Originally posted by dadudemon
Why do you need to make your posts complex and ambiguous? Why not just say what you wanted to say like you did above? If you point is lost to the masses, then what good is the point?Of course this sentence makes sense to you, but it most certainly does not to most people:
"Mankind if more than one woman."
What the does that mean?
"That also considers the body of one of those women the property of the other."
The "other"? What? What is the other? I interpreted that as meaning males who force their female partners to get an abortion.
I must have fallen into one of your oh so cleverly laid and sneakily obvious conversational traps! Woes! I'm fallingggggggg!
Only you would consider a post no more than a sentence long too complex. A conversation in writing usually has to flow, so you have to read more than one post in a conversation to make assumptions about the meaning of the post.
The statement was made: Abrotion is one of mankind's greatest inventions". To which I replied, something like "That kind of implies it's mankind's descision to use it.", which means that it's no one's business who uses it, it's not mankind's descision. So, you said in response that "babies don't abort themselves!" So if they don't abort themselves, mankind is more than one woman, it's still stands that it isn't "mankind's" business what a woman does with her body, as in it's no one's business but her own. Which was when you decided to say Oh, I'll do you one better! Mankind is more than 2 women" Which made no sense so I responded to it under the context of my post: Which was to say that mankind is more than the individual making a descision about her body, thus it isn't mankind's business, even if we're only talking about 2 women it's none of the 2nd woman's business. At which point you decided to go off on some tangent about me claiming I was saying I misunderstood mankind to mean men and not humanity.
Like I said, if you wanna click that ignore button while you're wiping that single tear off your cheek, it wouldn't bother me in the least.
Originally posted by Devil King
I must have fallen into one of your oh so cleverly laid and sneakily obvious conversational traps! Woes! I'm fallingggggggg!Only you would consider a post no more than a sentence long too complex.
I was referring to previous convos...you could have said "thank you, I am nicely educated."
Originally posted by Devil King
A conversation in writing usually has to flow, so you have to read more than one post in a conversation to make assumptions about the meaning of the post.
I did. You know that. Your posts were very ambiguous.
Originally posted by Devil King
The statement was made: Abrotion is one of mankind's greatest inventions". To which I replied, something like "That kind of implies it's mankind's descision to use it.", which means that it's no one's business who uses it, it's not mankind's descision.
You mean that your statement wasn't ambiguous and open for multiple interpretations?
We have been over this before...its not because I am an idiot and don't bother thinking about it. On the contrary, I think bunches about it. Your statement was ambiguous.
Originally posted by Devil King
So, you said in response that "babies don't abort themselves!"
As you can see, I interpreted your statement like you were making an overly obvious statement that mankind, or rather, humans are the ones who decide to abort the developing offspring...not some other entities like the baby or aliens.
Originally posted by Devil King
So if they don't abort themselves, mankind is more than one woman, it's still stands that it isn't "mankind's" business what a woman does with her body, as in it's no one's business but her own.
Wrong. We are deviating from reason. Mankind being more than one women seemed like another overly obvious statement to me. I thought you were tying to sound all deep and philosophical with a simple statement.
Originally posted by Devil King
Which was when you decided to say Oh, I'll do you one better! Mankind is more than 2 women" Which made no sense so I responded to it under the context of my post: Which was to say that mankind is more than the individual making a descision about her body, thus it isn't mankind's business, even if we're only talking about 2 women it's none of the 2nd woman's business. At which point you decided to go off on some tangent about me claiming I was saying I misunderstood mankind to mean men and not humanity.
LOL. It was a tangent from your perspective, because it looked like you were "possibly" trying to make a point about the word "mankind.
Originally posted by Devil King
Like I said, if you wanna click that ignore button while you're wiping that single tear off your cheek, it wouldn't bother me in the least.
Like I said, why would I want to ignore you? Some of your posts are actually quite awesome and I enjoy some of your points. I am not butthurt that you sometimes word things so complex that your meaning can be lost in multiple interpretations and your intended meanings are sometimes masked by ambiguity.
Originally posted by Devil King
Mankind, humanity, how ever you want to state it, [b]IS more than one woman. This is why it isn't mankind's business what she does with her body.But I can understand how you'd think I thought mankind meant men, since it's no where in the conversation. [/B]
I understood that when you expanded on it the first time. However, I thought you were trying to split hairs with the "other" definition with the word mankind. You didn't have to mention that it meant "men" or not mention it didn't mean "men" in order for me to assume you were going for the least common interpretation. If you would have said, "and I don't mean the masculine definition either" I would have had no clue what you meant and I would have asked. 🙂
Originally posted by Bardock42
Lets be fair, it was open to multiple interpretations. Lets also be fair, it was clear what was meant
I agree with this statement. I admit that sometimes, things that seem obvious to others seem to escape me. (I mostly mean you when I say "others", Bardock, but I have been told on more than one occasion "You sure are book smart but, damn, sometimes common sense escapes you." I am sure inimilist could explain why.)
I think the arguement ends at this point =
One side thinks the baby deserves to develop and obtain it's future
and one side thinks the future isn't relevant.
Neither side can be proven wrong factually, so it's pretty much a stalemate.
Also Saying one person has no right to tell woman what to do with her baby can't be factually right or wrong either. On one side they believe the baby deserves a voice, and the other thinks "her body her choice" They aren't factually based statements, but rather morality based. There is no right or wrong.
Originally posted by Pezmerga
I think the arguement ends at this point =One side thinks the baby deserves to develop and obtain it's future
and one side thinks the future isn't relevant.Neither side can be proven wrong factually, so it's pretty much a stalemate.
Also Saying one person has no right to tell woman what to do with her baby can't be factually right or wrong either. On one side they believe the baby deserves a voice, and the other thinks "her body her choice" They aren't factually based statements, but rather morality based. There is no right or wrong.
Kinda simplistic. I am sure most people would agree that a developed human baby would deserve rights. And yes, "her body her choice" is a moral statement, good job there. Just if someone had mistaken it for unchangeable truth, thank you for pointing it out.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Kinda simplistic. I am sure most people would agree that a developed human baby would deserve rights. And yes, "her body her choice" is a moral statement, good job there. Just if someone had mistaken it for unchangeable truth, thank you for pointing it out.
Well that's the point where AC and I got to during our argument.
and probally the point everyone would, so what's the point of arguing it any further?
Originally posted by PezmergaIt is an issue that has to be resolved as it is well...an urgent political question. Now, you might state that there's no point for simple citizens to argue about those things, but it is kinda the point of this forum. If you don't want to convince the person you argue with, I can see your point, you have no reason to argue any further, but there are people that do actually think it would be better if other people saw the merit in their point of view.
Well that's the point where AC and I got to during our argument.
and probally the point everyone would, so what's the point of arguing it any further?
Originally posted by dadudemon
I understood that when you expanded on it the first time. However, I thought you were trying to split hairs with the "other" definition with the word mankind. You didn't have to mention that it meant "men" or not mention it didn't mean "men" in order for me to assume you were going for the least common interpretation. If you would have said, "and I don't mean the masculine definition either" I would have had no clue what you meant and I would have asked. 🙂
So it wasn't my job to point out that mankind meant all humanity for the sake of your possible confussion? If not, your issue lies with Spider-Dude, not with me.
Originally posted by Devil King
Which again, serves only to validate the protestor's motivation to themselves.
Not entirely true, imo. I'm sure you can sympathize with all people "deserving a voice" i.e. the right to be heard so to speak.
My wife is currently 18 weeks pregnant; we went for an ultrasound on Monday, low and behold, this 18 month "clump of cells" as some would call it, looks human, has a heartbeat and responds to sound and movement; it has had these features and aspects for many weeks now. I don't think passaging through a vagina magically makes one from a "cell clump" into human, would you?
I personally think it is human and deserves rights, as being human. Others as noted, think it's nothing more than a "mass of cells", therefore not entitled to anything more than a cancerous lump would be. Is it really that cut and dry were one side is entirely right?
Congratulations! Boy or gilr? Or is it still too early to tell?
But at four and a half months, I'm sure it's more than a clump of cells.
I don't profess to know the moment it crosses over and "deserves a voice", but I know one of them already has one. And the voice that matters most is that of your wife and yourself.
Originally posted by Devil King
So then it is my job to point out that mankind doesn't refer to men only?If so, then my job was done.
I'll start PM'ing you my post before I submit them, to make sure you understand the big words in them.
Holy crap, dude. That was totally not what was meant. It was obviously referring to the job of addressing the issue with spidey. I am going to let him know that I know what he meant by his use of humanity and you are the best poster on this message board. 😄