Best prank ever?

[ThisIsACoolName]

Jesus Christ...

 

[waif]

Well there's not much to talk about here without touching on abortion.

 

[skeptik]

She chose to keep it. If the mother chooses to give birth to the child, then it has a life. My opinion, anyhow.

This is a logical failure, and I will only criticize this point from a logical standpoint in order to avoid the abortion debate if possible. Your reasoning for an unborn fetus possessing a life is a mother's decision is to have the child. I don't really feel I should have to explain why this is not the case, but I will try anyway. Under your assumption, another fetus at the exact same level of development (or even more) does not possess a life, which is absurd. Perhaps what you mean to argue is that because the mother possesses the will to have the child, then the child is destined to be alive, and therefore a violation of its development into a fully developed baby would somehow constitute a will to kill, but even then, that does not mean that, at the stage of the act, the fetus is possessed with 'a life.' Rather, it seems likely that when a fetus can be considered alive would be completely unrelated to the mother's will to have the child or not, but when it reaches a certain point of development, in which case to terminate the pregnancy prior to that period could not be considered murder, since, to 'kill' something that is not alive is obviously not murder. That does not mean that it's not a crime, but it's not taking a life.

 

[waif]

Yeah, that's more or less what I'm saying. The question is, does preventing something from having a life = killing something?
I'm not sure, tbh. But I definitely think this is more serious than assault.

Also, nobody pointed this out, but "aggravated assault?" Where's the aggravation?

 

[Einherjar86]

This is a logical failure, and I will only criticize this point from a logical standpoint in order to avoid the abortion debate if possible. Your reasoning for an unborn fetus possessing a life is a mother's decision is to have the child. I don't really feel I should have to explain why this is not the case, but I will try anyway. Under your assumption, another fetus at the exact same level of development (or even more) does not possess a life, which is absurd. Perhaps what you mean to argue is that because the mother possesses the will to have the child, then the child is destined to be alive, and therefore a violation of its development into a fully developed baby would somehow constitute a will to kill, but even then, that does not mean that, at the stage of the act, the fetus is possessed with 'a life.' Rather, it seems likely that when a fetus can be considered alive would be completely unrelated to the mother's will to have the child or not, but when it reaches a certain point of development, in which case to terminate the pregnancy prior to that period could not be considered murder, since, to 'kill' something that is not alive is obviously not murder. That does not mean that it's not a crime, but it's not taking a life.

You could have just used the principle of charitable interpretation and saved yourself having to write that.

 

[skeptik]

You're assuming that I've heard of the principle of charitable interpretation, which I haven't.

 

[waif]

Well, it's pretty clear from the name what it is...
Weren't you not going to post in the social forum anymore? (Not an attack, just curious)

 

[Einherjar86]

It's a principle they teach you in logic and critical thinking classes where you assess the person's argument (in this case: that if a mother chooses to keep the baby, then it has a life) and decide whether or not the person may have meant something slightly different than what their exact words mean. For instance, by saying that if a mother chooses to have a baby then it has a life, InFlames probably meant that the egg/fetus/whatever has been given the potentiality for life. It's a way to avoid specific and petty redefinitions and clarifications by simply avoiding a literal interpretation of someone's words and applying what you believe to be a "charitable interpretation."

I was actually kind of joking by saying that previous comment; because you're always affirming or debating people's arguments in such a logical way, I figured you would have heard of it. I was just trying to kid around with you.

 

[waif]

Thank you.
I don't mean that the scientific basis of life actually rests on whether or not she decides to keep it. I just mean that when she decides to keep it it has the potential to become a life and should be treated as one.

 

[skeptik]

It's a principle they teach you in logic and critical thinking classes where you assess the person's argument (in this case: that if a mother chooses to keep the baby, then it has a life) and decide whether or not the person may have meant something slightly different than what their exact words mean. For instance, by saying that if a mother chooses to have a baby then it has a life, InFlames probably meant that the egg/fetus/whatever has been given the potentiality for life. It's a way to avoid specific and petty redefinitions and clarifications by simply avoiding a literal interpretation of someone's words and applying what you believe to be a "charitable interpretation."

I was actually kind of joking by saying that previous comment; because you're always affirming or debating people's arguments in such a logical way, I figured you would have heard of it. I was just trying to kid around with you.

That's going to save me a shitload of time in the future. Of course, I'll probably have to explain this concept in replace of explaining why I think the person means something other than what they say, but hopefully that won't take as long.

 

[waif]

Or you could just say charitable interpretation. If they're not intelligent enough to figure out what that means for themselves, they're probably not worth debating with.

 

[Valerie]

~gR~

you: "I was having lunch with your brother day, and, well this is hard to say... but someone came and shot him in the face with a 12 guage... I'm sorry..."
your friend: "What?! Noooo!"
you: "tilde gee ARE tilde."

 

[FenriR]

 

[waif]

you: "I was having lunch with your brother day, and, well this is hard to say... but someone came and shot him in the face with a 12 guage... I'm sorry..."
your friend: "What?! Noooo!"
you: "tilde gee ARE tilde."

watocaust

 

[Valerie]

watocaust

I was mocking how he always includes "~gR~" at the end of his posts. I was creating a scene where he would say it at the end of a statement in real life. Tbh.

 

[waif]

hee-hee. Manatee.
Or whatever that is.

 

[mutantllama]

you: "I was having lunch with your brother day, and, well this is hard to say... but someone came and shot him in the face with a 12 guage... I'm sorry..."
your friend: "What?! Noooo!"
you: "tilde gee ARE tilde."

 

[genocide roach]

I was mocking how he always includes "~gR~" at the end of his posts. I was creating a scene where he would say it at the end of a statement in real life. Tbh.[/quote]

gee, how original
~gR~

 

[FenriR]

oh noes! I got... sealed?

 

[waif]

gee, how original
~gR~

it is kinda funny...why do you bother? We can see who made the post.