Sarkus trolls a thread about abortion

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Already have--nice little dig, though! Do you always assume that people who disagree with you haven't read through the pertinent material or bothered to consider it?

Consequently, I am still seeking clarification on the matter.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, no. The most minimal intervention would be to simply stop replying when it became clear he was trolling.

It takes two to create a disruptive off-topic detour.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm seldom thorough, at least with respect to posting on the interwebs. Yes, it's a bad habit. However, I'll note that I did say this in my first post in this thread (well, actually the other thread, but whatever...):

(emphasis mine.)

It seems a bit odd to respond to that with this--

-- no?

 

Interesting. So you assumed that I was unaware of the content of this thread--this very thread that I referenced in my first post?

(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 <<<)

Wanna try again?

Edit: Nevermind. Respond, or don't. I'm out. I'm just not terribly interested in engaging with dishonest sorts.

 

Jesus Fucking Christ. From my first post--again:

(emphasis mine. Again.)

So how would I be unaware of a thread which I cite by name?

Nope. I call you dishonest because, over the 15-odd years which I've been perusing this forum, you have been dishonest fairly often.

And, apparently, you're an asshole, as well.

Edit: Or would you rather I call you stupid?. Surely you see my ??? confusion, I guess, over your insistent claiming that I was unfamiliar with this thread by now? Yes?

Thing is, I know you're not stupid--so what other options have I got here?

 

Sigh. I don't know why, but I feel like I've also got to note this:

OK. So, if I was unaware of this thread, how exactly is is that I post not only the title of this thread within my first post, but also the content of Sarkus's first post in this thread, which is no longer in the other thread? I mean, c'mon-- a simple "my bad", or something to that effect, would suffice. But instead, you insist upon the soundness behind your bizarre assumption that I was somehow unaware of this thread. You kinda do that sort of thing a lot, and that is, for example, but one facet of your dishonesty to which I allude.

 

Where's the trolling in the first post of mine? Where are the ad hominems? Do you even understand what an ad hominem is?? Calling an argument clumsy, or stating that you have insulted people, is not ad hominem. They speak to the argument, not the person.
So please do the right thing and replace the first post of mine back in the thread, and then have the decency to respond to it, if you wish, without throwing your own ad hominems.

So do you, James R. I didn't pull that list out of thin air. You are maybe not the most dishonest poster on this site, but because you are not only a moderator but the administrator, your dishonesty is the most significant. And don't get me started on your hypocrisy. Take note that pretty much all the threads that deteriorate do so after you start slinging ad hominems, after you start being dishonest. They deteriorate because people call you out for it and you take umbrage. But you won't take note of that. After all, you have history. Facts, James R, are not your friend in this regard. You continue to be dishonest and hypocritical, and people will continue to react to it. While you have your head in the sand about your own dishonesty and hypocrisy, things will not change.

The main issue here is that we have no recourse to deal with your dishonesty, your ad hominems, your behaviour. You can warn people in threads, we can't, so how are we to point out to others your dishonesty if not in the thread itself. Which you then call "trolling", or react in a way that simply exacerbates matters. But it's all our fault, not yours, of course. Seriously, have you ever considered that if you weren't quite so dishonest then many of the issues wouldn't arise? Try it sometime.

 

Thanks.
As to enlightening you... no, not really. Baffles me, in fact. Pointing out weak definitions isn't trolling, and James R subsequently stated that they should have been considered only examples of definitions. Fair enough. Then pointing out that an argument is a misrepresentation of that used by those who claim "life begins at conception", and explaining the misrepresentation? Is that trolling? Maybe it's in referring to it as a "clumsy" misrepresentation? But then it was. Clumsy in as much as I assumed it wasn't intended dishonestly. Or maybe the trolling is in saying that his misrepresentation insulted swathes of religious people - you know, the people who use "life begins at conception" line that he misrepresented the position of and called "silly" and said didn't make much sense. Well, it would insult them. That much was factual, and related directly to misrepresented argument/position he was spouting.
So is any of this trolling? No. It's entirely pertinent to the issue of abortion, isn't it??

So, yeah, sorry - can't help enlighten you. Unless it's the fact that James R thinks whenever I criticise something he's written that it is done so in bad faith. This is an ad hominem by him, of course, one he assumes a priori, and one I can't disabuse him of since he simply overreacts (see his subsequent post to my non-trolling opener as an example, which includes him ad homineming me, hurting me - which he still fails to comprehend - and a host of dishonest tactics, etc). And so it deteriorates to the point he wants to sweep the whole mess away, and all his own bad behaviour, but does so in a manner that makes him look like the victim rather than the initiating culprit. And now the fact that he has insulted many religious people through a misrepresentation of their position, and dismissing it as "silly" etc, goes away.
Maybe it's that? Feeling enlightened?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Personally, I think that the inevitable introduction of that preposterous scenario wherein a woman seeks an abortion one day prior to the intended birth date constitutes trolling more than anything else--it's either wholly disingenuous or inexcusably ignorant. Yet it seldom gets called out as such. Addressing matters of what people might actually mean when they claim "(human) life begins at conception", on the other hand? Not so much.

Valuations of life--life generally, not just human life--on the basis of supposed consciousness or sentience are problematic. James states that "Many philosophers and scientists like to draw the line based on notions of consciousness (the ability to perceive oneself as a separate being) and/or sentience (the ability to experience pain)." (And setting aside, for the moment, that supposed "example" that looks more like it is intended to define.) Sure, and just as many philosophers and social scientists--especially in recent decades--very much do not "draw the line" on such basis. That's kind of a holdover from humanistic traditions, of both secular and religious nature, that's fast losing traction among contemporary thinkers. So, yeah, again: kinda relevant.

 

That's definitely true with trolls.

But keep in mind trolls WANT to make you angry and waste your time. If you make voluminous replies to them, that encourages them to continue.

If someone is trolling, I'd encourage you to warn them, then ban them if they don't stop. I'd also encourage you to NOT engage them, since that's what they want. By engaging with them you reinforce their behavior.

I'm not making judgments on Sarkus here, this is just for trolls in general. And honestly his replies to you do not seem to be trolling; he seems just generally annoyed with you, which is not the same. But in either case - trolling or simple annoyance - not engaging with them ends the issue.

 

Why do you say that? Such abortions can and do happen. There have been abortions at 39 weeks in the US. A recent study surveyed a few hundred women and found one who got an abortion at 35 weeks. (For comparison, our second son was born at 35 weeks with no ill effects and is now 100% normal.) Most were not due to medical problems with the fetus, but rather a change in situation for the woman. Reasons included:

not knowing about the pregnancy
trouble deciding about the abortion
disagreeing about the abortion with the man involved
raising money for the procedure and related costs
difficulty securing insurance coverage
difficulty getting to the abortion facility
not knowing where to go for an abortion

These are very rare. Less than 1% of abortions occur after 21 weeks, and less than .02% after 26 weeks. But they do occur, and must be planned for.

 

Certainly such eventualities need to be planned for, but it's just that: they are exceptionally rare. And I suspect that most people are well aware that this is the case.

I see it as somewhat analogous to the uproar over transgender athletes. No one in their right mind can possibly think that a person would transition so as to gain a competitive edge in particular sports (excepting the guy in that episode of South Park). IIRC, I did read about one transgender woman who excelled in whatever sport-ball thing (don't recall). But that's one out of 8 billion-plus, and so certainly doesn't warrant such "concern".

 

I agree. It's important to plan for them (and understand the tradeoffs) even if they make up a tiny fraction of abortions overall.