Support NeoGAF

[Servizio]

I was gonna try and say something funny about Oklahoma, but wound up in Wikipedia for awhile instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothea_Lange

Whee, Wikipedia

 

[jdogmoney]

GAF, I'm a teenage male. I don't know what my view on abortion is. This thing here, though? This stinks.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Solved the abortion debate people thanks to the worst song thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV8N44HzfBQ

Yeah, now no one can argue that abortion in some areas is right regardless of what time it occurs, even post-Birth or at 240 months.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Fucking scum.

My new goal is to impregnate some of their daughters.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Fucking scum.

My new goal is to impregnate some of their daughters.

Better yet have the brand from the link impregnate them.

 

[chaostrophy]

I think a lot of backwater states are a lost cause when it comes to reproductive freedom. There should be a pro-choice charity that instead of funding lobbyists, direct mail campaigns, etc. helps people who move to more enlightened states to exercise reproductive rights with assistance on shelter, food, job networking, etc. Allow people to vote with their feet.

 

[WanderingWind]

Fetus (foetus?), not baby.

And please point out the flaw in my analogy. If you can do it with relying on, "it's a person," then good job, and I am impressed. Otherwise, I concede that the analogy falls apart, but at the same time there's no point fucking around with "you should be responsible and stuff" when you could just say "you're killing an innocent little person for very little reason."

In other words, I believe that the "responsibility" angle doesn't hold up independent of the personhood angle; and in the presence of personhood, it becomes totally redundant.

I think you're having a bit of the old reading comprehension problem. You're not only putting words in my mouth, you're trying to shove an entire point of view in there. It won't fit.

I'm pro-choice, as I've stated in this thread already. The point (lol) that I was making, is that your "analogy" is the same that failed comedians across America use at all times. You may want to pick a better one.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I thought what happened between a doctor and their patient was private, not something to be posted online :lol

 

[ZAK]

I think you're having a bit of the old reading comprehension problem. You're not only putting words in my mouth, you're trying to shove an entire point of view in there. It won't fit.

I'm pro-choice, as I've stated in this thread already. The point (lol) that I was making, is that your "analogy" is the same that failed comedians across America use at all times. You may want to pick a better one.

Ironically, it doesn't seem like you understood me properly at all. The only thing I assumed about you is that you felt there was something wrong with my analogy, which is why I asked you to explain what the problem was. I went on to preemptively respond to an objection you might have (the only one I've ever seen, BTW).

I'm still waiting to hear why my analogy is so obviously flawed.

 

[WanderingWind]

Ironically, it doesn't seem like you understood me properly at all. The only thing I assumed about you is that you felt there was something wrong with my analogy, which is why I asked you to explain what the problem was. I went on to preemptively respond to an objection you might have (the only one I've ever seen, BTW).

I'm still waiting to hear why my analogy is so obviously flawed.

...okay, man. Are you high right now, or what? :lol

YOU CAN'T PREEMPTIVELY ARGUE AGAINST SOMETHING THAT WAS NEVER SAID. Can I make that any clearer?

 

[Deleted member 1235]

This is worse than the required psychiatric counseling prior to an abortion that they just passed in NE

I dunno if that's a bad thing as long as it's not aimed at discouraging abortion. I know a few girls that had abortions and it's not an easy process, you don't just 'walk it off'

 

[ZAK]

...okay, man. Are you high right now, or what? :lol

YOU CAN'T PREEMPTIVELY ARGUE AGAINST SOMETHING THAT WAS NEVER SAID. Can I make that any clearer?

W--what? That's the only thing I can preemptively argue against. If it was said, then I'm not preemptively arguing, I'm regular arguing.

My point is, if you want to say, "one is a person and the other isn't so the analogy doesn't make sense," I already have an answer for you.

But really, if you want, you can just ignore that, and tell me what the problem with the analogy is already.

 

[Skiptastic]

new york ---> shithole --> la

'merica.

Dear jon bones,

Go fuck yourself.

Love,
Citizen of "shithole"

 

[WanderingWind]

W--what? That's the only thing I can preemptively argue against. If it was said, then I'm not preemptively arguing, I'm regular arguing.

My point is, if you want to say, "one is a person and the other isn't so the analogy doesn't make sense," I already have an answer for you.

But really, if you want, you can just ignore that, and tell me what the problem with the analogy is already.

Jesus tap dancing Christ. Maybe somebody else wants to try to explain it to him?

 

[Skiptastic]

Jesus tap dancing Christ. Maybe somebody else wants to try to explain it to him?

I can't preemptively explain something that's already been explained. Sorry.

 

[WanderingWind]

I can't preemptively explain something that's already been explained. Sorry.

I got trolled, didn't I? :lol

 

[daw840]

The only thing that matters in an abortion debate is when you consider the "fetus" to be a "baby."

Now, my own personal view on this issue is very conflicted. I understand the reasons for abortion, and they are good reasons (incest, rape, terrible birth defects, etc, etc) but there is still a part of me that feels its wrong.

 

[ZAK]

I got trolled, didn't I? :lol

Let me make this real simple for you. Here is what I want to know: What's wrong with my analogy? Forget I wrote anything besides that. I retract it all. Just answer the question already, instead of just constantly insisting that the answer is obvious.

 

[Mad Max]

Let me make this real simple for you. Here is what I want to know: What's wrong with my analogy? Forget I wrote anything besides that. I retract it all. Just answer the question already, instead of just constantly insisting that the answer is obvious.

What's wrong with your analogy is that you take two things that are only remotely related and threat them as if they are the same.

 

[Mattlikewhoa]

How the fuck is that possible?

Dude it's Oklahoma...

 

[ZAK]

What's wrong with your analogy is that you take two things that are only remotely related and threat them as if they are the same.

What's a relevant difference?

The argument highlights the responsibility involved as a relevant property. I'm showing that that alone does not form a compelling argument.

 

[charsace]

The midwest scares me.

 

[WanderingWind]

Let me make this real simple for you. Here is what I want to know: What's wrong with my analogy? Forget I wrote anything besides that. I retract it all. Just answer the question already, instead of just constantly insisting that the answer is obvious.

Once again, you're manufacturing things. I never insisted the answer is obvious. Just unimaginative.

 

[daw840]

What's a relevant difference?

The argument highlights the responsibility involved as a relevant property. I'm showing that that alone does not form a compelling argument.

One is a disease, one may or may not be a living human being depending on your perspective. If you can't see the fallacy in that argument then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[KingGondo]

doesn't surprise me from Timothy McVeigh land

I know this was on the first page, but:

You're an idiot. McVeigh is not from Oklahoma, and I don't see how him choosing us as a target makes Oklahoma "McVeigh Land."

He was actually born in New York, and his extremism was cultivated in Arizona and Michigan with Terry Nichols. Might want to check your facts before you make such ignorant comments.

 

[ZAK]

Once again, you're manufacturing things. I never insisted the answer is obvious. Just unimaginative.

Alright, forget you, buddy. If you're just gonna dodge all day, there's no point in trying to get anything out of you; apparently there are people here actually willing to try and make some points, so I'll just discuss this with them.

One is a disease, one may or may not be a living human being depending on your perspective. If you can't see the fallacy in that argument then I don't know what to tell you.

Alright, see? You're not appealing to the responsibility involved; you're basically just arguing from a conclusion you've already made.

Let me present a meta-analogy. Let's say I argued, "You can't abort a fetus because it's a living thing and you can't kill a living thing. You're a living thing too. Killing is wrong." You are currently thinking of a million ways in which this argument is stupid. In fact, you could draw an analogy to a countless number of things which show this line of thought falls apart. But! Then I could respond with, "But a fetus, unlike (animal/vegetable/microbe), may or may not be a person! So your analogy doesn't work." So would I have defended this stupid argument? No. It's still stupid. The property of being alive is irrelevant to the argument; what's essential is personhood. In arguing from life, I only hide the true compelling force of the argument. Similarly, by making an argument centered on the responsibility aspect, all you're doing is confusing the real issue at hand.

You've already written that all that matters is whether a fetus is a baby. Basically, I'm agreeing with you.

 

[daw840]

Alright, forget you, buddy. If you're just gonna dodge all day, there's no point in trying to get anything out of you; apparently there are people here actually willing to try and make some points, so I'll just discuss this with them.


Alright, see? You're not appealing to the responsibility involved; you're basically just arguing from a conclusion you've already made.

Let me present a meta-analogy. Let's say I argued, "You can't abort a fetus because it's a living thing and you can't kill a living thing. You're a living thing too. Killing is wrong." You are currently thinking of a million ways in which this argument is stupid. In fact, you could draw an analogy to a countless number of things which show this line of thought falls apart. But! Then I could respond with, "But a fetus, unlike (animal/vegetable/microbe), may or may not be a person! So your analogy doesn't work." So would I have defended this stupid argument? No. It's still stupid. The property of being alive is irrelevant to the argument; what's essential is personhood. In arguing from life, I only hide the true compelling force of the argument. Similarly, by making an argument centered on the responsibility aspect, all you're doing is confusing the real issue at hand.

You've already written that all that matters is whether a fetus is a baby. Basically, I'm agreeing with you.

Alright, well that makes sense, but your sentence structure made it seem as though you were equating a pregnancy with an STD.....:lol

 

[ZAK]

Alright, well that makes sense, but your sentence structure made it seem as though you were equating a pregnancy with an STD.....:lol

It's a strange sort of argument. But, at least someone gets it now.

 

[WanderingWind]

Alright, forget you, buddy. If you're just gonna dodge all day, there's no point in trying to get anything out of you; apparently there are people here actually willing to try and make some points, so I'll just discuss this with them.

You actually gave me a headache. You might want to think about actually reading what people write and responding to that, as opposed to formulating an argument first, then just using it in random places. There is no "dodging," because you didn't, and apparently still don't, understand that I'm not debating you or your POV. I've only said it three times, but I'll try again. I am pro-choice. I do not disagree with your POV. Okay? Do you understand that?

 

[awefaw]

It's a strange sort of argument. But, at least someone gets it now.

What were you before you could remember?

 

[ZAK]

You actually gave me a headache. You might want to think about actually reading what people write and responding to that, as opposed to formulating an argument first, then just using it in random places. There is no "dodging," because you didn't, and apparently still don't, understand that I'm not debating you or your POV. I've only said it three times, but I'll try again. I am pro-choice. I do not disagree with your POV. Okay? Do you understand that?

I do. Do you understand that my POV is completely irrelevant? I could be pro-life or pro-choice and write all those exact same things. I'm trying to clarify the debate so that only the essential issues and arguments remain. I'll point out any argument that seems flawed or superfluous, regardless of which side it supports.

Alternatively, my POV here is not whether I'm pro-life or pro-choice, but rather that I'm anti-responsibility-based-argument. And you apparently take issue with that. Now, do you want to talk about it, or do you want to keep reiterating your confusion over something I've already retracted?

 

[daw840]

I do. Do you understand that my POV is completely irrelevant? I could be pro-life or pro-choice and write all those exact same things. I'm trying to clarify the debate so that only the essential issues and arguments remain. I'll point out any argument that seems flawed or superfluous, regardless of which side it supports.

Alternatively, my POV here is not whether I'm pro-life or pro-choice, but rather that I'm anti-responsibility-based-argument. And you apparently take issue with that. Now, do you want to talk about it, or do you want to keep reiterating your confusion over something I've already retracted?

Wait, so your saying that your anti-personal-responsibity? Please explain this.

 

[WanderingWind]

And you apparently take issue with that. Now, do you want to talk about it, or do you want to keep reiterating your confusion over something I've already retracted?

No, I don't. Are you confusing me with somebody else? Maybe you got confused over something I said?

 

[Mudkips]

YOU CAN'T PREEMPTIVELY ARGUE AGAINST SOMETHING THAT WAS NEVER SAID.

Sure you can.

Argue X knowing that there is an apparent Y which weakens the argument.
Acknowledge that people will see Y and argue against it.

The sum total is a single argument, Z, incorporating X and a refutation/downplay/explanation/admission of Y.

 

[WanderingWind]

Sure you can.

Argue X knowing that there is an apparent Y which weakens the argument.
Acknowledge that people will see Y and argue against it.

The sum total is a single argument, Z, incorporating X and a refutation/downplay/explanation/admission of Y.

In short, build an argument, then attempt to draw somebody in on the basis that you can refute it with said argument, while at the same time, hand-waving the obvious flaws in both. Obviously, I know it's possible to argue something in this fashion, but it's nonsensical and self-congratulatory without every actually touching the topic.

But, it is sort of annoying.

 

[ChoklitReign]

Get the gov't out of my healthcare!

Oh wait..

Gotta love the fact that social conservatism is incompatible with small government. Conclusion: the Democratic Party is the party of small government.

 

[Shogmaster]

One of the reason why I will probably never leave the westcoast. The other side just scares me.

It's not the other coast you have to worry about. It's all the shit in the middle...

 

[The Faceless Master]

i need this on a t-shirt

 

[DarthWoo]

I wonder how fast the about face will be when a gene(s) responsible for homosexuality are isolated and can be detected through pre-implantation genetic diagnosis.

 

[ZAK]

Wait, so your saying that your anti-personal-responsibity? Please explain this.

Well, you've already seen one form of my argument. But I also have a more direct approach. To put it simply, if you can undo a mistake, then why shouldn't you be able to? Yeah, it would be better if the mistake wasn't made in the first place; but I don't see the need to layer on additional, "artificial" consequences by banning a simple resolution.

Note the general wording. Sounds kinda weird for abortions, but try applying the reasoning again to STD's. Remember, the core issue in this argument is the responsibility involved.

No, I don't. Are you confusing me with somebody else? Maybe you got confused over something I said?

Maybe. I'm looking at this:

Okay, I'm pro-choice, but comparing a baby to an STD? Who are you, a failed stand-up comedian?

The point (lol) that I was making, is that your "analogy" is the same that failed comedians across America use at all times. You may want to pick a better one.

Based on this it seems like you don't like my analogy, so I ask you to explain why exactly. Am I misinterpreting?

--

In short, build an argument, then attempt to draw somebody in on the basis that you can refute it with said argument, while at the same time, hand-waving the obvious flaws in both. Obviously, I know it's possible to argue something in this fashion, but it's nonsensical and self-congratulatory without every actually touching the topic.

But, it is sort of annoying.

I'll try to explain...

Did I write something like, "My argument is bulletproof because I already have an answer to the only possible objection?" No; but I've asked this before and I always get the same answer, so I gave my response to it ahead of time to save time. And now here we are discussing it. Sigh. Anyway, as I wrote, if you can object in a different way, I will in fact be very impressed and probably concede the point. You see what I'm doing there? I'm asking you to tear my argument down. Give me a different answer, or if you want to use the answer I've already responded to, show that my response to it fails.

And, like I said, you can pretend I never wrote that. You know why? Because, if you were to actually answer my question, you would do one of two basic things:

1) Use a novel argument which I would probably concede the point against.

2) Use the argument I've already seen before, to which I would respond with something I've already written before. We would proceed from there.

So all I was trying to do was accelerate option 2, should you have chosen that one (if you were to choose 1, what I wrote wouldn't be relevant). But if that's confusing, you can just ignore it and our debate should ultimately have the same result.

 

[TylerD]

doesn't surprise me from Timothy McVeigh land

Poster's name is oh so appropriate here. McVeigh wasn't from Oklahoma you idiot.

 

[WanderingWind]

Maybe. I'm looking at this:

Based on this it seems like you don't like my analogy, so I ask you to explain why exactly. Am I misinterpreting?

YES. YES YOU ARE MISINTERPRETING. There is literally no other way to make this any more clear. I have said it four times and counting now.


And, like I said, you can pretend I never wrote that. You know why? Because, if you were to actually answer my question, you would do one of two basic things:

1) Use a novel argument which I would probably concede the point against.
Or, since I'm not arguing your point...

2) Use the argument I've already seen before, to which I would respond with something I've already written before. We would proceed from there.
Still not arguing the point. I hope this is clear, now?

So all I was trying to do was accelerate option 2, should you have chosen that one (if you were to choose 1, what I wrote wouldn't be relevant). But if that's confusing, you can just ignore it and our debate should ultimately have the same result.
You assume what somebody is going to say, then argue the results. That is not confusing. That is a logical fallacy. You can't do this and hope to be successful. You cannot learn, or teach others, if you're going to assume that you know everything that a person can say. That is the opposite of listening. Even if I was discussing the point you're trying to make (and I wasn't, remember?) this would lead to nothing.

.

 

[ZAK]

YES. YES YOU ARE MISINTERPRETING. There is literally no other way to make this any more clear. I have said it four times and counting now.

Okay. I still don't understand what your point is supposed to be, then, but since I've asked you as directly as possible, I will assume we're at least talking about the same thing, so at least I know your point isn't what I thought it was. We got that, uh, kinda cleared up now. Yay.

You assume what somebody is going to say, then argue the results. That is not confusing. That is a logical fallacy. You can't do this and hope to be successful. You cannot learn, or teach others, if you're going to assume that you know everything that a person can say. That is the opposite of listening. Even if I was discussing the point you're trying to make (and I wasn't, remember?) this would lead to nothing.

I don't even know what else to say. All I assumed is that your response would either be X or not X. That is not an assumption; that is a tautology. But, again, fine, whatever, forget it. As I keep saying, this "argument" is not actually a compelling logical force in any way but just an attempt to accelerate a discussion. Using it or not using it is not supposed to alter the conclusion we reach. So, since I've explained it as well as I'm going to and you still don't seem to follow at all, I totally concede that what I wrote made no sense and so you win and I never should have written that. I truly do regret writing that; take at least that much as sincere.

 

[WanderingWind]

All I assumed is that your response would either be X or not X. That is not an assumption; .

...I'm at a loss for words. In all seriousness, is English your first language? We may be unintentionally butting up against a language barrier.

 

[ZAK]

...I'm at a loss for words. In all seriousness, is English your first language? We may be unintentionally butting up against a language barrier.

It's not. But, anyway, I've already retracted the part that relates to (twice!) so it really doesn't matter.

Anything else?