If I am in a bus with no brakes heading down a steep hill, and the only way to avoid hitting a minivan full of school kids is to steer into a Cadillac driven by a senior citizen, you may assume that I make my choice in order to. Save the most lives, not because I believe senior citizens should be killed.
Similarly, the concession above is intended to save the lives of many unborn children.
So we can just do a calculus of the lives saved versus the lives sacrificed, and reach an ethical conclusion?
Not if saving those lives affect’s Bricker’s income. You’re talking to a man who has stated he’d let poor (post-birth) people die through lack of access to health care services if making those services available affects his financial situation, remember. Saving lives is not Bricker’s concern.
Yep, I remember reading that somewhere on here. I just couldn’t find the exact post with the advanced search.
19th-Amendment remedies.
American men rise as one and speak with a united voice: “Yes, Dear!”
Not “just,” but certainly that’s one factor in reaching an ethical conclusion.
A lie. From, self-evidently, a liar.
In Bricker’s defense, he said something more along the lines of, “It is acceptable for someone to die because they can’t afford medical care.”
He provided no further clarification in that thread. An amazing feat of Christian thinking, that.
I notice you say, “He provided no further clarification in that thread.”
Did you phrase it that way to give the impression that I never explained that statement?
Did I, in fact, provide further clarification?
Not until later in a different thread. My point being, that someone who just read your un-walked-back comments wouldn’t be out of line thinking you meant what you said.
Yes. “Not until later in a different thread.”
But what would someone who just read your post in THIS thread think?
They might well think that I simply didn’t provide further clarification.
Which is, of course, precisely the impression you strove to leave, isn’t it?
One wonders why I said, “…in that thread.” at all if I wanted it to remain secret.
You walked back your odious shit much later in a totally different thread. That means that many might think you meant what you said.
Because you wanted to immunize yourself against a exposure of a blatant lie, of course, while retaining the impression that the blatant lie would have given.
Aided in their thoughts by your presentation of a deceptive account of it. Right?
I don’t lie, except to save someone’s feelings, or to make a story funnier, Bricker. And someone doesn’t have to lie to make you look like a complete twat. Look at this thread for examples. In any case, I clearly said what I meant. You feeling persecuted doesn’t change what I said into a lie.
Hardly deceptive, imho. I said what I meant, that you didn’t walk back your comment in that thread. Meaning you did later in a different thread. Many dopers read the one and not the other, so many dopers didn’t hear your retraction of your comment. So many dopers think that comment represents your feelings.
Which, you say, now at least, isn’t so. But it is your own fault, for saying something so stupid and then backtracking it elsewhere.
In any case, you’re just trying to divert the subject, because you’re ashamed. Good, maybe it’ll do you some good.
Exactly the kind of hyper-legalistic truth twisting you engage in all the damn time. It’s exactly your line of country. Did he say anything untrue? Did he? No! You yourself observe that at no point did he do so. Bricker > petard > hoist.
Can somebody link to the thread so I can move from someone with a hypothetical opinion to someone with an actual opinion?
Bricker’s post:
[Quote=Bricker]
It is acceptable for people to die because they can’t afford the proper treatment.
[/quote]
The thread he posted it in:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=548965&page=5
The post itself: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12041602&postcount=246
And, you’ll note, no additional posts in the thread. Just like I said.
No, it was in the thread in which you went from “my church is all or nothing” to “not until Obama forces women to have children against their will” when your church said you were obliged to support adequate health care systems.
And did I accuse him of saying anything untrue? Did I?
I accused him of saying something deceptive. If you believe I am saying anything deceptive, now or anytime, waddle up to the keyboard and call it out.