quoting other people? really that's the best you could do?
here is the best argument. my body, my business. you can't beat that
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
quoting other people? really that's the best you could do?
here is the best argument. my body, my business. you can't beat that
I just don't see the point of writing this since everybody, on both sides, understands your argument. However do you understand what the other side is actually saying? If you don't address their counterargument you come off uninformed.
sure the other side is saying that there is either a magical thing called "soul" within a group of cells (based on a version of their religious fairy tale) or they neglect the mother's life and put forward the one of the child. In other words they don't care about individual rights and they forget the fact that the fetus is something that can kill the mother at any time.
I addressed it many times. Other people have done as well. Suprinsingly they persist because the whole thing is not about arguments but belief.
Read the comments before you comment on the same thing
Take my advice, and you will be better at arguing your position.
Take mine and state where did you saw a straman. This post or others. Should be easy for you to point it out. No need to play the "high ground" advisor.
I already explained myself.. Plus if I go take a couple quotes I will be quote mining right? You wrote the article, and you are the one who is supposed to do the research. You can disagree, I am telling you how to improve your argument. Take it or leave it.
There is no strawman in my argument or in my other articles. You might need to polish up on your philosophy 101.
I can't read your mind to understand what you think, you think you understand.
You could also include a definition of natural rights in the article - since you don't even mention it..
Clicked on a couple other posts from you and it seems this fallacy is a re-occurring theme.
which fallacy do you speak of?
Just because you think it is, it doesn't make it so.
So. instead of copy-pasta-ing aimelessly things that you know that i already know, copy-paste the parts that I said and that you think that I commit a strawman.
be careful. Don't fall into the "quote-mining" fallacy. (if you really want to start playing the douchebag armchair philosopher arguments with me do it properly)
kyriacos, you are being needlessly confrontational. I merely offered some constructive criticism. Also, I am confused by this "So. instead of copy-pasta-ing aimelessly things that you know that i already know" what is it exactly, that I know you already know?
I could go find some reasonable arguments that address everything you wrote in the original post, but I really think YOU should be the one that does that. I can do it for you if you want, maybe tomorrow if I have time.
you wrote 5 comments trying to deviate from the point. you could have pointed out the fallacy by now. here is what i think. you are trying to play smartass, ..but sure...you can hit me up anytime you are free.
I pointed out the fallacy. I have watched countless videos that address this without bringing soul and religion into it. You are making a claim that abortion is a natural right, but don't even define what a natural right is, and then you create a straw man argument that most people aren't making, so you have an easy target. NOW you want me to do all the research that YOU should have done before writing this. I am telling you how to do a better job making your argument, because what you have written is tired and redundant. It is also intellectually dishonest to do such a poor job at representing the other sides argument.
natural right = right to control one's life as dictated by nature.
pretty simple mate.
so again. which strawman are you refering to? (it is amazing how you made a comment about stramwan and you managed to elaborately say everything else besides pointing out the strawman itself).
good job man. you would be an excellent politician.