Sarkus trolls a thread about abortion

[Sarkus]

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

Most Americans say abortion should be legal
---

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).

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."

On that question, first let me be clear that I am not at all interested in talking about silly questions about "when does life begin?" An unfertilised ovum is alive, and so are isolated spermatozoa. All cells in the human body are alive, so saying something like "life begins at conception" is just unhelpfully misleading.

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.

If there is to be a line in the process of development of a baby, beyond which we must morally consider the rights of the child, then there are more and less defensible places to draw such a line. For instance, it makes very little sense to draw the line at the moment of conception, because at a conception although there is a full set of human DNA in a bunch of cells, there is no sentience or consciousness.

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.

 

[James R]

Sarkus:

I'd caution issuing definitions when discussing such terms in a philosophical context.

Noted. I was not, however, attempting to define those terms rigorously, there.

However, with regard sentience, please note that it would never be sensibly defined as "the ability to experience pain".

Try reading the stuff in the parentheses as examples rather than definitions.

As you may be aware, not everyone has the ability to experience pain...

Are these really the main things you wanted to comment on, regarding my post? Pedantic nitpicking over definitions? Is this what is most important to you, in this context?

If one wishes to define sentience in such a manner then it would more correctly be "the ability to experience sensations."

Here's an idea: if you think all these terms need to rigorously defined to have some conversation you want to have about the definitions, why don't you write a post containing your preferred rigorous definitions? Do some work of your own rather than just nit picking other people's efforts.

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?

No. I don't know that. I think it's clumsy to think that the most pertinent question to ask when trying to delineate human rights is "when does human life begin?"

It looks to me like your issue here that you feel insulted because you think that the question of when life begins is an important factor in determining whether abortion should be legal. Am I right?

The human life-cycle should be Biology 101. It really does begin at conception.

The life cycle of an individual human being begins at conception, because that's when a unique set of human DNA is first assembled. However, every human cell with a nucleus contains a full set of human DNA. Cells are 'born' and die all the time.

Moreover - as I said previously - it would be ridiculous to claim that a human ovum or sperm cell is not alive.

This is not a silly matter but a biological fact.

It's a biological fact that's almost entirely irrelevant to adjudicating the moral conundrums relating to the issue of abortion.

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.

Are you going to attach personhood to a liver cell just because it contains a full set of unique human DNA? Or to a bone marrow cell? Or to a neuron?

Are you going to weep for the thousands of cells of yours that die naturally every day, each one containing a full set of your precious unique DNA? Are you going to celebrate the "birth" of each new cell that your body produces and copies your DNA into?

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?

These are sensible questions.

You may have already gathered from what you just read a reason why it makes very little sense to assign personhood to every cell that contains a unique set of human DNA. And every human being starts as a single cell. In my opinion, that single cell is not a person, any more than a single liver cell or a single brain cell is a person. What do you think?

As for "potential", I think it makes no sense at all to grant all the rights of an X to something that merely has the potential to become an X some time in the future. This is not a matter of ignoring potential. Einstein started off as a single cell, like the rest of us. But Einstein as a single cell was not worth as much as Einstein the baby, and certainly not as much as Einstein the man. Nor should Einstein the single cell be entitled to all the rights that Einstein the man had.

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.

You are correct that I didn't explain everything in detail. We can have further discussions about the detail. What did you want? A chapter- or book-length explanation?

I must say, I'm a little surprised this is the first time you've grappled with some of these matters. Don't worry about that, though; everyone has to start somewhere.

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.

I did not make any claim about sufficiency.

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.

Please feel free to assume, from now on, that everything I write is an expression of my own personal view, unless I say otherwise. In fact, that's good advice in general when you're reading things that other people write on the internet. People regularly express their personal views about things, you'll find.

Moreover, if you read through my post again, see if you can spot the three separate places where I explicitly wrote "in my opinion". That's not hint enough to make you suspect that, you know, maybe I was expressing my opinion?

This might become a slightly more productive discussion if you can tell me why you felt insulted by my post.

 

[Sarkus]

Noted. I was not, however, attempting to define those terms rigorously, there.

Try reading the stuff in the parentheses as examples rather than definitions.

Maybe you should use "e.g."

Are these really the main things you wanted to comment on, regarding my post? Pedantic nitpicking over definitions? Is this what is most important to you, in this context?

"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.

Here's an idea: if you think all these terms need to rigorously defined to have some conversation you want to have about the definitions, why don't you write a post containing your preferred rigorous definitions? Do some work of your own rather than just nit picking other people's efforts.

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

No. I don't know that.

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??

I think it's clumsy to think that the most pertinent question to ask when trying to delineate human rights is "when does human life begin?"

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.

It looks to me like your issue here that you feel insulted because you think that the question of when life begins is an important factor in determining whether abortion should be legal. Am I right?

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.

The life cycle of an individual human being begins at conception, because that's when a unique set of human DNA is first assembled. However, every human cell with a nucleus contains a full set of human DNA. Cells are 'born' and die all the time.

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

Moreover - as I said previously - it would be ridiculous to claim that a human ovum or sperm cell is not alive.

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

It's a biological fact that's almost entirely irrelevant to adjudicating the moral conundrums relating to the issue of abortion.

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.

Are you going to attach personhood to a liver cell just because it contains a full set of unique human DNA? Or to a bone marrow cell? Or to a neuron?

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

Are you going to weep for the thousands of cells of yours that die naturally every day, each one containing a full set of your precious unique DNA? Are you going to celebrate the "birth" of each new cell that your body produces and copies your DNA into?

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

These are sensible questions.

You may have already gathered from what you just read a reason why it makes very little sense to assign personhood to every cell that contains a unique set of human DNA.

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

And every human being starts as a single cell. In my opinion, that single cell is not a person, any more than a single liver cell or a single brain cell is a person. What do you think?

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.

As for "potential", I think it makes no sense at all to grant all the rights of an X to something that merely has the potential to become an X some time in the future. This is not a matter of ignoring potential. Einstein started off as a single cell, like the rest of us. But Einstein as a single cell was not worth as much as Einstein the baby, and certainly not as much as Einstein the man. Nor should Einstein the single cell be entitled to all the rights that Einstein the man had.

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.

You are correct that I didn't explain everything in detail. We can have further discussions about the detail. What did you want? A chapter- or book-length explanation?

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

I must say, I'm a little surprised this is the first time you've grappled with some of these matters. Don't worry about that, though; everyone has to start somewhere.

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 did not make any claim about sufficiency.

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.

Please feel free to assume, from now on, that everything I write is an expression of my own personal view, unless I say otherwise. In fact, that's good advice in general when you're reading things that other people write on the internet.

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.

Moreover, if you read through my post again, see if you can spot the three separate places where I explicitly wrote "in my opinion". That's not hint enough to make you suspect that, you know, maybe I was expressing my opinion?

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.

This might become a slightly more productive discussion if you can tell me why you felt insulted by my post.

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.

 

[James R]

Sarkus:

Pardon me if I skip over a lot of the personal bullshit and repetitive nonsense in your post. Life's too short. That still leaves a few things I want to respond to.

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.

Yes. That's why people are normally happy to discuss things. Some others just like to attack other people because it makes them feel like big men, or something.

"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.

Fine. But isn't this just your "potential" argument all over again? That first cell has the potential to develop into a bouncing baby girl, so that means it should (in its current state of single-celldom) have special rights that we wouldn't give to, say, a liver cell?

Walk me through your reasoning.

And there you go in dismissing an entire swathe of human beliefs as "clumsy".

I currently don't think much of that line of argument. But who knows? Maybe you can say something persuasive about it. Want to try?

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.

Make sure you write "In my opinion...". You wouldn't want anybody to confuse your opinions with facts now, would you? It's important to clearly differentiate and label. Or so you say. Maybe that's only important for other people, and you're the exception to the rule.

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.

That remains to be seen.

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).

That's essentially the same thing I said in post #114, above, you know. Apart from the "framing the debate" part regarding how special you think certain single cells are.

-If one wishes to argue that life doesn't begin until a later stage, then go for it.

It seems you failed to grasp my point. I'm arguing that life began much much earlier, which makes the question of when life began irrelevant to the debate.

The rest is then a matter of relative value, between the two human lives (biologically speaking).

Lots of people will disagree with you on that. I think that I disagree with you. But we could probably fix the problem by adding some nuance.

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 do you.

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.

This is interesting. I don't think I mentioned religion, let alone claimed it is irrelevant (though, now that you mention it, that's a whole other can of worms we could open).

Do you regard religion as the source of your own morality? Or, more generally, a source of the "morality that the world provides"?

Are your own views on abortion framed in a religious context?

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.

Okay. Is it your claim that a single-celled human being, in the moment after conception, should have a "right to life" sufficient to justify banning abortion? If so, why? Because potential?

And, if so, does its right to life take precedence over the rights of bodily autonomy that its mother might (or might not) have, in your opinion? Or is there a sliding scale of some kind?

Could you please be clear about how far you want the right to life of a single celled human being to extend?

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.

Actually, what I wrote was this:

"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)."​

Then I took a paragraph to introduce the notion that there are better and worse places to draw the line, during the course of development of a foetus/baby.

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.

I'm so glad you're not upset. Because, you know, your post #117 came across to me like you were just lashing out in a knee jerk fit of anger/outrage. Maybe you could consider adjusting your communication style. Good idea?

 

[Sarkus]

Pardon me if I skip over a lot of the personal bullshit and repetitive nonsense in your post.

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.

Yes. That's why people are normally happy to discuss things. Some others just like to attack other people because it makes them feel like big men, or something.

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

Fine. But isn't this just your "potential" argument all over again? That first cell has the potential to develop into a bouncing baby girl, so that means it should (in its current state of single-celldom) have special rights that we wouldn't give to, say, a liver cell?

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?

Walk me through your reasoning.

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

I currently don't think much of that line of argument. But who knows? Maybe you can say something persuasive about it. Want to try?

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.

Make sure you write "In my opinion...". You wouldn't want anybody to confuse your opinions with facts now, would you? It's important to clearly differentiate and label. Or so you say. Maybe that's only important for other people, and you're the exception to the rule.

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.

That remains to be seen.

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

That's essentially the same thing I said in post #114, above, you know. Apart from the "framing the debate" part regarding how special you think certain single cells are.

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.

It seems you failed to grasp my point. I'm arguing that life began much much earlier, which makes the question of when life began irrelevant to the debate.

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".

Lots of people will disagree with you on that. I think that I disagree with you. But we could probably fix the problem by adding some nuance.

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.

This is interesting. I don't think I mentioned religion, let alone claimed it is irrelevant (though, now that you mention it, that's a whole other can of worms we could open).

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.

Do you regard religion as the source of your own morality? Or, more generally, a source of the "morality that the world provides"?

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".

Are your own views on abortion framed in a religious context?

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.

Okay. Is it your claim that a single-celled human being, in the moment after conception, should have a "right to life" sufficient to justify banning abortion? If so, why? Because potential?

And, if so, does its right to life take precedence over the rights of bodily autonomy that its mother might (or might not) have, in your opinion? Or is there a sliding scale of some kind?

Could you please be clear about how far you want the right to life of a single celled human being to extend?

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.

Actually, what I wrote was this:

"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)."​

Then I took a paragraph to introduce the notion that there are better and worse places to draw the line, during the course of development of a foetus/baby.

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?

I'm so glad you're not upset. Because, you know, your post #117 came across to me like you were just lashing out in a knee jerk fit of anger/outrage. Maybe you could consider adjusting your communication style. Good idea?

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.

 

[James R]

Sarkus:

Again, pardon me for skipping over the personal bullshit.

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?

I already took some time to accept, explicitly, that a complete combination of DNA is formed in an individual human being for the first time when sperm meets egg and forms a new single cell that is capable of developing into a foetus and perhaps eventually - if it's one of the luckier ones - into a baby.

If you want to call that the beginning of a human life (i.e. the beginning of the life of a particular human individual), I have no problem with that. I don't think it's an event with any special moral significance, however. Clearly, you do, but you refuse to explain why. There are hints that you just think it is self-evidently significant. I don't share your view on that.

I take it that you don't think it is morally significant when say, a liver cell dies, compared to that special single cell dying just after conception. Nor do you think it is morally significant when a liver cell divides and creates two new liver cells, both containing a full set of precious human DNA. But you're unwilling to explain why you assign special significance to that "initial" single cell. So, it looks like we're reached the end of the discussion, as far as you're concerned.

Just to be clear: the relevant question of moral significance here is this: would it be wrong to end the life of a single-celled human just after the moment of conception? Should it be criminally punishable offence? If it's not wrong just after the moment of conception, when does it become wrong (if ever)? At 6 weeks after conception? 3 months? 8 months? 1 day before birth? Only after birth? And - the all important question - why?

It may not be an important question for you, James R. But, as stated, it frames the issue.

Not for me, it doesn't. And you refuse to explain why it frames the issue for you.

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.

I think that the words "life begins at conception" are misleading - actually, in some cases, deliberately so. Conception does not create life from scratch. Conception merely combines some pre-existing DNA into a new pattern and sticks it into a cell. The sperm and the ovum that make that cell were already alive before the DNA was combined.

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 haven't ignored it. I regard it as a silly attempt to divert attention away from the matters that are actually morally significant. While it can probably be written off as just shoddy thinking for some, for others who are in a position to know better it is more like a deliberate attempt to mislead.

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.

Then there's nothing I need to respond to, regarding that, unless somebody "goes for it".

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.

Congratulations on reaching the same point I covered back in paragraph 4 of post #114, a few days ago. It looks like you're finally caught up.

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?

Are you suggesting that I'm supposed to defer to the opinions of the Roman Catholic church on the matter of abortion? Why?

Does it offend you if I say that the position of the Roman Catholic church on this is unhelpfully misleading? It sure seems like it does. Are you a Roman Catholic yourself, or were you brought up in a culture of Roman Catholicism? Is that why you're so touchy and defensive about it?

So, no, you didn't explicitly mention religion, but you dismissed whole swathes of their view out of hand.

No, I did not. I gave you a couple of reasons for why I think it is unhelpfully misleading and silly. You, on the other hand, have yet to make any arguments of your own on the question. In fact, you refuse to do so. All you have managed so far is to whine and complain that you don't like my position. That much is clear.

And via a strawman, a misrepresentation of their position.

Which part of their position did I misrepresent? It's a bit of a stretch, don't you think, seeing as I never quoted anything from the Roman Catholic Church.

You've reduced yourself to whining about things you consider to be implied, rather than things I've actually said something about, now? You're really going out of your way to find reasons to take offence. Why don't you just be honest and tell me why you feel personally insulted? You share the Catholic Church's opinions on abortion and you feel like you need to make an argument based on the Church's presumed authority? Or what?

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.

They aren't here, Sarkus. None of the people you mention are here for me to dismiss. They are very welcome to come and talk with me, of course. This is a public forum. They'd probably be more interesting to talk to that you are. They might come up with some reasons or counter-arguments, instead of just whining and complaining that they feel insulted by something I wrote, or that they just don't like what I wrote and they don't agree with me.

 

[James R]

(continued...) (Here's the important bit)

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.

You probably could have skipped the rest and just posted this, Sarkus, because this is the part where you have recorded what you're actually upset about.

I take it you have gone through something outside of this site and had some experiences. As a result, you have some strongly held views on abortion, it seems. Reading between the lines, it sounds like some of those are tied to that "life begins at conception" line.

I made no assumptions about you or your experiences of going through something outside of this site, Sarkus. You shared none of your experiences prior to my posting #114, above, and you haven't shared any since then. I didn't barge in on you; you barged in on me.

If you feel personally hurt by something I've said - and I get the impression you do feel personally hurt - then it might be better to tell me why you feel personally hurt, rather than accusing me of being disrespectful to the Catholic Church and so forth.

Your anger really shines through when you claim that I have "assumed this site to be the be-all and end-all of thought". I suppose that was just you lashing out in a way that you hoped would hurt my feelings, because your feelings are hurt for some reason you don't want to share. Maybe that's all you really set out to try to do in this thread: hurt my feelings. It certainly wouldn't be inconsistent with your past behaviour. It's not a very mature response to being upset, though, to lash out at other people. A better response would be to work out exactly what it was that upset you. Then, clearly communicate that to the other person. You might be surprised at the results if you try that. It doesn't have to be a public declaration, by the way. For instance, you can send private messages on this forum.

Anyway, the message you've sent here - loud and clear - is that you're not going to explain your personal views on abortion here. In that case, it is probably best that you leave the discussion, unless you just want to stick around to snipe at other people who are willing to share their views. That's not how a discussion forum like this one is supposed to work, though. The idea of a discussion forum is to share ideas and views and to have a discussion about them, you see. Preferably a civil discussion.

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.

I'm aware of all of that, of course. I haven't seen what I'd consider to be a good defence of the right to life from the moment of conception, but maybe somebody will come along who holds that view and is willing to try to defend it. I'll be happy to have the discussion if it comes up.

None of which actually explains why you think why those properties are important.

You're right. I haven't explained why I think those properties are important. And you haven't explained whether/why you think they aren't. Maybe if somebody asks me politely, I will explain. Or maybe I'll just decide to explain, later. As for you, I'm not expecting anything other than the usual snarky personal bullshit. Anything more than that from you will be a pleasant, unexpected surprise.

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.

Well, in this case there are clear signs that you've lost your shit, so to speak. You went from zero to 10 on the angry outburst scale more or less from your first post to this thread.

And it still doesn't remove the issue: just because I personally was not insulted does not mean that you did not insult others.

It's so nice to see you riding to the rescue of all those other downtrodden, insulted people, on your white horse, like a knight in shining armour. Always thinking of others before himself. That's what always occurs to me when I think "Sarkus". So selfless.

 

[Sarkus]

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

I don't think it's an event with any special moral significance, however. Clearly, you do, but you refuse to explain why.

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?

There are hints that you just think it is self-evidently significant. I don't share your view on that.

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.

But you're unwilling to explain why you assign special significance to that "initial" single cell.

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

So, it looks like we're reached the end of the discussion, as far as you're concerned.

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?

Not for me, it doesn't. And you refuse to explain why it frames the issue for you.

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.

I think that the words "life begins at conception" are misleading - actually, in some cases, deliberately so. Conception does not create life from scratch. Conception merely combines some pre-existing DNA into a new pattern and sticks it into a cell. The sperm and the ovum that make that cell were already alive before the DNA was combined.

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.

I haven't ignored it. I regard it as a silly attempt to divert attention away from the matters that are actually morally significant.

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.

While it can probably be written off as just shoddy thinking for some, for others who are in a position to know better it is more like a deliberate attempt to mislead.

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?

Then there's nothing I need to respond to, regarding that, unless somebody "goes for it".

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

Congratulations on reaching the same point I covered back in paragraph 4 of post #114, a few days ago. It looks like you're finally caught up.

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

Are you suggesting that I'm supposed to defer to the opinions of the Roman Catholic church on the matter of abortion? Why?

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.

Does it offend you if I say that the position of the Roman Catholic church on this is unhelpfully misleading?

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.

It sure seems like it does.

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

Are you a Roman Catholic yourself, or were you brought up in a culture of Roman Catholicism? Is that why you're so touchy and defensive about it?

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”.

No, I did not.

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

I gave you a couple of reasons for why I think it is unhelpfully misleading and silly.

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

You, on the other hand, have yet to make any arguments of your own on the question. In fact, you refuse to do so. All you have managed so far is to whine and complain that you don't like my position. That much is clear.

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.

Which part of their position did I misrepresent? It's a bit of a stretch, don't you think, seeing as I never quoted anything from the Roman Catholic Church.

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.

You've reduced yourself to whining about things you consider to be implied, rather than things I've actually said something about, now? You're really going out of your way to find reasons to take offence. Why don't you just be honest and tell me why you feel personally insulted? You share the Catholic Church's opinions on abortion and you feel like you need to make an argument based on the Church's presumed authority? Or what?

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.

They aren't here, Sarkus. None of the people you mention are here for me to dismiss.

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.

They are very welcome to come and talk with me, of course.

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

This is a public forum.

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.

 

[Sarkus]

Continued, for what it's worth...

You probably could have skipped the rest and just posted this, Sarkus, because this is the part where you have recorded what you're actually upset about.

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.

I take it …

What you “take” is irrelevant.

I made no assumptions about you or your experiences of going through something outside of this site, Sarkus. .

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.

You shared none of your experiences prior to my posting #114, above, and you haven't shared any since then. I didn't barge in on you; you barged in on me

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.

If you feel personally hurt by something I've said - and I get the impression you do feel personally hurt - then it might be better to tell me why you feel personally hurt, rather than accusing me of being disrespectful to the Catholic Church and so forth.

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.

Your anger really shines through when you claim that I have "assumed this site to be the be-all and end-all of thought".

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.

Anyway, the message you've sent here - loud and clear - is that you're not going to explain your personal views on abortion here.

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

In that case, it is probably best that you leave the discussion, unless you just want to stick around to snipe at other people who are willing to share their views. That's not how a discussion forum like this one is supposed to work, though. The idea of a discussion forum is to share ideas and views and to have a discussion about them, you see. Preferably a civil discussion.

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.

I'm aware of all of that, of course. I haven't seen what I'd consider to be a good defence of the right to life from the moment of conception, but maybe somebody will come along who holds that view and is willing to try to defend it. I'll be happy to have the discussion if it comes up.

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.

You're right. I haven't explained why I think those properties are important. And you haven't explained whether/why you think they aren't. Maybe if somebody asks me politely, I will explain. Or maybe I'll just decide to explain, later.

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.

Well, in this case there are clear signs that you've lost your shit, so to speak. You went from zero to 10 on the angry outburst scale more or less from your first post to this thread.

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?

It's so nice to see you riding to the rescue of all those other downtrodden, insulted people, on your white horse, like a knight in shining armour. Always thinking of others before himself. That's what always occurs to me when I think "Sarkus". So selfless.

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]

Sarkus:

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?

Excuse me if I skip the more repetitive and boring parts. I'm more interested in talking about the topic of the thread that I started than I am in pandering to your vindictive urges. Don't think that I haven't noticed that you have posted nothing about the topic, in response to what I wrote (e.g. about the moral issues).

I haven’t addressed the moral significance, if any, that I place on such matters.

Correct. You wanted to make a purely ad hominem attack on me. You were never interested in discussing the topic.

You referred to the entire question as “silly”, and misrepresented their position that “life begins at conception” as “unhelpfully misleading”.

You noticed. Good.

You are aware that people do place moral significance on the event, right?

Yes. They have been unhelpfully misled - or else they are the unhelpful misleaders.

.... And this is a misrepresentation of their view when they say “life begins at conception”.

It's a pity nobody is here to explain how I have misrepresented their view, then, isn't it?

“Life begins at conception” is about new human life. Not life in general. This much should be obvious, even to you.

Why obfuscate by just talking about "life", then? Why not be clear? Why is it my fault if your Roman Catholic friends can't be clear what it is that they care about?

In practice, in the abortion debate, you'll see a lot of people - Roman Catholics, for instance - blathering on about the preciousness of "life". But that's a smokescreen. Those people don't care about "life" in general. They tend to have a laser-like focus on human life, but apparently only up until birth. The same people will often happily support the death penalty. The same people often have little to no concern for non-human life. And the same people have no concerns at all about the continual dying of their liver cells. No, it's only the precious babies that matter - and only up to birth.

You have dismissed their position.

Is there any reason I should not dismiss it?

I’m suggesting that you not insult their position [the position of the Roman Catholic Church], misrepresent their position, and strawman around it.

You seem to have a lot more respect for the Roman Catholic Church than I do. Given their official policies and the behaviours of their officials over the years, I don't think the organisation, in general, has earned my respect. On the other hand, I admit that there are some people in the organisation who are respectable, individually.

You haven't convinced me that I should adopt the position of the Roman Catholic Church on abortion. In fact, you haven't even tried to convince me, or to make an argument about why the position deserves respect. In fact, you haven't even told me why you respect the Church's position, except in terms of some vague allusions to your having gone through something or other, which may or may not have involved the Catholic Church.

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.

Do you want to have an actual debate, now, Sarkus?

If not, what are you talking about? Hypocrisy, much?

Me, personally, I am embarrassed for you, insulting them as you have, clumsily or otherwise.

Oh, my self-appointed knight in shining armour! Embarassed for little old me? How thoughtful of you. Shucks.

But I am not personally offended, no.

I'm so glad to hear it - again. For somebody who is oh so not at all offended, you do tend to go on a bit, though.

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

Back at you, Sarkus! (This is such a useful discussion you and I are having, isn't it?)

I don’t like your arguments as to why you think their view is “silly” and “uinhelpfully misleading”.

That's crystal clear. It's a pity you don't have any counterarguments you'd like to put. If you did, perhaps we could have a useful discussion, instead of this.

I am under no obligation to share personal views...

But apparently you think I am under an obligation not to share my personal views. Hypocrisy, much?

I’m not whining, not angry...

I'm glad you got past that. Then I shouldn't anticipate yet another angry follow-up to this post, from you. Right?

The rest is all derived from you making things personal.

Take a careful look at yourself, Sarkus. Honestly, you seem to have next to no self awareness. You started this little interaction by making things personal, and now you're upset when I respond, to some degree, in kind? Is this not what you wanted, more or less?

Why do you think that is, James R?

I think it's because sciforums is perceived to be a forum with a fairly strong atheist lean to it. Conservative religionists tend to be a little put off by that - especially if they find they can't muster convincing counter-arguments.

Why do you think it is? Why don't you invite some of your Roman Catholic friends to come and help you here? (Maybe Baldeee will pop in to argue on your behalf? I haven't heard anything from him for a while. Funny, that.)

What you “take” is irrelevant.

If it was irrelevant, you wouldn't have brought it up. Actually, it's the reason you're all snarky with me about this. In your own words, "This is the only part that I was upset about, 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.

Your apparent unfamiliarity with some of the matters I raised made me suspect that your understanding of them is likely to be superficial at best. You have given me no reason to suspect I am wrong about that, so far, your repeated cries about unspecified "facts" notwithstanding.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

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.

I think you've misunderstood how this works, Sarkus. Did I drag you into this thread, demanding that you grapple with questions surrounding abortion? I did not. You chose to enter this discussion.

This is the second time you have attempted to hurt my feelings by attacking what you imagine to be my overinflated sense of the 'importance of this site". Maybe you should try finding some of those facts you're so fond of, if you really want to make a more effective personal attack. Mind you, I would much prefer it if you would simply stop with all your ad hominem nonsense.

You have been disrespectful to the RCC, that much is evident, as now explained on a number of occasions.

Tell me why you respect the RCC. Tell me why you believe the RCC deserves my respect.

The personal hurt is because of your outright clumsiness, and the details are not something I would ever share with you.

In other words, you have a personal beef with me, for a reason you're completely unwilling to share with me. I cannot address an issue that I'm unaware of, you know. I can't read your mind to work out why you're so hurt.

What do you want from me?

You might then say “well, how am I supposed to know”, and if so then that again would speak to your clumsiness.

No. You're not acting like an adult, Sarkus. If I have personally offended you, instead of whining about it and pretending to be offended on behalf of anonymous, possible imaginary people or on behalf of the RCC instead, the adult thing to do would be to explain to me why you feel offended. Then we could have a conversation about the actual issue, whatever it is. The clumsiness is entirely on your end.

I’m not angry, James R. There’s nothing really to be angry about.

Well, you're sending rather mixed messages about that, aren't you? You've said that you feel personally hurt by something I wrote, though you won't say what or why. And here you are, writing post after post of personal attack nonsense, while claiming all the while to be on an even emotional keel.

All I can say is that this sure looks like anger from my end. Also, if you weren't angry, you could have said that once. Methinks you protest too much.

Do you think that if you can convince readers that you're emotionless, and you manage to provoke an emotional outburst or two from me, that you will somehow "win" something? Is emotion a bad thing? Are you ashamed that you're angry? Or perhaps scared that you're angry? Or does it mess with your self image so much that you can't bring yourself to admit to yourself that you could ever actually lose your cool? You need to rationalise your emotions away?

Firstly, if you want it to be civil, quit making it personal.

It's ironic that this didn't occur to you when you started in on me here. Don't you think?

Have you learned anything from this latest episode?

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.

Oh? I thought you said you weren't going to make any actual arguments that address the topic of the thread. But now maybe you will?

I'm really sure there's something to be put here about your ongoing hypocrisy but, well, maybe next time.

You're planning on continuing this? Are you going to repeat yourself, yet again?

Will you ever be done? Can you, in fact, stop yourself? Recall that you have something of a history of failing to recognise when you ought to stop, here. Will you just go on repeating the same pattern? It hasn't worked out well for you, so far. Think about it.

 

[Sarkus]

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.


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

 

[James R]

Sarkus:

For you, this thread has only ever been an excuse to make more ad hominem attacks on me. That's a real pity, because the topic of the thread is actually important and affects many lives. If you weren't so self-obsessed, you'd have more time to widen your perspectives.

You have now accused me of hurting you by making false accusations. What are you talking about, there? Are you referring to the bit when I said that I was surprised by the superficiality of your analysis on the abortion issue and that it seemed to me like you were grappling with some of the matters that had been raised for the first time?

You have since told me that you've had certain unspecified "experiences". I take it that you feel hurt because you related something I said to those experiences.

Whatever the matter is, you have been very clear that you don't want to have a discussion about the thread topic (at least, not with me), and that you're not going to share your experiences or any knowledge you gained from them here.

So, yeah, I agree with you that it seems we're done, here.

After all, there's no need for a third repeat of your little list of my many failings, is there? Be comforted that cluelusshubund is on your team on that; clearly you convinced him. What more could you ask for?

 

[Sarkus]

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

For you, this thread has only ever been an excuse to make more ad hominem attacks on me.

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.

Are you referring to the bit when I said that I was surprised by the superficiality of your analysis on the abortion issue and that it seemed to me like you were grappling with some of the matters that had been raised for the first time?

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.

 

[James R]

Sarkus:

I honestly wasn’t going to respond to you again...

It's fine. You really didn't respond to what I wrote. Not to the substance. Not to the specific, direct questions I asked you. Instead, you just made some more ad hominem attacks. But, like I said, that's been your focus all along. You're merely continuing to confirm that what I said was correct.

Are you done now? Or can't you stop?

P.S. cluelusshusbund liked your post. You have a new fan. Well done, you!

 

[Sarkus]

It's fine. You really didn't respond to what I wrote. Not to the substance. Not to the specific, direct questions I asked you.

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...

You have now accused me of hurting you by making false accusations. What are you talking about, there?

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

Are you referring to the bit when I said that I was surprised by the superficiality of your analysis on the abortion issue and that it seemed to me like you were grappling with some of the matters that had been raised for the first time?

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

After all, there's no need for a third repeat of your little list of my many failings, is there?

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

Be comforted that cluelusshubund is on your team on that; clearly you convinced him. What more could you ask for?

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?

Instead, you just made some more ad hominem attacks.

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.

But, like I said, that's been your focus all along. You're merely continuing to confirm that what I said was correct.

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

Are you done now? Or can't you stop?

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.

P.S. cluelusshusbund liked your post. You have a new fan. Well done, you!

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.)

 

[James R]

Sarkus:

I have taken the liberty of moving your ad hominem attacks out of the original thread about abortion, since clearly they have nothing to do with that topic.

You actually can't stop yourself, can you?

 

[Magical Realist]

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

 

[parmalee]

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 <<<:

James R said:↑
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).

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."

James R said:↑
On that question, first let me be clear that I am not at all interested in talking about silly questions about "when does life begin?" An unfertilised ovum is alive, and so are isolated spermatozoa. All cells in the human body are alive, so saying something like "life begins at conception" is just unhelpfully misleading.

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.

James R said:
If there is to be a line in the process of development of a baby, beyond which we must morally consider the rights of the child, then there are more and less defensible places to draw such a line. For instance, it makes very little sense to draw the line at the moment of conception, because at a conception although there is a full set of human DNA in a bunch of cells, there is no sentience or consciousness.

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.

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?

 

[James R]

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

Trolling aims to disrupt useful discussion of a topic.

It is entirely appropriate to extract the distracting, trolling posts from the on-topic conversation. That's the minimal intervention. A more heavy-handed approach would mean issuing official warnings to any trolls. I am always reticent about doing that in cases where there might be an appearance of inappropriate abuse of my position as a moderator. For the same reason, I have not (yet) closed this thread.

I wouldn't want anybody to have a legitimate point if they want to complain that I censored them. So, here are all of Sarkus's posts, for the record, and the thread is open for you to add to Sarkus's trolling if that's what you want to do.

Your false accusations against me reflect poorly on you, but you are not a man of good character, so I'm not surprised that you decided to take this gutless opportunity to join Sarkus's little gang up.