re: The shills on here have become more and more outwardly angry

You are confused.

quote:

---

further interaction with the latter becomes pointless

---

says the coward. your views got challenged. you ran

quote:

---

More and more forum participants are coming to realize your classification

---

name them. texridder? ibchina?

you were rebutted by several people in the abortion thread and let's not forget you don't have the best reputation on this board.

quote:

---

You are lying to yourself, and you are lying to every poster who reads your words

---

nope

quote:

---

I HAVE answered this question ... repeatedly

---

no you have not as i will once again demonstrate

quote:

---

The vast majority of us agree that it is generally acceptable to kill animals and NOT generally acceptable to kill adult humans

---

as stated before, this has NOTHING to do with convenience murder of babies. not one thing. we don't have to appeal to the animal world for ANY sort of criteria for murdering of human beings. you think you have found some relevant analogy and you haven't. now, i have issued this challenge before and you won't respond to it. therefore, you were lying when you said you have responded to my challenge.

quote:

---

We can undertake the same analysis as to EACH objective trait posited by abortion opponents, and we will find that every one of them is shared by both humans and animals

---

there is one relevant, critical trait that has been suggested to you that makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD and has nothing to do with the animal kingdom. you know what it is, right?

quote:

---

except those who make a religious argument

---

still wrong

quote:

---

which is inherently not susceptible to logical analysis

---

also wrong for multiple reasons

quote:

---

That is a circular argument

---

you obviously don't realize that circular doesn't equal false. i can explain it to you yet again but, for now, how about you once again go get educated starting with the philosophical tradition of foundationalism. i can help explain it and it's relevance for this discussion to you. if you want some further reading, study axiology

quote:

---

could be rejected for that reason alone

---

only if you're an idiot

quote:

---

Yet it also fails because it fails to account for the possibility of non-human life which should also be afforded protection

---

you don't even realize you are undermining your own stupid argument with this statement. you are making an a fortiori argument against convenience murder of babies. but you knew that didn't you?

quote:

---

After years of analysis

---

this is actually the crux of the problem. we get that you are enamored with yourself but i think most everyone can see you're just wearing the emperor's new clothes.

quote:

---

“sapience” is the only logical and objective distinguishing trait

---

and this has been refuted, rather easily i might add. would you like for me to recount the reasons?

quote:

---

it should thus be the factor considered when determining whether the taking of a given life should be acceptable

---

there is NO circumstance when a pregnant mother is morally justified in killing a human being for convenience, even if the baby is in her womb. you will not respond to this assertion. go figure

quote:

---

I reject the notion that its life has the same value as an organism that DOES have sapience

---

and multiple people have explained to you that you are wrong on this matter

quote:

---

more progress towards full sapience has been made

---

again, demonstrating something you won't come to terms with. you yourself have stated you don't know precisely what sapience is and when it is fully manifested. you have acknowledged that it is an ongoing process and thus, your idiotic sapience argument fails the sled test, which you have yet to engage. all you have done is give it blithe dismissal. iow, you have never once stated all the reasons WHY the sled test is not applicable. but don't dare mention any of that to everyone

quote:

---

burdens of the pregnant woman

---

i know you haven't caught on to this but, no one is buying this line of bullcrap

quote:

---

utterly illogical and subjective

---

prove it

quote:

---

Reeeee ... But it’s a PERSON ... reeeeeeee

---

an objective fact, btw. but don't dare include that in your juvenile characterization

quote:

---

you mumble something about a “personhood gap”

---

yeah, don't dare explain how that is wrong. just make fun of it. because that makes you seem so smart.

quote:

---

no explanation of what you think that term. might mean.

---

it's self explanatory nerd

quote:

---

nothing requires me to continue discussing the matter with someone who is clearly incapable of any argument that is not inherently circular

---

says the loser

quote:

---

Do not continue to assert that I have not explained my views or the reasons for them

---

as demonstrated yet again, you are not advancing the discussion. i have asked you questions and all you do is dismiss them. you are not advancing the discussion and then you ran away with a few passing childish potshots.

here's an example of how to advance the discussion and not look like a moron: the sled test is wrong/flawed/faulty because X, Y, Z, etc...

quote:

---

your own whiny post

---

just calling it like it is. hell, you even agreed

quote:

---

a simplistic (if biased) summary of my views

---

no. i pretty much nailed it. i gave the cliff notes. it's interesting that you won't admit you are advocating for convenience murder of babies in favor of the pregnant woman's "burden."

quote:

---

You are lying to yourself, and you are lying to every poster who reads your words

---

so once again i have demonstrated that
1. your position is stupid
2. you won't advance the discussion by actually engaging in the rebuttals. you just keep repeating the same stupid, already refuted points

quote:

---

often incorrectly

---

prove it. let's see you put up or shut up, mr. "i don't exactly know what sapience is or when it actually happens." :lol:

you didn't know what the sled test was, one of the most important refutations of abortion. you apparently still don't know what personhood is, much less want to engage the idea. you seem to know nothing about epistemology. you definitely don't understand philosophical rhetorical dialogue or rhetorical logic, such as making a cogent argument or advancing the discussion by responding to rebuttal. wait, i'm sorry. you probably don't know what cogent actually means. but i'm the one using terms incorrectly. terms that anyone who looks through my post history can tell i use correctly.

quote:

---

Rest assured that I will now revert to my original policy

---

whatever loser. i once again asked you some simple, direct questions. let us know when you actually have a substantive response and not just pointless repetitions

quote:

---

Do you consider my post above to consist of “dismiss, deflect or deny?”

---

what the frick? um, yes.

quote:

---

Because I think it is damned substantive

---

quote:

---

SkyScreamingBob

---

Your IQ is getting fricking lower by the day.

You dummy

quote:

---

I do not want to derail this thread. Let’s remember to take it up on the next abortion thread

---

coward

quote:

---

sapience is a higher standard that sentience

---

and this is part of the problem. you are using terms that have high elasticity. you could define down sentience to a being that perceives and responds to sensations of whatever kind, but that fails to acknowledge that sentience can also include subjectivity and qualia which is a huge ontological leap. moreover, sapience technically means wisdom (which some animals can seem to possess), not any sort of ontological consciousness or self awareness which is what i think you are aiming at, even though you seem to be incapable of articulating that.

so, you're needlessly getting bogged down in semantics over something that doesn't really matter on the topic anyway. those terms don't help you ontologically distinguish a human from an animal, not that such a distinction is warranted for the purposes of the discussion in the first place. you've just gone off the rails and won't listen to anyone who is trying to get you back on the subject. you've latched on to this one irrelevant idea and you can't justify why it's warranted to begin with.

so if you want to advance the discussion, you'll demonstrate how your position fulfills epistemic knowledge; jtb, jtb+, warrant, some other epistemically sound reasoning criteria. but this will be child's play to you because you're smart and i'm stupid.