come closest to having a single one - there are possibly as many scientific definitions as there are branches of science.

However, with regard sentience, please note that it would never be sensibly defined as "the ability to experience pain". As you may be aware, not everyone has the ability to experience pain (see - CIP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain), so unless you'd like to argue that they are therefore not sentient I'd suggest more accuracy in your definition.
If one wishes to define sentience in such a manner then it would more correctly be "the ability to experience sensations."

You do know that this is a clumsy and rather insulting misrepresentation of what is meant by those who raise, in this context, the question of when life begins, right? The human life-cycle should be Biology 101. It really does begin at conception. This is not a silly matter but a biological fact. And it is an important question in this regard. The issue is certainly not the nonsense misrepresentation that you have strawmanned, but the subsequent attachment of personhood, and more importantly of moral responsibility, to that initial stage of human life.

Playing Devil's Advocate: why does it make "very little sense" to draw the line at the initial stage of a new human life? What is it about the lack of sentience or consciousness that makes it so? Are we to ignore the potential that the new human life has for achieving such, for eventually achieving personhood?
My point here is that you are casually dismissing something without actually explaining why it should be dismissed, as if the dismissal alone is sufficient. Yes, you have referenced two properties but not explained why they are important in being able to dismiss, as if their being referenced is sufficient.
And note that in declaring it to make "very little sense" you have insulted a large number of people who don't share your view, given that you have stated it as if it should be taken as fact, rather than, presumably, just an expression of your own personal view.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe you should use "e.g."

"Pedantic nitpicking"? Is that what you see it as? Rather than the onus being on you to be more accurate, you wish to deflect with accusations of pedantic nitpicking? Rather than just saying "noted" and leaving it at that, you try to justify and deflect?
The reason they are worth commenting on is because you subsequently try to use those terms in your position. As such it is quite important, is it not, to accurately reflect what it is you mean by them? As stated, there are many ideas of how to define consciousness, so any notion you have and wish to apply may not appeal to someone else also using the term but their own notion of it.

Ah, yes, the deflect rather than simply acknowledge. How typical.

Well, you should, because it is. It is a misrepresentation, and you have constructed a strawman from it.
"Life begins at conception" is not simply because that is when the first new unique set of DNA is formed, but because that is the first stage in the natural development of a new human. Note how the same can not be applied to a liver cell, or skin cell. Again, this is Biology 101. It is why your Biology teacher didn't teach you that liver cells can naturally develop into humans. Or maybe yours did??

And there you go in dismissing an entire swathe of human beliefs as "clumsy".
To have some hope of answering the question of abortion honestly, one really does need to understand that which they are arguing against. You don't. And unfortunately that is a common criticism of you.

Typically, James R, you're not. I'm not insulted.
The question of when life begins - and what that actually means rather than your strawman misrepresentation - is important, whether you want to think it is or not.
Firstly, as a matter of biological fact, it frames the debate: the issue of abortion is all around the competing values one places between the life of the mother and the life of the unborn, and the rights of one against the rights of the other (and at what stage they even have any). It needs to be understood that, biologically, there is a difference between that unborn life from the moment of conception, and a liver cell, or skin cell etc. So, yes, it is an important question, because the biological answer helps frame the issue. And it is a biological fact, no matter what your biology teacher may have told you. If one wishes to argue that life doesn't begin until a later stage, then go for it.
The rest is then a matter of relative value, between the two human lives (biologically speaking).

Secondly, the question, and answer, is used by many to emphasise the weight they place on "human life", irrespective of where or who it is. So it is an important question. And an important answer. Sure, it is one you can misrepresent and casually dismiss as silly if you so wish, but personally I'd find that embarassing to do.

You can continue your misrepresentation of what they mean, or you can stop embarassing yourself. Your choice.

You can continue your misrepresentation of what they mean, or you can stop embarassing yourself. Your choice.

Sure, religious beliefs are "almost entirely irrelevant". I get it. I mean, you want to talk about the "moral conundrums" but then want to ignore the larger sources of morality that the world provides? Sure. I get it.

You can continue your misrepresentation of what they mean, or you can stop embarassing yourself. Your choice.

You can continue your misrepresentation of what they mean, or you can stop embarassing yourself. Your choice.

You can continue your misrepresentation of that issue, or you can stop embarassing yourself. Your choice.

I think that cell is the first stage in human development. That can not be said of a liver cell, or a brain cell. That is the difference. Your continued misrepresentation and strawman is noted.

It's not a matter of assigning them all the rights. The issue of abortion is about one right, and one right only: the right to life. Let's stick to that one, shall we. So, please, no more strawmen.

Just sufficient to make your point, which you didn't do. You assumed it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

James R, politely: fuck off.
You don't know me from Adam to be able to say this. It may well be the first time I have posted on this site about such matters, and while I appreciate that for you this site might be the be-all and end-all of your existence, for some of us there is a world outside, a world in which some of these matters have been somewhat more than just words on a screen . But, I guess, not posting on your precious website about them before means that we could never have grappled with them, right? Seriously, James R, is your clumsiness pathological?

I didn't say you did. Try comprehending what I actually wrote, which doesn't lose anything in translation to Antipodean English. It means that it seems you didn't explain why you thought consciousness or sentience were important as if you thought using those terms was itself sufficient to explain why. I.e. that using the terms alone would explain their importance.

Maybe don't write some things explicitly as opinion, and others as if expressing fact. Heck, why not just put a disclaimer at the top if you can't be bothered to be clearer about things.

When you make a point of expressing it for one thing but not for another (that you also write as if fact), it is not unreasonable to assume that you have done so for a reason: that you are expressing fact. But, then, I guess your inability to be clear is my fault.

I didn't feel insulted by your post, beyond your casual dismissal of other people's beliefs, your misrepresentation of their position and subsequent strawmanning. But that doesn't mean you didn't insult them with such.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The personal bullshit that you began, James R. You took simple, straightforward, and impersonal criticism of your posts, and now here we are, all because you don't like criticism, and can't take criticism. What we instead got was the clumsy disrespect and insult that you seem so content to dish out without ever taking responsibility for the fallout. Yeah, ignore it, and then blame others for reacting to it. You do you.

There's something about your oblivious hypocrisy that goes here, but I'll leave that for you to work out.

No, it is not about "potential". It is, at this juncture, simply stating a fact. A biological fact. No argument attributed to it. A simple statement of fact. Do you accept that fact, that it is the beginning of human life, that there is a difference between that single cell and that of a liver cell, or skin cell? Or are you going to continue to ignore the obvious, and continue your misrepresentation and strawman?

Of what? The fact? Sure - it is what biology 101 teaches. Ask any biologist you wish to. What more are you looking for?

It may not be an important question for you, James R. But, as stated, it frames the issue. It may not be important if you take that framing for granted, or if you don't see a difference between the start of human life and a liver cell, or skin cell, but for those that do it frames the issue. And without that framing you're not really understanding the issue. If you don't think framing the issue is important, sure, you do you.

You too often don't know what it is you rail against. That has been pointed out to you on a number of occasions. It is no longer opinion. And this is a case in point: you think the notion that "life begins at conception" is silly because of some misrepresentation and subsequent strawman. That misrepresentation, equating that first cell to a liver cell, to a skin cell, is evidence you don't understand what it is you rail against.

It is seen. By many. That you don't see it is for you to ponder on.

If you don't correctly frame the debate then you immediately ignore much of what others have to say on the matter as it doesn't even fit within the frame that you have set. So basically you have set up your framing so as to be able to ignore every significantly opposing view. e.g. that of the Roman Catholic faith.

I didn't say that you are arguing that life doesn't begin until a later stage, but that if someone wants to then they can go for it. You have already made your misrepresenation with regard the significance of "life begins at conception".

Once one accepts the biological fact that life begins at conception, there really is little to disagree with as to the nature of the debate: you have two human lives. It is then the relative value, and, yes, that might change over the ongoing development of the unborn. But that it is what this debate is about.

You don't need to have explicitly mentioned relgion. Or are you one of these people who think if you don't mention something explicitly then you can't be held accountable for it? What you did was call the "life begins at conception" position in this debate as being the answer to a silly question, and that answer as being "unhelpfully misleading". Well, guess who tend to ask that question in the context of this debate? So, no, you didn't explicitly mention religion, but you dismissed whole swathes of their view out of hand. And via a strawman, a misrepresentation of their position. Yeah, you do you.

No, I don't consider religion as the source of my morality, but many people in this world do. And you have casually dismissed them. You have, as explained, framed this debate (at least in that specific post of yours) so as to ignore them as "silly".

Partly. And this speaks to your other moment of catastrophic clumsiness. You don't know me, James R. You don't know what people have gone through outside of this site, their experiences in this regard. Yet on a matter as volatile and as personal as this one has the potential to be for people, you just barged in, making assumptions of what people have been through (or not, as you assumed). You don't appreciate the potential for hurt that that might cause? That you assumed this site to be the be-all and end-all of thought was laughable, and sure, the rest was just plain clumsy. But hurtful. Your subsequent lack of apology, though, is unfortunately more typical.

I'm sorry, James R, but you have lost any chance of me explaining my personal views on the matter here. Your disrespectful clumsiness has its price.
However, there are those who claim, yes, a human has a right to life from the moment of conception, from the moment that new human life begins. A right that should see a ban of abortion, at least in healthy situations. And that this does take over the right of autonomy of the host. But you know this. We have seen Alabama deem the destruction (accidental or otherwise) of even frozen embryos to be liable of suit under wrongful death. It should come as no surprise that there are positions and views such as this.

None of which actually explains why you think why those properties are important. Again, as if those terms are sufficient in and of themselves to explain why. So just repeating what you have said doesn't alter the issue with it. Want to try again? Care to actually explain why those properties are considered by some to be places to draw the line?

To be fair, James R, you would take any disagreement by me to be a case of "knee jerk fit of anger/outrage" because it then gives you an excuse to ignore it as such. There is, however, nothing in post #117 that is an indication of what you claim in this regard. Realign your sensors. Remove the bias. You're really just embarassing yourself, again, with such remarks.
And it still doesn't remove the issue: just because I personally was not insulted does not mean that you did not insult others.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I would ignore all the personal bullshit, but unfortunately it's just too pervasive:

I haven’t addressed the moral significance, if any, that I place on such matters. The issue here is that your framing of the question excluded those that do place significance here. You referred to the entire question as “silly”, and misrepresented their position that “life begins at conception” as “unhelpfully misleading”. You are aware that people do place moral significance on the event, right?

Surely if it was self-evident then this issue wouldn’t be debated quite as strongly as it has been over the years. So no, I don't think that view is self-evident. And given that you anyway don’t know my view, your guesswork is pointless. But, hey, feel free to drop your personal bullshit.

I’m not discussing me, James R. I’ve told you that. I am discussing views other than your own, however.

Sure, because it seems you only accept views if holders of those views actually put them forward. Yet you frame a debate to exclude the majority who hold significantly different view, you call them “silly”, their position “unhelpfully misleading”, and continually misrepresent their position, is it any wonder you don’t get their participation directly?

I’ve explained how you have framed the question, that you have done so in a manner that insults those with whose view you significantly disagree, through misrepresentation and strawman. You haven’t framed it to include them, I take it, because you don’t see how it does frame the issue. And that is clumsy of you, as explained previously.

And this is a misrepresentation of their view when they say “life begins at conception”. If you are not doing this deliberately then you are clumsier than I thought. You really ought to know about what you are disagreeing with. But you don’t seem to.

“Life begins at conception” is about new human life. Not life in general. This much should be obvious, even to you. So quit the misrepresentation. Quit the strawman. Quit the insulting behaviour.

When you refer to something as “silly” it is justification for ignoring. You can just wave your hand and say “well, that’s silly” and not look at it any further. And you haven't looked further, instead raised a strawman due to misrepresentation.

As for diverting, away from what you consider to be morally significant. You have dismissed their position. You have framed the issue through your dismissal so as to exclude them from the debate, if not explicitly then through your insults, misrepresentation, and strawman.

And you continue with the insults of those who hold that position, and find it of moral significance. Either it is a deliberate attempt to mislead or the result of shoddy thinking. You don't see the inherent insult in what you're saying? Are you really surprised that you don’t get such people debating the issue with you when you frame the debate in such a way? When you treat them with such contempt? And when you fail to actually understand their position before you rail against it?

Did I say you needed to respond to it???

No, James R, the framing is different. But the importance of that seems to escape you. Ah, well.

No, I’m not suggesting any such thing. I’m suggesting that you not insult their position, misrepresent their position, and strawman around it. I’m suggesting you actually have decency enough not to dismiss their views as “silly” and “unhelpfully misleading”. You know, try to be inclusive, to have an actual debate in anything but the echo-chamber you seem to want around here. But while you so casually insult, clumsily or otherwise, and fail to understand that which you rail against, you’re left framing issues that exclude them.

If for the reasons you gave then I’m happy to point out that your misrepresentation is an insult to them, and shows that you don’t know about that which you criticise. Me, personally, I am embarrassed for you, insulting them as you have, clumsily or otherwise. But I am not personally offended, no.

What it “seems like” to you has lost most of its weight, James R, given your proclivity toward misrepresentation and strawman.

It’s not about me, James R. But it seems that simply pointing out insulting behaviour, and flawed reasoning, is now a case of being “touchy and defensive”.

Facts, James R. Try not to ignore them, please.

Which is a dismissal out of hand, especially when a gross misrepresentation of their actual position.

I don’t like your arguments as to why you think their view is “silly” and “uinhelpfully misleading”. I have explained why it is a misrepresentation and subsequent strawman on your part. I have also highlighted that due to this you have framed the issue in a way that would exclude them (insults and misrepresentation of their position has a tendency to do that). I am under no obligation to share personal views, and not doing so does not negate the criticisms of your own.

I have explained above. But thank you for confirming that you really are one of these people that think things need to be explicitly stated before you can be held accountable for them. Logical implications? Nah. Not responsible for those, are you.

I’m not whining, not angry, nor I haven’t “lost my shit” or any other term you might want to use to help you feel better about things, or to ignore the points. I am simply pointing out that you have misrepresented, as already explained numerous times, the position you rail against, that the misrepresentation and subsequent strawmanning is insulting to them, that in doing so you have framed the debate so as to exclude their views.

The rest is all derived from you making things personal.

Why do you think that is, James R? It wouldn’t have anything to do with you insulting them, driving them away through your framing of the issue, through your dismissal of their views as “silly” or “unhelpfully misleading” (albeit via a misrepresentation)? No, of course not.
Furthermore, they don't need to be here in person for you to have insulted them, for you to have dismissed their position. That line of defence is pathetic. Embarrassing.

Talking to people that insult them, and criticise their position without understanding what it actually is, yeah, that’s going to happen.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So what? That says nothing about the framing of questions, the insults, the misrepresentations that go on inside. Nor does it mean that positions can only be defended by those that hold them, or that insults are only such in the presence of those who would be insulted.

 

Continued, for what it's worth...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This is actually the only part that I was upset about, James R. The rest was simply me pointing out your failure to understand that which you rail against, your strawman, how that insults those who hold those views, and your framing of the issue that effectively excludes them. Disappointment, embarrassment for you, but not angry, or upset about anything. Except your clumsiness here, yes.

What you “take” is irrelevant.

Don’t ignore those pesky facts, James R.

“I must say, I'm a little surprised this is the first time you've grappled with some of these matters.” That is an assumption. About me. Specifically about a lack of experience of such matters. Facts, James R. You can’t ignored them, try as you might.
You then compound that by even now trying to squirm your way out of acknowledging that you did. It’s genuinely embarrassing, quite frankly.

That you think me not “grappling” with such issues on this site as justification for your assumption just speaks, as explained, to your clumsiness on the one side, and on the other to the over-inflated sense of importance you place on this site.

The two matters are exclusive, James R. You have been disrespectful to the RCC, that much is evident, as now explained on a number of occasions. The personal hurt is because of your outright clumsiness, and the details are not something I would ever share with you. You might then say “well, how am I supposed to know”, and if so then that again would speak to your clumsiness. Someone barging into a china shop should know that there is at least the potential for causing upset, and hence one is careful. You, though, simply charged in. This subject matter deserves caution. You displayed, and continue to display, very little.

And no, I didn’t “barge in on you”, James R. This is a discussion site. You post, and you post knowing that what you say may be scrutinised, criticised, agreed with, disputed, etc. Responding to your post to dispute some of your positions, to raise issue with your misrepresentation, your strawman, your framing of the question itself, is not “barging in”. For you, as Administrator of this site, to even suggest that is rather embarrassing for this site. Although maybe just another clumsy metaphor from you.

There’s no anger there, James R. Disappointment for you. Embarassment for you. But no anger. It is what it is. Your assumption of me assumed that because I had not grappled with this issue here then I have not grappled with it at all. It is not anger to point out the logical implication of your words.

Your effort to spin it somehow about me be angry, and this anger “shining through”, is increasingly predictable on your part. You have already accused my post #117 of “lashing out in a knee jerk fit of anger/outrage”. Anyone that reads that, you excepted, will see that accusation as the bullshit it is. And here you are, trying to further that line.

I’m not angry, James R. There’s nothing really to be angry about. I am greatly upset at one specific clumsiness on your part, hence telling you to fuck off. I continue to be upset at your failure to acknowledge that clumsiness, at your efforts to excuse them. I’m also upset that you can’t see how you’ve insulted swathes of people, how your misrepresentation and strawman of their position is insulting and frames the issue so as to be able to dismiss them. But angry? No. But, you know, if it makes you feel better to think that I am, well, you do you, as they say.

That is correct. Your behaviour here has assured that, for what it's worth.

Firstly, if you want it to be civil, quit making it personal. Secondly, stop insulting people, clumsily or otherwise. Thirdly, don’t take criticism personally: if you made an error, or wasn’t clear and someone points it out, just acknowledge it, don’t try to explain it away in an attempt to save face. Read your response to #117 and see how you took the criticism personally, and began this latest episode. Take ownership.

Lastly, there is zero in the rules of this site that says that one need only be in a discussion to share personal views, is there? You, the Administrator, telling someone it’s best not to participate if I’m not going to share personal views, is, as I’ve said before, embarrassing – for this site if not for you personally.

Instead I will remain in this discussion as I see fit. I will call out views, positions, arguments, as I see fit, either speaking from personal viewpoint or interposing other people’s views that I am familiar with. Discussion is not about sharing personal views but about sharing views period. If you have issue with that, change the rules of this website. So enough with your pointless bluster.

Ah, yes, the “they must personally have that view or else I can ignore it” line. And given that you have misrepresented that position in framing the issue in your post #114, insulting them as you did, that you fail to understand their position, I wouldn’t expect anyone who actually holds that view to put it forward. But, hey, you’ve at least made the point that only those who hold such views can put them forward.

I.e. you’ll ignore what you want to ignore when anyone raises criticism about your post. Sure. Whatever. If you want politeness, James R, try being polite.

Enough lying, James R. Point to anything in post #117 that is evidence of me “losing my shit”, as you have accused.

You won’t, of course, because you can’t. You’ll then try to use subsequent posts, after you made it personal, and after your utterly clumsy comment to which I told you to fuck off. But post #117? Go for it, James R. Let’s see how much of a stretch you can make simple criticisms of your post into “losing my shit”. Or are false accusations made by moderators to once again be highlighted for all to see?

Note how you haven’t actually addressed that issue, but instead you're trying to insult the one who you sarcastically say is “riding to the rescue”.
I'm really sure there's something to be put here about your ongoing hypocrisy but, well, maybe next time.

 

James R:

Your most recent reply is really just a repeat of what you wrote before. Do you think that just hammering away at your ad hominems makes you more persuasive?

So excuse me if I ignore the following:

• Your fallacious ad hominems
• Your inability to stick to fact
• Your misrepresentation of the arguments of those you disagree with, and subsequent strawman
• Your clumsiness resulting in you insulting of many religious people (or was it not clumsiness?)
• Your clumsiness that resulted in hurting me through false accusations
• Your failure to apologise for either of these last two
• Your inability to always comprehend the logical implication of what you write, and making that the fault of others
• Your apparent view that it’s not an insult if no one directly insulted speaks up about it
• Your apparent view that arguments are only to be accepted if they are personally held by the one providing them
• That you began the nature of this latest exchange through your ego not letting you simply acknowledge the valid criticisms I raised
• Your bias that prevents you from accepting criticism from me, and that ensures you only see anything I post as if written in bad faith
• Your evasion, deflection, deceit and general dishonesty in the manner of your responses
• Your inability to read other people, and your subsequent attributing of incorrect emotion to what they have posted in an effort to discredit (but I’ve already mentioned the fallacious ad hominems, so apologies for double-dipping here)
• And your blatant and unchecked hypocrisy

And so what are we left with...

I mean, I could go through your post line by line and highlight how they fall into the above, but, well, what would be the point, right.

You know, you could have avoided all this by just responding to my post #117 with words to the effect of “noted” to the first point, “sure, they were intended as examples” to the second, and “fair enough, that was not my intention and I apologise if anyone felt insulted or dismissed by it” to the third.

But you didn’t, and here we are. But, you know, what you subsequently replied with and how you replied is all my fault.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So, yeah, I think we’re about done here, don’t you?

 

I honestly wasn’t going to respond to you again, but I thought it worth pointing out your continued inability to stick to fact:

Stop lying.
I merely pointed out some flaws in your framing of the issue, that I considered to be clumsy and insulting to others. That was it. How it developed is on you. Take ownership, James R. The facts don’t lie in that regard.

Again, stop lying.
You wrote: “I’m a little surprised this is the first time you’ve grappled with some of these matters”. Can you honestly not see the difference between what you initially wrote, and the misrepresentation you're now trying to claim you wrote? (Btw, that's a rhetorical question, since I know you can). So it's just more evidence of your proclivity toward misrepresentation and lying.

So, please, stop lying. Stick to the facts.

 

You asked 4 specific, direct questions. 2 I took as rhetorical, 1 didn't need answering as it was based on a deliberate lie by you, and the other had already been answered.
But, because you have issue that I didn't respond, let's have a look at those specific, direct questions in your post #140...

Already explained, and I have no desire to repeat it.

The question is a strawman, as you didn't initially write that, as since explained. But, to reiterate: please stop lying.

I took this to be rhetorical, but if not then my response would be that that would be up to you.

Again, taken as rhetorical, but seeing as you seem to want answers: see that list I put together? I'd ask for you to avoid those failings. Is that too much to ask?
And why are you now looking to have a dig at Cluelusshusband in a reply to me?

There, all the questions answered. Happy now?

Yes, I called you a liar. For lying. This is an ad hominem, but - and here's the important bit - it's not fallacious. It directly addresses the points you tried to make. You lied, deliberately misrepresenting the facts. And while you continue to lie you open yourself to be called a liar. So please stop lying.
As for the more general ad hominems that you hypocritically litter your posts with, maybe if you don't start in that tone with a poster, maybe if you accept their criticism in the good faith it is offered, you won't get it thrown back at you. Ever thought of that? Your bias in that regard does you no favours.

Please stop lying. It wasn't my focus, as explained. But you couldn't accept valid criticism. And here we are.

The bigger question is whether you are done? You keep asking me questions, and complaining when I don't answer. So, now I've answered.
And you can take all the questions I've asked in this post as rhetorical. You have no need to answer. If you do it will simply be because you are unable to not have the last word.

Again with the continued digs at other members, even in responses to other people. Can you not help yourself? (Again, a rhetorical question, because of course you can't.)

 

It's the only way you can win arguments, by editing out the opposing views and labeling them "trolling"...

 

For the record, this is Sarkus's first post in this thread--which has since been moved to another thread entitled Sarkus trolls a thread about abortion <<<:

Just seems thorough to me, and so I'm still not quite grasping how that--or any of that which follows, for that matter--constitutes "trolling" or "endless repetitive attacks." Can anyone enlighten me on this?