Fertilization-Assigned Personhood [FAP]

There is no minimum set of rights that define "personhood." Rights are gradually gained as a fetus, and then a child, grows from a fertilized ova into a 21 year old adult, at which point they have all the rights (all the "personhood") they will ever have.

Nonsense. The "the ordinary rights of self defense" do not abrogate "every single right of the fetal person" nor does a "fetal person" has all the rights a 21 year old adult has. The simplest example is a woman who has a legal abortion, even though that same fetus would be considered a person if an assailant killed the fetus.

Nope. This is the situation that exists now, and no pregnant woman I have heard about has been denied the right to vote, or her right to drive, or her right to free speech based on her pregnancy. Indeed, even late term abortions are legally protected under Rove v Wade in cases of risk to the mother's life - with the caveat that most states outlaw them without a good reason.

Incorrect, and no one does this, even in countries where all abortion is illegal. This is a pathetically weak strawman argument.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The World You Would Make

How many times have you been pregnant in your life?

What measures did you take against becoming pregnant from a man getting his gonads near you?

Show me the signed contract.

But at the same time, you're trying to avoid the question. Which is always interesting when one chooses to undertake a question in that context. I mean, I'm not going to say you can't answer something I asked of someone else, but if you're going to go out of the way to respond to the question, what, pray tell, is the point of deliberately botching the question?

Furthermore, your analogy avoids the question of squatters. Remember that under FAP, there will be no rape exception. But, hey, can women have men prosecuted for rape if they simply violate the terms of contract?

And what of men who tamper with, sabotage, or steal their female partners' birth control? The upside of blaming this all on women is the possibility that a lot more men will be going to prison for the sexual assaults their partners tolerate because, well, that's what women learn to expect if they want to have a man around. With their very human rights at stake, perhaps women will be more willing to step up and send their husbands and boyfriends—the fathers of their children who are presumably providing some toward those kids' safety, wellbeing, and growth; the fathers among whom many are primary breadwinners; the fathers we would otherwise criticize for not being around—to prison.

There is a lot of rhetoric that sounds great if you're advocating against abortion access and only want the underlying processes that empower your suggestion within a society to ignore everything else but the abortion question. For instance, FAP. Someone, somewhere, thinks it is a great idea to cover zygotes under XIV.1. Indeed, enough people think it's a good idea that it keeps popping up in legislatures and ballot initiatives. And look at what has happened over the last year and a half when people are presented with the implications. They kind of freak out. I mean, we did encounter the suggestion that the rational thing to do is simply ignore the U.S. Constitution, but that reinforces my point.

Lastly, I would like you to consider part of the exchange about the image Kitt provided:

Kittamaru: somehow... I know I will get flack for this... but I saw it and couldn't un-see it...

Tiassa: It's a fun one. And yes, proper education could potentially fix a lot of the issues.​

You know why he doesn't get flak about it? Because he made the proper point:

"It's apparently part of a condom commercial XD

But, honestly, I think proper education could potentially fix a LOT of the issues with 'unwanted children' and such."​

To the other, though, there's you?

"When you reproductively invite that other person to occupy your body. Like Kittamaru pointed out, that invite, like sex, is no accident."​

So let me get this straight:

• Kittamaru provides a comedic image from a condom commercial showing a man having a waterskiing accident that results in him colliding with an unsuspecting woman in a manner that appears sexual in order to make the point that "sex is no accident", and you're looking for a way to turn the point onto women specifically? Then again, is there some degree to which that wasn't expected? I mean, it was clear someone would say it, and surely enough, you stepped up.​

And this is important because people keep talking about irresponsible women, as if the poor men are somehow victims of women's sloppiness. You know how many of my generation tried the whole, "I promise, I won't come inside"? Okay, fine. Every one of us that left even a single molecule of seminal fluid inside her need to be in prison for rape.

So let us take a moment for an appeal to both practical reality and aesthetics:

Ahem. Is this thing on?

Friends! Brothers! Fellow genetic mutations!

Are you ready for this?

Because remember: If she gets pregnant, it's her fault for accepting his overtures.

You do realize, of course, that there is an obvious solution to the quandary posed by the preceding proposition?

Every woman needs to be responsible enough to tell men to go fuck themselves, instead.

Remember that, the next time you hit on a woman. If you don't want to be responsible for the things you do, then don't do them.

Do your part to reduce abortion: Stop hitting on women.​

I mean, after all, that's all we're telling them. From rape to abortion to birth control; so many things wrong in this world would be so much better off if women just would take responsibility for themselves and not accept men's sexual overtures.

Because, after all, men aren't going to stop trying to get laid; that sort of logical integrity is apparently a recessive trait, if it exists at all.

So remember, it takes two to tango, but if it always comes down to the woman to say no, well, in the first place that's just cowardly, and, to the other, I wonder what men in general will say if our female fellows ever take them up on the offer.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You mean there are actually people incapable of discerning a hypothetical proposition of ethics from an advocation of real policy? I can’t say I’ve ever encountered such irrationality. Or have I?

The egg is a resident of the landlord’s body, not a squatter. The landlord invites the naval vessel in to port to unload its seamen, and unless there are bouncers at the door the crew are free to enter, once inside there are attendants waiting in the hallways to introduce sperm with egg. If the party started by their union is allowed to go on for say six months, state law grants the partygoers a conditional 90 day extension of occupancy.

The mother’s safety is primary considering the context of the situation, which involves the welfare of two individuals. Continuing a pregnancy to full term is statistically safer than a third trimester abortion. Why do you want to risk women’s lives?

But will you still reserve the right to off it at complete gestation if the spirit moves you?

Sex has consequences. For woman it could be pregnancy, for a man it might be HIV. A pregnant woman has the option to terminate or complete the pregnancy and continue whole. The man with HIV is saddled with a lifetime of drug therapy and uncertainty for his share of the bargain.

I’m not advocating that any women should have to sacrifice their life or significant physical integrity for that of a fetus or a child. I could care less if a developed fetus is the product of a rape or incest, while it may be a tragedy to the woman, it has nothing to do with the value of a fetus. I’m simply advocating that if a fetus is still in utero at six months and poses no physical threat to the mother, then it should have the basic right to be born. If the mother wants nothing to do with it at that point, the state does not require her to keep it.

I have four sisters, a wife, and a grown daughter, and we all share the same views regarding fetal rights and sexual responsibility, and like the majority of women in the US, view your position as extreme. So stop with the hysterical saw that I have no respect for, or understanding of the rights and convictions of women.

Have you got a uterus for sale?

Are you implying none exist?

The egg has been a resident for the life of the woman. The contract for its continued residency is implied by existing state and federal law.

Like I mentioned earlier, the fertilized egg is a developing resident, how it was fertilized is irrelevant to its developmentally acquired value.

If I allowed a horse to penetrate me anally, and as aresult ruptured my colon, do I blame the horse for the injury? Do I chalk it up as an accident? Should we make wedding plans?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

(guffaw!)

Why would you need one? Have you had a hysterectomy?

Oh, wait, or am I supposed to guess at the tacit part so you can pitch a fit about someone making the obvious point?

Because the idea that you would only allow the law to declare that another person has precedent and authority over your body if you were a woman is pretty damn clear.

I was asking how you responsibly protected your uterus. What measures you took.

Ovarian personhood?

You do realize that by your contract analogy, since one of the "lessors'" signatures is the man's, men gain new legal exposure regarding the outcome of the woman's pregnancy? She can drink or freebase that little "person" into oblivion, and he has legal responsibility under that contract, just like any property manager can be held liable for the actions of his tenants.

Oh, right. You already covered that by specifically indemnifying men against any responsiblity: "how it was fertilized is irrelevant to its developmentally acquired value".

Of course, that argument also undermines your use of the word "invite".

About the only thing I can ask of you at this time is that if you are going to campaign against women's human rights, could you please at least do so with the decency and integrity of one who really does believe he is doing it for a good reason, instead of just throwing together a scattershot argument to curtail women's humanity under the law?

There's a reason some people see misogyny in such arguments; for the sake of my politics, thank you for making the point so clearly; for the sake of my human neighbors, please stop—the hatred and dishonesty driving your argument is unhealthy, not only for you, but also for anyone within proverbial earshot who happens to hear just how little you think of them because their daddy gave an X chromosome instead of a Y.

I don't know, did the horse promise to be gentle?

But here's the problem with that particular analogy: If you allow a horse to penetrate you anally, there is a high probability that you are in need of psychotherapeutic or psychiatric assistance in order to function without so endangering yourself.

Analogies only go so far; if you're prepared to cover the gaps, that's one thing. But, generally, people aren't, and, specifically, you are no exception.

And I will advise you of the following, since it seems to be nowhere in your information database: If you choose to invent tendentious, unrealistic rhetorical instruments in order to dissect a point in discussion, then you don't get to complain when your argument is similarly treated.

 

Uh, wow... so, you are in essence, saying it is a womans fault if she gets pregnant, regardless of if the sex was consensual or not? Let me guess, you would also say it is the woman's fault she got raped; that she, somehow, was "asking for it", either by how she dressed, or looked, or otherwise acted?

*shakes head* You are... certainly a specimen... a specimen of what, well... they say pictures are worth a thousand words:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

When Reality Intrudes

Stand Someone Else's Ground

A 2011 paper from People For the American Way includes the following note:

Legalized Murder of Abortion Providers

Last month, the South Dakota House tabled a bill that would have legalized the murder of doctors who perform abortions by classifying it as "justifiable homicide." Now the Nebraska Senate is weighing a bill that would amend the state's self-defense code "to authorize protection of an unborn child." Under the amendment proposed by the fiercely anti-choice state Sen. Mark Christensen, a "third person or person to be protected includes an unborn child" which "means an individual member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development in utero."

State Sen. Brad Ashford, the chairman of Nebraska Senate's Judiciary Committee, said "we could see firefights at clinics" if Christensen's amendment is passed in the unicameral state legislature. David Baker of the Omaha Police department warned that the bill "could incite violence at abortion clinics." Even though proponents deny that it is the intention of their bill, the legal ambiguity would create a perilous and potentially deadly environment for abortion providers in the state.

Along with the personhood bill under consideration in Iowa, the state House plans to consider HF 7, a bill that expands the right to use deadly force to protect a third party. Essentially, by declaring that a zygote and a fetus have all of the same legal rights as a "person" while also broadening the legal protections regarding the reasonable use of deadly force, the bill opens the door for attacks on abortion providers. Criminal defense attorney Todd Miler told The Iowa Independent that since HF 7 "explicitly provides that people have a right to defend themselves or others at any place they are legally allowed to be," if someone attempted "to kill a physician or a clinic worker, and if they did so while believing they were protecting another person, which would be defined under House File 153 as a fetus, then, under this law, they would have the right to do that."​

And from that same paper:

Personhood legislation introduced in the Georgia Senate has already garnered the support of Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, who called the measure "a reflection of a growing pro-life sentiment across the country." The personhood bill introduced in the Georgia House declares that "a fetus is a person for all purposes under the laws of this state from the moment of conception" and would classify miscarriages caused by "human involvement" as "pre-natal murder," a crime that would be punishable by death. Jen Phillips of Mother Jones writes, "Under Rep. Franklin's bill, HB 1, women who miscarry could become felons if they cannot prove that there was 'no human involvement whatsoever in the causation' of their miscarriage."​

Anecdotally, I think of the time a furious anti-abortion advocate demanded to know where the hell I had gotten this idea of LACP, because he had never heard of anyone who believed in it.

On our record here at Sciforums, I am simply reminded of the argument that personhood would not be problematic in a juristic context if we did the rational thing and just ignored the U.S. Constitution.

This is real. And we know why anti-abortion advocates want us to look the other way. And, true, it's a bit puzzling to countenance the idea of an allegedly rational centrist working to give those folks cover, but at the same time that puzzlement abates when we recognize that the allegedly rational centrism isn't centrism, and isn't rational.

But yes, this is real. And the people who disdain the logical implications under Equal Protection as some sort of effort by abortion access advocates to complicate the issue need only check in with advocates such as Tony Perkins of FRC, state Rep. Bobby Franklin (R-GA43), state Rep. Charles van Zant (R-FL19), state Rep. Steve Lathrop (R-NE12), state Rep. Phil Jensen (R-SD33), the twenty-nine Republican sponsors of Iowa HF7 (2011), most of whom are likely among the twenty-eight Republicans who sponsored HF153 in the same assembly session.

And here's an interesting note from the Iowa debate:

If passed into law, the two bills — House File 7 and House File 153 — would offer an unprecedented defense opportunity to individuals who stand accused of killing such providers, according to a former prosecutor and law professor at the University of Kansas, and are something that might have very well led to a different outcome in the Kansas trial of the man who shot Dr. George Tiller in a church foyer.

Melanie D. Wilson, associate professor of law at the University of Kansas, closely followed the trial of Scott Roeder, the man convicted of murdering Tiller. Roeder, at the urging of Iowa anti-abortion activist and former GOP legislative candidate Dave Leach, attempted to use the necessity defense, which says it is permissible to commit a crime if it stops a greater harm. The judge in the case refused to allow Roeder to use that defense.

"When [Roeder] presented the necessity defense, he failed because the legislature had basically already decided the abortion issue," Wilson said. "So, as long as Tiller was performing legal abortion, [Roeder], as a defendant, didn't get to re-decide the case [of abortion's legal status]. Just as a matter of law, the judge wouldn't allow that argument."

Currently, abortion is also settled law in Iowa. But House File 153, sponsored by 28 Republicans, challenges it. Under that bill, the state would be mandated to recognize and protect "life" from the moment of conception until "natural death" with the full force of the law and state and federal constitutions. Essentially, the bill declares that from the moment a male sperm and a female ovum join to create a fertilized egg that a person exists.

(Waddington; boldface accent added)​

Yes. This is real. No matter what charlatans pretending ignorance or rational centrism might try to tell you.
____________________

Notes:

People For the American Way. "The GOP Takes Its War on Women to the States". 2011. PFAW.org. May 27, 2014. http://www.pfaw.org/media-center/publications/gop-takes-its-war-women-states

Waddington, Lynda. "Iowa bills open door for use of deadly force to protect the unborn". The Iowa Independent. February 24, 2011. IowaIndependent.com. May 27, 2014. http://iowaindependent.com/52869/iowa-bills-open-door-for-use-of-deadly-force-to-protect-the-unborn

 

Chicken Little or a little chicken?

Instead of blind assertion, why not just try to illustrate that view? What 'centrism'? Words mean things.

Well then, it's a shame you won't be able to count on the support of these 'centrists', what with 'centrism' (and 'meaning', apparently) being so out-of-vogue in the last week or so. Sure, those 'neighbours' you're lambasting probably don't live in Iowa and so couldn't show up for a rally anyway, but then again neither do you and it could be honestly said that if you're pushing DF then you might well bitch about everyone else being 'centrists' in the way that anyone with an extremist perspective might.

No, really?

And?

This refrain occurs again and again throughout your constant and invariably oblique re-statement of objectives: it never particularly shocked, and does not shock now. Once again, your proposition is flawed in ways nearly kaleidoscopic: in summary, i) one can only choose DF or PAF; failure to choose DF is a de facto argument for PAF (false dilemma), and ii) this is real, and so only the DF solution can save womankind, even though DF could not possibly be supported by even a base plurality of voters or of the laity generally. (We can pass over the bout of reification earlier; but commendable it was not.) Your posts about the realities of infringement on current abortion rights might actually represent a social service, ironically - but your advocacy for the nearly sadistically mad DF would undermine anything you could possibly hope to achieve. That, then, is the reality you are conjuring.

And in doing so, you're acting as a grand joepistile or whoever he is, redrawing the argument in the precise frame of the OP again and again without even the recognition that contravention exists, let alone the insurmountability of the scaffolding you're trying to erect. If I didn't know better, I would have sworn that this entire thread was an exercise in devil's advocate, or sheer intellectual disingenuousness. The near insincerity of DF nearly predicates it.

Oh, are you offended on behalf of charlatanism, then? Hell, maybe it's all my fault: instead of trying to hold a mature discussion, maybe we should just all resort to absurd false dilemmas, then shriek bad faith when the other guy fails to fall for it. Sounds wonderful.

 

¿Humbuckers?

Instead of playing the self-righteous fool, why not demonstrate that you have a clue what you're on about?

Anecdotally, I think of the time a furious anti-abortion advocate demanded to know where the hell I had gotten this idea of LACP, because he had never heard of anyone who believed in it.

On our record here at Sciforums, I am simply reminded of the argument that personhood would not be problematic in a juristic context if we did the rational thing and just ignored the U.S. Constitution.

This is real. And we know why anti-abortion advocates want us to look the other way. And, true, it's a bit puzzling to countenance the idea of an allegedly rational centrist working to give those folks cover, but at the same time that puzzlement abates when we recognize that the allegedly rational centrism isn't centrism, and isn't rational.​

For instance, you could try clicking the links and reviewing the arguments, including the one repeated here that I already pointed to in the topic post, that the rational thing to do in a constitutional conflict is ignore the Constitution.

In the first place, what do humbuckers have to do with this issue?

Setting that bizarre distraction aside, the problem with this alleged centrist rationalism is that it is ignorant, self-centered, and not really centrism.

Consider the argument that Equal Protection conflicts arising under LACP/FAP would only come about if people like me, who are so irrational as to acknowledge the U.S Constitution, are in charge. No, really, think about that for a moment: We can avoid the constitutional conflict that arises with assigning constitutional personhood in utero by ignoring the Constitution itself.

It's kind of like the rational centrism that compels a person to walk into an Infinite Protection Advocacy dispute and then wonder how a reasonable person like himself could be construed as a misogynist for siding with Infinite Protection Advocacy. Yeah, we get the idea that one might not have realized what he was chucking his hat into, but in Billvon's case, this keeps happening. After a while, when a ruse like that keeps failing, people see through it.

Meanwhile, you seem somewhat upset by a perception of false dilemma; that false dilemma only comes about because of your insistent and deliberate distortion of the question. And that intellectual failure is your own damn problem; stop trying to make it everyone else's.

That is to say, the question of FAP or dry-foot only arises because FAP is proposed and on the table. Demanding that people change the subject will not make the issue go away.

Your idea of a mature discussion is to bawl until everyone else changes the subject to suit you?

(chortle!)

 

Half right is still half wrong

Well, you're dead on about the righteous part... :scratchin: I'm still ging to have to call this a 'no' for the reason below:

I keep clicking and you keep slicking. Since you've made a point of linking those arguments and insist on re-citation ('recitation'?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

), why not isolate what you dislike about them specifically, without the mystery with which you like to surround yourself? First, in which way do they ignore the Constitution? Do you mean that billvon's position would ignore the Constitution if one followed the slippery slope down your false dilemma to PAF? I said something about reification earlier and while this isn't it, it smacks of it a little: if you want to make this claim, outline how this is unequivocally so. Otherwise this is postulative straw man.

Is it that you want people to say "oh yes, I've heard of the concept behind your sketchy acronym"? Is that it? Very well: I've heard of the concept behind your sketchy acryonym. I've even heard of people trying to turn this sketchy and dangerous concept into law. Is this petty difference really the foundation behind your newest gripe? Of what matter is this, exactly? Ego? I distinctly recall being accused of something like that.

Well suggested!: see above.

Easily as much as PAF has to do with pro-choice, I think.

If only it were those things, you'd stand to make an important point here.

- which none of us are advocating, yes, yes -

"Were in charge", I think you mean. Anyway, the former is predicated on the initial being true, which has not so far been demonstrated.

Or how the concomitant promotion of DF as a counter to PAF in a false dilemma of staggering proportions could trick a humble intertubal commentator into writing in to protest DF, which nobody was proposing as a real limit to abortion rights except that they were.

The distortion of the only solution to PAF being DF? I see, mm-hmm, mm-hmm.

Well, birthing - excuse me - a new intellectual disjunction to combat the old seems as foolish as the first, if you ask me. I mean, they do say 'fight fire with fire' but it's just a saying.

A whimper is not a chortle, Ti. In your quest for your personal conditioning of the argument you've devolved it from an argument to... God knows what, I guess. Attacking the base construct seems to be an explicit bogeyman you didn't prepare for, but like a famous statesman of SF/DF once said: that intellectual failure is your own damn problem.

 

¿Passive Humbuckers?

That you still view DF as a solution?

It is the question underlying FAP. The conflict the policy proposition invokes. The only bright line in that conflict. It is an inevitable consideration that you want to cry about until the cows come home while ignoring the reason for its significance.

And what are you on about passive humbuckers, for, anyway? Sixty years late, and entirely irrelevant.

 

Great rant! Unfortunately both extant law and the US Supreme Court disagrees with you. And although it's tempting to ignore them in favor of someone who posts both footnotes and occasional (chortles!) - I gotta go with them on this. Sorry.

 

¿Extant Law?

Point number one: Cite the U.S. Supreme Court decisions you refer to.

Point number two: When the question is a paradigm shift in proposed legislation, referring to "extant law" is, well, flaccid.

Please develop your argument into something coherent and rational, that we might explore it. Meanwhile, your standing suggestion that it is irrational to observe the U.S. Constitution in the context of American law is as laughable now as it was eighteen months ago.

So if you want to go with your "fuck the Constitution" argument, you're going to need to actually put some work into it.

 

No, your interpretation of it was to render a woman as such, my premise was to replace the position of the fetus, the need to transform it into an act of brutality on par with your policy was entirely of your own making.

My biggest issue is that the “it” you speak of is something considered by most in our respective societies to have some conditional value. Secondly is that she failed to use adequate protection or terminate in a reasonable amount of time considering the circumstances.

You just can’t stop trying to dehumanize the fetus. I guess to acknowledge its humanity makes it harder to kill.

Because in your mind a woman is the only thing of value in a pregnancy.

The risk of abortion increases with each week of pregnancy.

From Guttmacher’s source:

As stated in the article, the average mortality rate for abortion for 21 weeks or greater is 9 deaths per 100,000. Using a median of 28 weeks to represent the average, and increasing the risk by .38/wk we get:

Gestation(wk)/Mortality Rate
28/9
29/12
30/17
31/24
32/33
33/45
34/62
35/86

The same risks associated with late term pregnancy are also associated with late term abortion. In the above example mortality from childbirth and abortion are equal in week 30.

Because state and federal law has a determined interest in the welfare of a viable fetus.

Yet it’s your contention that if such late term procedures were deemed safer they should be done.

You have heard of paternity laws? You know, where the man is on the hook when a woman decides to give birth. That’s a major point of contraception from the male side. Unlike the man, women have the additional options of mid pregnancy abortion and giving the baby away.

Woman do not have to keep newborns.

Use contraception and abort mid pregnancy.

Her rights are what her society confers to her. Presently in regards to abortion those rights are limited.

Good for you. My sister in law is black and she also wants to restrict third trimester abortions.

I have, they don’t agree with you.

So that’s where they put the stuffing in Australia.

Works for me.

With hundreds of thousands still in residency.

The law says otherwise.

All the parties in the example I cited were male. Stop playing the victim.

If a fetus is determined to have conditional rights, why does it matter how it was conceived?

Ok, let’s leave it up to the men. Men can now require all sexual partners to submit to monthly pregnancy tests and be given the right to terminate as well. Problem solved.

Wow, aren’t we the sleuth. Who allows for bodily entrance and the deposition of sperm that may lead to a pregnancy? Who has the ability to use contraception to reduce the possibility of pregnancy? Who has it within their means to periodically check for pregnancy? Who has a six month period to terminate a pregnancy? Is it the woman, the man, or the other woman with the turkey baster? And what does any of this have to do with the culpability of a criminal assault?

 

Boring

So now I'm supposed to defend your position, your defense having failed. Well, no.

It certainly would.

Boring.

Speaking of...

This "centrist" thing is certainly a new delusion. I've bolded the stuff that I didn't actually do. This reduces your statement to:

"Impose" personhood on a fetus, great stuff.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Do you really believe any of the bullshit you write? Together the two of you have an esoteric comedy act going: DF is just a concept, but if you don't like it you're trying to further restrict abortions by them being less restrictive than today, because DF is not just a concept but an objective and round and round it goes. Maybe you're just having a bad day/week/month/year and can't be held liable for this nonsense? That'll probably be back in a few posts.

 

What what what?

Well that's interesting, because Bells keeps demanding what protections would exist for women under a more liberal biologically-based deadline for abortion using examples from "extant law". But a biological rationale would certainly be a 'paradigm shift'. So her commentary is then 'flaccid'?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Bells, what is your comment to the above?

 

Steeplechase

Excuse me: aren't those exclusive, as stated? If I had a comprehension problem - as you do, for example - that would be an unintentional fault. If I were intellectually dishonest - as you are, for example - then that would be a deliberate thing. But how could the one inform the other? I suppose there's a way, but I don't think you're intelligent or honest enough to figure it out. I mean sure, you're both things, but I think they're independent elements of your personality. And, anyway, it's Tiassa you should be pissed off at: he's the one calling your commentary 'flaccid', not me. I mean, sure, he's probably right, but I never came right out and insulted you by stating it, so why are you getting mad at me?

Now, back to the question. Surely you can just, you know, answer it:

So is that demand by you not 'flaccid' in some way then? If not, how?

This raises another issue: the use of DF as a hard deadline by you and Tiassa. You claim that it isn't any such thing - which makes one wonder at the point of it even as a flawed argumentative tool - but Tiassa seems to endorse it as such. Can you elaborate on this conundrum among the proponents of DF? Sorry to have such an invasive go at your arguments, but when you try to attack personalities, you do kind of deserve it.