@kirby-ybrik
"“No, I was restating your argument.”
Via a strawman"
Actually a iron man argument if anything, giving you the benefit of the doubt. You didn't respond with a critique of my summation of your view, you responded to it as if it were an attack on it. The fact that you couldn't even recognize your own argument when stated back to you and tried to refute is places you in the same camp as Amber Heard's lawyer objecting to his own question.
"“That is literally what you did there, otherwise there was no point in bringing up authority.”Wrong. You made some claims about my argument, and I showed you that they were untrue because academics agree with me. I’m not not saying that my argument is true because some authority agrees with me."
Wrong. I said your attributes are cherry picked to defend your position and you responded with "a bunch of "academics" that I cherry-picked myself and won't mention by name agree with me on a topic that has no consensus at all in the scientific world, but because I agree with these select ones, I'm invoking their authority to claim I'm right."
If you doubt me, here are your exact words:
"Not even close. These characteristics are agreed upon by academics to be the defining traits of personhood.""I invoked them because their mere existence debunked all the things you said about my argument."
And how exactly does claiming that some unnamed, hand-picked "academics" agree with you disprove my point that you are cherry-picking your arguments? I could find an academic somewhere that will hold just about any view under the sun. Their existence is irrelevant. You invoked them because you wanted to claim their nebulous authority to give your argument weight.
"1. Haven’t lied
2. Haven’t moved any goalposts
3. I only deny when you misquote me
4. I’ve literally refuted all your points
5. I’ve already proved myself right. Your last defense was claiming I was being arbitrary, which I’ve since refuted"
You are aware that just because you claim you've refuted me, doesn't mean you actually did. repeating your claim and invoking some nebulous, unnamed authority figures, pointing to them and saying, "see, see, THEY agree with me!" isn't a refutation. It's an argument from authority.
You do lie and move goalposts because whenever I point out a logical inconsistency or a gap in your logic, or challenge your points, you respond with "well you're misquoting me" and shift what you were saying to claim you mean something else. When I offer to point out other criteria that fall within your same framework that counter your point, you ignore it. When I literally point out logic 101 facts you deny them. You don't seem to know the difference between logic and facts, and you seem to be unwilling to back up the implications of your own position, even when its as sample as if A=B and B=C then A=C. You do a lot of posturing. case in point:
"“No, you've been demonstrating repeatedly that you don't understand what logic is. You are confusing "logic" with "truth." You continue to do so here. A logical statement doesn't have to be correct.”
The Nazis never used logic. Deal with it. They had absolutely no reason to believe Jews weren’t humans or people. Their entire ideology stems from the the fact that Hitler’s mother died under a Jewish doctor’s care and that he was denied entry into the Vienna School of Art by a Jew."
You keep demonstrating over and over that
You. Don't. Understand. What. Logic. Is.
Logic =/= truth.
Plus you're not even historically correct. Whatever Hitler's beef with Jews was, anti-semeticism was wide spread and not limited to just him. Pointing out his personal reasons for not liking them proves nothing in this case.
The Nazi's used logic. Deal with it. Sure it was bad logic, but the fact that we don't AGREE with their logic is irrelevant. The fact that you refuse to recognize that your logic follows the same structure is likewise moot. Denying this doesn't change anything. Your logic is just as wrong as theirs. I'll repeat for the umpteeth time since you keep ignoring it.
logic =/= truth
"“You continue in your circular argument.”
Yeah the argument that I’ve already proven right."
Thus proving my point beautifully.
you: "My point is right"
me: "what about XYZ that disprove it"
you: "I proved my point"
me: "but...what about...these things...that you're not addressing or answering"
you: "I proved my point."
me: "you are making a circular argument"
you: "because I've proven myself right!"
"“You are cherry picking because you ignore any other criteria that fall outside your predetermined selection”
Personhood is NONPHYSICAL. I’m not cherry picking just because I’m using NONPHYSICAL traits to define a NONPHYSICAL status!"
You are literally ignoring or deliberately misinterpreting my points here AGAIN.
Let's go through your list of assumptions, shall we?
1. that personhood is separate from humanity - you haven't proven this, only claimed/assumed it (like other bad people have).
2. that personhood determines whether you have value - same
3. choosing to pick THIS criteria when there are others isn't cherry picking - same
4. your selected non-physical criteria are the only valid non-physical criteria, even when there are others that counter your position - same
5. that personhood is nonphysical - same
repeating your claim over and over and declaring yourself right without addressing actual challenges to your position doesn't make you right.
"“It's like me saying, "all animals that have four legs are cows," and refusing to acknowledge the fact that there are other forms of quadrupeds.”
My argument is literally nothing like that. There’s only one form of person. And there are more criteria than one."
Before you stated that there are all sorts of different kinds of persons. now you are saying there's only one.
When discussing this, you have chosen to focus on ONE criteria to determine the exact point at which a human becomes a person. When I make a similar argument by way of making a comparison, to show you the fallacy of this...an EXAMPLE...you just ignore it by way of claiming "there are more criteria!" and then when we discuss that, you go back to pointing out the singular point once more.
"“Prove you actually stand by this insane statement with above challenge and maybe I'll at least acknowledge you're crazy enough to believe it.”
Sure thing."
Okay, I was prepared to be impressed but I looked on your blog and...saw nothing? Will give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I missed it?
"“You are making statements of opinion, then declaring them fact, while ignoring any contrary position or data, then repeating that your opinion is fact.”
No I’m making factual statements and then basing my opinions on those facts."
Until you can counter facts that disagree with your opinion, they remain opinion.
"“Also incorrect by the way. The only people who routinely refer to unborn babies as fetuses are people who believe they aren't babies in the first place.”
Because they aren’t. Babies historically and currently only refer to things that have been born."
Factually untrue. This is a recent development only arising after the modern push for abortion.
"Thighs is a metaphor for a fetus you twat! “Thigh falls away” is a metaphor for miscarriage!"
Literally....no. You "twat." That was an assumption you made.
Simple proof: what in that text makes you think the trial of the water was limited to pregnant women? It's not. That was your assumption. Because, like your whole premise, you just wanted to believe it!
It's for women suspected of adultery. Unless you believe every adulterous woman gets pregnant?
But don't take my word for it. Wikipedia isn't known for its conservative, right-leaning, orthodox-supporting views:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_bitter_water
"“Luke 1:41–43 clearly teaches that unborn babies—even in the first trimester—are valuable persons.”
No it doesn’t."
"1. Holy Spirit enters the body at first breath. The Bible is contradicting itself"
So you're making it very clear that you don't know the first thing about the Bible, which doesn't help your claims at all.
Where does the Bible say the Holy Spirit enters at first breath? It doesn't. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, it can go wherever it wants. It entered Elizabeth in Luke 1:41 for instance. She was an old lady. It’s shown entering into kings, prophets, and many other grown adults in the Bible. It says it was with John before his birth in Luke 1:15. Have anything showing that this is a contradiction?
Now if you mean spirit/personhood/soul, that’s a different story. Have any proof? Reference? Quote? So far you've shown that you don't actually know the first thing about what the Bible says. Bring the receipts if you're going to make these claims. We’ve already established that just “because you said it” doesn’t mean a whole lot in the evidence department. And if you're going to say Genesis 2, I've already disproven that claim in my last post.
"2. Jesus wasn’t being called lord, Mary was being called the mother of my lord. There’s a difference. It was in future tense. A woman can’t be a mother until after she gives birth."
Wow, talk about sophistry...
Mary greets Elizabeth
Baby INSIDE Elisabeth which was filled with the HS, jumps in recognition of this.
Elisabeth is filled with HS and prophesizes/praises Mary and the child, "my Lord."
You: "well she means in the FUTURE tense... Clearly there is no value of the child unborn because it's in the first trimester..."
*facepalm*
Holy cow, dude. Does your brain hurt after those mental contortions?
"“I think your definition is a mere exercise in sophistry to justify actions you already want to allow.”
Actually I came to this definition BEFORE I came to an opinion on abortion."
Okay, and ever since then, as evidenced by our discussion, you have ignored every challenge or fact that disagrees with you in favor of just repeating "I'm right."
Would you change your mind if you were given a non-physical trait that exists before the end of the first trimester, according to your own definition of what defines personhood?
Will you acknowledge the fact that every other group in history that tried to make a distinction between "human" and "person" was deemed to be "very bad?"
the answer, we have seen, is no. You have made up your own mind and refuse to see or acknowledge anything that disagrees with it. You have made it a dogma, not a statement of fact.
"“And I am saying you are a liar and don't believe this”
I 100% do."
I will believe this when you post that statement on your blog. Please feel free to send me the link to show me wrong. Until you put up, shut up.
Edit: Okay, I saw the link, but it’s not in your feed. Can anyone else see it but me? *suspicious* The challenge is for you to say it where everyone can see it, not whisper it to someone.