Seems I’ve seen this argument before. 
Trying to have a conversation with someone with their fingers in their ears going “LALALALALALA I can’t HEAR you!” tends to do that to a person.
What a trainwreck.
Look, it’s real nice that people understand the deaf parents’ point of view. That’s great. Very compassionate. But come on. I’ve seen some of you who are defending what they’re doing screech with rage at people who advocate either declawing cats or allow them to be outside. And yes. It damn well is the same kind of thing. You are advocating the right to genetically alter a human being so it will have a physical disability. The baby is not going to always be a baby. It is a human being, who will have its own life and have to make its way in the world completely deaf. Being self sufficient isn’t difficult enough? None of the people pitting their families has sunk through? Quit proving how fucking tolerant you are and think for one second how that kid is going to feel. How the fuck would YOU feel? “Yes, sweetie, we made you deaf on purpose because we’re deaf.”
Christ on a crutch, people.
Whoa, FinnAgain, I’m on your side, but please, dial it back a bit, wouldya?
sigh… sorry, I just can’t believe it’s taken three pages to get across the basic premise that it’s wrong. Especially for several people I consider intelligent and whose opinions I respect.
Yeh, what Guin said, Finn. I hold with the folks here who believe it’s at the very least unwise and selfish for these two women to seek out a deaf donor, but I can see why the deaf parents would want their child to be fully a part of ther community. cthiax is offering polite, reasoned advocacy of a point of view I don’t agree with; you’re hurling spittle-flecked shitbombs that do nothing to advance the view I agree with. With whom would I rather discuss this, do you think? Who makes the more persuasive case on style points?
Actually, I never said it was wrong for them to do it. I’m ambivalent on this topic, and I think I said so. I just can’t go in for your argument that the intentions don’t matter. That’s really the only thing that makes this situation unique.
Indeed. I don’t know how many different ways there are to say “intentionally maximizing the risk of physical birth defects.” Maybe if I learn Greek…
Perhaps. It’s somewhat hard. We’re talking about taking a new life, a defenseless innocent life, and wilfully and with full knowledge, maiming it. Only a technicality seperates it from taking a needle and gauging out an infant’s eardrums. It is hard to be polite to those suggesting that we can maim babies with impunity.
This is the Pit. If you expect me to be nicey nice with someone advocating intentional maiming of a child you’re in the wrong place. This is absurd. We have people arguing for something which is functionally the same as taking a baby and ripping out their eardrums. This should be so far beyond the pale that it receives no support.
I don’t give a fuck if someone offers polite ‘reasoned’ debate for maiming a child, it’s abhorent and deserves no respect. I would react the same to any ‘polite and reasoned’ discussion of a horrible crime. Shall we have a ‘polite and reasoned’ discussion of rape?
And by the way, ‘reasoned’ debate does not consist of deliberately ignoring volitional aspects in some insane postmodern fugue of moral relativism.
If you want to have a genteel discussion on intentional baby maiming, there’s GD. If I feel like flaming someone who supports the willful maiming of a fucking baby, I’ll post here.
And simply as an adendum, I don’t think ‘style points’ come into a discussion where someone is arguing for purposefully maiming babies any more than it would for any other crime against another human being. Shall we gague ‘style points’ in a discussion over how it’s okay to rape people because the is a culture of rape survirors?
You are a liar. Why people lie when I can just cite the relevant posts, starting with post 90 is beyond me. You took an olive branch and claimed I was attacking you. That, after you’d called me an ‘asswipe’ for daring to point out that your characterization of posters in another thread was false to facts. It takes a special kind of lack of honor coupled with brazen stupidity to try to pull that shit when I can cite your own words.
Again, just how stupid are you, you lying piece of shit? My posts are in this very thread. Look at the exchange I had with Miller, And again, you whiney cunt, if you want to talk about intentional baby maiming in polite tones get the fuck out of the Pit. Or better yet, leave the fucking Dope already you whiney fuck.
Mmmm hmmm. So that’s why your first post in this thread was an lie about what I always do when I’m disagreed with, and you follow it up by talking about my ‘behavior in the interim’. You’re a liar, and you’re lying when your text is here for everybody to see. That’s just stupid.
Again, you ‘pop in’ to ‘show I’m wrong’ and in order to do so, you need to come up with stupid shit like this. The parents are deliberately destroying a baby’s ability to hear. You ignore that because you want to hassle me.
Oh… I showed anger at someone supporting intentional baby maiming, in the Pit. Report me to the mods! :rolleyes: I’m shitting all over the Pitting!
Again you lie. Your own text right here says that you’ve been watching my ‘behavior’ and found it lacking. Meanwhile, I only responded to you because you came into this thread in order to take up a position solely to give me a hard time.
How you can call it nonsense when you need to purposefully contradict yourself in order to hassle me… oh, wait, that’s how you can call it nonsense. Nevermind.
Again, you prove yourself to be an honorless liar. There is no rational support for intentionally maiming a baby. None. And you’re morally bankrupt if you try.
I think I’ve said what I have to say by this point. I’ll check back at the thread later, but this is just insane. People are actually suggesting that it is okay to deliberately cause an innocent child irreperable lifelong physical damage. This is horrifying. I wonder how many of these people would turn around and be against something like female genital mutilation. Insane. Just insane…
Sorry, Finn, but for abusive, hyperbolic ranting the person you remind me most of lately is Scylla.
Which people are those? As far as I’ve seen, only cthiax is doing so. I’m agnostic on this - I admit that I’m disturbed by it, but at the same time I can’t see it as all that different from any parent deciding to have a child that has a high likelihood of any nasty disease. Which again is something I’m not comfortable with, but I find it difficult to decide that it’s necessarily wrong, per se. I think it’s a topic that deserves discussion. Most ethical issues are not simple, and I don’t think it’s useful to try to prevent discussion of alternate viewpoints in a situation like this. Personally, for me, I think this current problem is a complex issue, precisely because I find the idea of trying deliberately to conceive a deaf child slightly repugnant but I’m not sure I can justify my opinion; for that reason, I would like to see an active conversation take place so that I can refine my own viewpoint a little more.
Those are radically different things, and while you may consider them morally equivalent, they are certainly not logically equivalent. So don’t expect your equivalence to be convincing to those who don’t share your views. Once again, this is exactly the same as the argument of Right to Life when they shrilly scream about “baby-killing” as though the rest of us are supposed to find it a convincing line of reasoning.
At any rate, since you say you can’t manage to discuss hot button topics calmly, it would behoove you to consider withdrawing from discussions of things that you feel strongly about.
I don’t know why you feel the need to drag up past disagreements in this argument, FinnAgain. And yes, I used the (obviously rather mild) epithet “asswipe” in reference to you. That was, however, after you starting your habitual shrieking. If your heart simply can’t take the stain of being called an asswipe, my dear FinnAgain, I might suggest that by not being such an asswipe, you might avoid the accusation.
Incidentally, misspelling my name in your quote boxes? FinnAgain, how old are you?
How tragic that you should have to contend with people whose opinions differ from yours, and on this very message board no less!
Yes. Also, the CIA is watching you. And you’re tailed by agents of the NSA whenever you leave your house. Because everybody is paying attention to you all the time, FinnAgain. Yep. We all care about you just that much!
Incidentally, once again, “destroying a baby’s ability to hear” is a mischaracterization. Nothing is being done to any baby; this entire matter relates to incidents that precede the existence of any baby whatsoever, which is precisely why it is a complex matter that seems to be beyond your simplistic black and white ability to comprehend.
Remember way back when, when I referred to your paranoia as “grandiose”? Sorry, FinnAgain, but I don’t make moral judgments on the basis of what I think might piss you off.
Listen you whiney cunt, if you don’t want heated stuff, don’t post in the Pit. Okay? Just quit whining bitch.
Shrieking? You just keep digging yourself deeper you pathetic liar. I can quote posts. Does this not penetrate your skull?
Petty and pathetic, you? Who’d have guessed. I’d apologize for my typo, but you’re an asshole who came into this thread looking to give me a hard time even if you had to contradict yourself. So nope, no apology you silly cunt.
Again you make this stupid lie. I disagree with people all the time, and did with Miller in this very thread. Will you please stop lying?
Are you out of your mind? You just said that you were in this very thread. You really are stupid enough to believe that your posts vanish, aren’t you? Jeeeez.
Mmm hmmm. You didn’t make your first post in this thread as something that a reasonable person might conclude was an attack on me. The word ‘psychotic’ is a nice word. No, you weren’t trying to piss me off, at alllllll :rolleyes:
This is some special stupidity, you keep denying what you said when I can quote you. Wow. Find someone else to bait and whose posts you can watch, say you’ve been watching, and then deny while making stupid suggestions of conspiracy theories. Find a better hobby than trying to get my goat, eh?
Oh, and by the way you lying cunt, cite for where I said I can’t “manage to discuss hot button topics calmly”?
Oh, there’s no cite? I never said that? You’re lying through your teeth in order to bait me?
Ya don’t say…
And as long as I’m at it, the false equivelancy with abortion is simply conflating two very different issues. If one is to bring a viable fetus to term, it is most certainly going to be a human being.
We wouldn’t be having this discussion if it was a pregnant woman who gave herself AIDS so that her child could be infected and part of the ‘AIDS culture’. We wouldn’t be having this discussion if it was a mother who drank so that her child could have fetal alcohol syndrome. We wouldn’t be discussing this if, instead of deliberately choosing genetics which would result in physical damage it was done with physical/chemical means. If, in utero, they stuck a needle into the ear of the fetus and destroyed its ears it would still be the same essential action. We wouldn’t be having this discussion if it was about a mother who deliberately started taking heroin so her baby would be born an addict. We wouldn’t be having this discussion if it was about a mother who deliberately chose a sperm doner out of a desire to have her child born without arms. We wouldn’t be having this discussion if it was a mother who deliberately chose a sperm doner so that her child could have severe mental damage/disability/problems. We wouldn’t be having this discussion if it was a mother who deliberately decided to try to have a premature baby.
There is no justification for deliberately, methodicaly, and with conscious intention, attempting to damage or destroy the physical systems of a baby. And although it can be dodged or ignored, the fact of intent matters.
Sorry for the (yikes!) quadrouple post, but I figured that for those who don’t want to discuss this issue in the Pit, with all that obviously entails, there should be: a Great Debates thread.
If I’d known **FinnAgain ** was coming to the thread I would have come in earlier to warn cthiax, cowgirl, and psychobunny not to bother debating with him…once he misunderstands your point, you’re not going to be able to reason with him.
Though I’m loathe to agree with Excalibre:
I have to agree with this. And yes, FinnAgain, we have crossed paths before so you can go ahead and try to marginalize my opinion if it makes you feel better but, as usual when someone doesn’t agree with you, you are being a dick. And no, I’m not a liar, a coward, or a lying coward. :rolleyes:
You have mischaracterized many statements in this thread, especially cthiax’s and you have been arguing against a position that s/he is not taking. For what it’s worth, cthaix, you have made me do a lot of thinking with your posts in this thread. Thanks!
Awww poor widdle debatwers, I don’t agwee wid derwe points and I voice that. :rolleyes:
I’m glad that you think that the only way I could disagree with someone is if I misunderstand them, but that’s both arrogant and foolish. I understand quite well.
What “reasoning” went on? Mmmm? You’re the second person to make that claim, but there were no reasoned arguments on the other side, at all. There was one wilfully ignorant position that intention doesn’t matter, and another postmodern irrational position that if someone doesn’t consider a disability to be a disability, then it isn’t.
It is the height of petty bullshit to get upset that a thread in the Pit has ~gasp!~ flaming. It is further intellectually dishonest for you to say that my not agreeing with a bullshit intellectually bankrupt argument means that I must be irrational.
Yes, you are a liar. I disagree with folks all the time without ‘melting down’. That makes you a liar.
Bullshit. I characterized it perfectly, he was the one ignoring, wilfully, the word ‘intent’. But it’s interesting to see that in this thread if I disagree with you then I must be ‘misundestanding’, ‘mischaracterizing’ and ‘psychotic’.
So we can add that you’re a janus faced asshole to a liar.
Why oh why do you say that people who disagree with you must be misunderstanding and mischaracterizing? I guess you just can’t disagree with people, right? :dubious:
I don’t believe that **cthaix ** ever advanced an opinion one way or another. Instead, **cthaix ** asked some questions that few people wanted to answer–maybe because it would lead to some realizations of the plank in their own eyes. Who knows what motivates people to attack a question rather than answer it?
It’s pretty easy to say someone is advocating maiming babies and then argue against that; a little more difficult to answer a question about why you don’t think the same two people should not be allowed to have a baby just because they are straight and it’s the natural way.
I believe that you tend to become an asshole who melts down when people don’t agree with your strenous arguments–albeit not spectactularly enough to be banned* nor to run off the board in a huff.
I don’t believe I stated that you do it everytime you disagree; I agreed that it’s a habit. Like many habits, it can’t be indulged in at just any time; the locaton and mood has to be right. You appear to enjoy coming off as a contemptous prick and revel in it if you can find a nice easy side with lots of backers so you can pick on someone else. I rarely see this from you if you don’t think people will be on your side, or at least not take you to task for your behavior. I think you’re a bully, but like all bullies only when you think you can get away with it. I also think you are a chickenshit who is more likely to be polite to someone who can clean your clock, so to speak. Hence your semi-politeness to Miller. No way are you going to take on someone who will make you look like the whining little boy you are.
This is how you come across to me. Take it for what it’s worth.
*You come extremely close to breaking the “don’t be a jerk” rule, IMO.
No, it isn’t. Intent matters.
What’s a ‘stenuous argument’ anyways?
And if you’re bitching about my conduct in the Pit then I suggest that you find another folder.
Do you want flame free sharing of opinions? Post in IMHO.
Do you want flame free debate? Post in GD.
Do you want flame free discussion of an issue that’s interesting you? Post in MPSIMS.
But it’s absurd to go to the Pit and get on someone’s case for ~gasp!~ flaming someone. That’s part of what this forum is for. If you don’t like it, don’t post or read in it.
You’re also making up your argument out of wholecloth. That you ‘believe’ it doesn’t matter. I disagree with people all the time without ‘melting’ down. Yes, even in the Pit. So if all you’re complaining about is that people who piss me off get flamed, in the Pit, then I will again suggest that you should be reading and posting in another forum.
No, you agreed with the bullshit that I do it “whenever” I’m disagreed with. See, much like other instances I have not somehow ‘misread’ or ‘mischaracterized’ your post. Although you might not have said what you meant to. That isn’t my fault, I’m not a mindreader. But evidently you think you are a mindreader. :rolleyes:
Again, this is stupid bullshit. I choose a side based on backers? Do you read things, or just make shit up because it sounds good? Sorry if you view me flaming a pro intentional-baby-maimer in the Pit, of all places, as ‘contemptous’, but you’ll pardon me if I don’t give a damn.
Your lack of vision does not constitute a pattern of behavior on my part.
And I think you’re a moron who’s projecting some personal issues onto me. And again, stop being a whiner. If you don’t want to see people flaming, don’t post int he Pit.
Which, again, makes you a fucking moron. I’ve gotten into knock down drag out debates with a good number of people. Liberal included.
Oh please. :rolleyes:
You’re pathetic, you view my respect for Miller as cowardice? Just how stupid can you get? You’re also a liar. I most certainly “took on” Miller. Or did you miss that I was diagreeing with him? Fool.
Yep, that you’re a petty asshole who shouldn’t be posting in the Pit lest it bruise your delicate sensibilities. Take that for what it’s worth.
Then report me you stupid son of a bitch and quit whining about it.
~shrugs~
People want to delibarately maximize the chance of birth defects in a baby. The difference being that in one case, people who are not giving aid and comfort to terrorists are called traitors. In the other, people who are deliberately trying to induce birth defects are called on it.
You can call objecting to the hyperbolic and abusive but I think that’s absurd.