[mikhael]

Originally posted by Kazan
mikhael - you implying it was enough

I do not 'construct logical fallcies' - i only use the official ones  

The situation you describe was negative eugenics -  force, I propose to engineer society so that there will be no "force" required - but that people will understand that it is their duty and will not have compunctions with doing their part to help the species.

Yous hould know where I stand before you try and criticize me

Funny, I wasn't implying anything. You should know where I stand before you presume to criticise me, sir.

I'm glad you stick to official fallacies only. The world would be a worse place if someone added yet more fallacies to it.

The situation I described was eugenics plain and simple. There's no such thing as positive and negative eugenics. Eugenics is a belief system wrought from half-understood ideas of genetics and evolution and the false idea that there is some sort of ideal human form.

You describe a society in which 'force' is not required for people to understand their 'duty' to your vision. A society in which parents would give up a child because of a deformity, or some percieved defect. You may call it science, but its just another form aesthetics. Its a decision to pick and choose the genetics that fit your idea of what is good and right and beautiful. Who gets to decide? You? Me? Would you trust me to pick whether your baby gets to live or die? Would you trust ZylonBane? Stryke9? Thunder? Your mother? The doctor who cut off the tip of your penis? George W. Bush? A priest? The people of the United States? The people of China?

No one gets to decide who lives or dies but the parents. No one else. Anyone who puts the 'good of the species' ahead of the life of their child needs to be sterilized and removed from the gene pool: they obviously don't have what it takes to promote 'the good of the species'.

[Kazan]

it's aesthetics if you take aesthetics (ie how a person looks) into consideration - which you don't

You do not have a "single person decide it" -- you are oversimplifing which creates problems with it - it's not a simple issue

those who put the species before themselves have what it takes - knowledge, understanding

If you are so preoccupied with being prejudiced against eugenics to understand eugenics than I have nothing more to say to you

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Kazan
it's aesthetics if you take aesthetics (ie how a person looks) into consideration - which you don't

Really? What makes you think that won't happen? Giving a bit of credit to humanity, I think. You are the one talking about terminating deformed fetuses. What is deformation but an aesthetic judgement?

You do not have a "single person decide it" -- you are oversimplifing which creates problems with it - it's not a simple issue

I didn't rely on a single person. I asked you about a vast group of people, including all the people in China. Lets keep it more local. Which mob gets to decide, Kazan? American Society? The same people that let the tip of your dick get cut off? You would trust them?

those who put the species before themselves have what it takes - knowledge, understanding

Have what it takes to do... what? Have what it takes to kill unborn children? Have what it takes promote the good of an abstract concept (the species) over the good of a concrete individual (the person)?

If you are so preoccupied with being prejudiced against eugenics to understand eugenics than I have nothing more to say to you

Thank you for crediting that I understand eugenics, Kazan. However, I am not 'prejudiced against eugenics'. I think the concept is a fine one, much as I think socialism is a fine concept. I, however, am a realist. I don't trust anyone to make the decision about what is good for myself or my child except me, or my wife. Letting other people decide what is good for your children is what gets the tip of your child's penis get mutilated, remember?

You don't have anything more to say to me, Kazan, because you are a hypocrite. You decry one form of abuse, only to advocate another, worse abuse.

[Kazan]

mikhael - note how i almost always mentioned _genetic_ deformities, eventually i thought you got the idea about that

How about ****ing geneticists that are certified

"kill unborn children" - you mean teriminate embryios/fetuses - not kill

you are a moron not to see the fine line between htings - and the huge massive line between that which harms the individual and does nothing else and that which harms the species

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Kazan
mikhael - note how i almost always mentioned _genetic_ deformities, eventually i thought you got the idea about that

Sorry my friend, I thing you're mistaken. I did notice you talking about genetic deformities. I thought you understodd that I got it since we are talking about EUGENICS, which is nothing if not a misapplication of genetic determinism.

How about ****ing geneticists that are certified

Mind your manners and your language. I've told you before.
What right does a geneticist have to decide the fate of my child? What kind of father lets someone else decide that his children are unfit to live?

"kill unborn children" - you mean teriminate embryios/fetuses - not kill

No. I said kill. I meant kill. If I had wanted to say "terminate embryos/fetuses", I certainly have demonstrated my ability to do so.  Your opinion of the legitimacy of the life of my child is irrelevant. As a parent, my duty is to ignore your opinion and form my own.

you are a moron not to see the fine line between htings - and the huge massive line between that which harms the individual and does nothing else and that which harms the species

Morons in my state used to get sterilized, you know. Fortunately for me, I don't qualify in any manner as a moron, except in your biased opinion. Let us leave the ad-hominem attacks at home, as we both learned in debate. I called you a hypocrite because you demonstrate contradictory beliefs about the same subject (human rights). I have not, however demonstrated any of the traits of a moron.

There is no fine line between that which harms the individual and does nothing else and that which harms the species. For there to be a line, both possibilities must exist. The species can be harmed. The "species" is an abstract construct, a description of a set of individuals. It has no health. It merely IS or IS NOT. As long as there are homo sapiens sapiens there is a species. The individual is a concrete thing. It has health. It lives and can die. There is only one thing defining it: itself. However, when it dies, the species continues. You anthropomorphize the concept of 'species', treat it like a living thing whose health can be improved. That's the fallacy of eugenics.

[adwight]

Kazan, if my rights been violated, so be it.  If I find something that big of a deal, I'll do something about it, and I'm sure most of those other 90 % would too.  Don't tell me I'm stupid, I'm much more intelligent than you think.

[Kazan]

mikhael - i no longer respect you enogh not to ad hominem you - after the massive numbers of blatant fallacies yo've made

[mikhael]

If I've made logical fallacies, point them out. Back up your declaration that they are fallacious. Attack my argument. Do not attack me. If you have to resort to attacking me, it usually means your argument is too weak to defend. We did learn that in formal debate too, didn't we?

[Ulala]

Originally posted by mikhael
If you have to resort to attacking me, it usually means your argument is too weak to defend. We did learn that in formal debate too, didn't we?

I haven't even had a formal debate class and I knew that.

Originally posted by Kazan

How about ****ing geneticists that are certified

I don't know, like mik said, as a father would you actually let someone else decide whether or not your child lives or dies? The only person who is technically certified is God, but let's not go there. I'm more interested in the whole human rights thing. I don't mean to assume anything, but this is what it seems you're saying: those that don't contribute positively to the gene pool shouldn't be allowed to live? If you're meaning something different, please clarify. If, however, this is in fact what you do mean, then isn't this similar to.. oh I dunno... purifying a race maybe?

[Kazan]

There is no god

Those who are going to massively harm the progress of the species and massively degrade the gene pool - ie those who are massively deformed genetically should not be put through the torture of a life of being deformed -- i extend that humane euthanasia to the developementally deformed as well -- It jsut happens to be a bonus that the humane thing is also helpful to the species



mikhael's fallacies - argumentum ad hominem, petitio principii, argumentum ad ignorantiam, false dilemma, appeal to a consequence of a belief, Slippery slope

just to name a few i can pick out easily

[/me is suprised he didn't quicky find an argumentum ad verecundiam!]

[Splinter]

muahahah i cant belive only one guy posted on this. AIDS plain and simple i dont care what that crappy site at the beginning said all i care about is the real life facts that can be attested to by millions average percentage less of aids in a groupe of people who were circumcised... %80 thats enough for me... so if some people decide to do it based on this you can blame them all you like for "mutilating" themselves but i dont think they will really care for those in africa they are saving lives.

[Kazan]

Splinter - CIRCUMSTANCIAL DATA -- The study is correlational not causal - it doesn't even stop to think about the freaking behaviors of the groups

that's argumentum ad ignorantiam

[Splinter]

you are a bizzare person...

anyway i would agree with you about the "CIRCUMSTANCIAL" evidence but as far as anyone could tell it was the one and only deffrence between all the tribes they witnessed. no change in eating habits sexual habits or anything like that... jsut "mutialtion" so maybe it only works in africa and not where you live but at least it works somwhere and all im saying is because it DOES work liek that shouldnt it be allowed and not... lloked down uppon as you do?

[Stryke 9]

Isn't it great how you actually don't need to argue against someone, just attempt to label some rhetorical devices (including maybe a handful of incorrect techniques) you think you see in there, and they're immediately proven wrong?

It's a strategy I'd pick up on, but I find that gratuitous use of Latin leads to severe brain defects and impotence.

[Kazan]

Splinter: show me this study between tribes  and this one with 80% differences,  now where did they have one that had such numbers


Stryke 9  - You're not welcome here, but thanks for the example of argumentum ad hominem (excuse me for using formal lnaguage in a formal situation)

[Devils_Hitman]

My cats name is mittens...............

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Kazan
There is no god

Prove it. Not that I disagree with you. You're arguing ad ignoratum there, yourself.

So let us be formal, Kazan:
1. argumentum ad hominem: At what point did I attack you, instead of your argument? Perhaps you consider it ad-hominem for me to label your position "faithlike" or "like a fundamentalist'. If that is the case, you're guilty through this entire debate of ad hominum attacks. Actually, toward the end of this debate, you openly declare th

2.  petitio principi: Please show me where I argued from the basis of assumed truth. I think on a careful review of the entire thread, I did no such thing.

3. argumentum ad ignorantiam: at no point have I claimed something was true on the basis that it had not been proven, nor have I argued something was false on the basis that it had not been proven true. I compared facts from one source to facts given in another source to decide that neither side had been proven sufficiently for me to reach your conclusion. My decision that the facts are inconclusive either way does not constitute an argument to ignorance. If this were the case, simple logical processes, such as the scientific method, could not work.

4. false dilemma: At no point have I artificially limited consequences in order to exclude other outcomes which would be prejudicial to my position. My position is one that you have failed to prove your case and that other sources are insufficient to disprove your case. There is no false dilemma here.

5. appeal to a consequence of a belief: you will find that I have not used consequences to attack your beliefs. You will, in fact, find quite the opposite: I have agreed with your beliefs, and decried the consequences on the grounds that I see no indications that there is anyone who can be trusted to implement those beliefs.

6. Slippery slope: I have not mentioned a single slipperly slope argument. I have specifically avoided them. You are confusing me for several other people who have introduced the slippery slope. At no point have I introduced a series of progressively worse consequences.

[/me is suprised he didn't quicky find an argumentum ad verecundiam!]

I am rather surprised that you found no appeals to authority yourself. Allow me to help you find a few:

Originally posted by Kazan
For the long list of the damages caused by circumcision read http://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm

Originally posted by Kazan

mikhael: you need to do a little reading on the sites i've linked

Originally posted by Kazan

Mikhael: did you bother to follow up into their sources ...

Originally posted by Kazan
Grey Wolf 2009: Things need not to be on a major medical jounral site to be considered valid - read the study data - that's out of a major medical book!

Originally posted by Kazan
the foreskin is a biologically important thing - go read up http://noharmm.org/advantage.htm

Originally posted by Kazan
also if you spent 10 minutes or noharmm you'd find statisical abstracts

That sums up the appeals to authority. It's nice to appeal to authority, but only after you have actually established the credibility of the authority within the bounds of the debate. Telling people to establish the credibility of your sources, or to go read your sources instead of presenting the data directly is the basic form of argumentum verecundiam, as taught in formal debate.

Now, lets get back on track. Please present your data, not your sources. Please show why your sources are valid and can be accepted as credible in the bounds of this debate. My position remains the same: I have not decided the truth or falsehood either way.

[Kazan]

mikhael you clearly don't understand argumentum ad verecundiam - it's only a fallacy when the authority has no credibility in the subject in which it is referenced - so all your little "pointing out KAzan's argumentum ad verecundiams" are not AAV's

i'll address the rest of your comments later - when I feel like wasting more time on this thread - i should be doing work instead of bantering with bull****ists

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by Kazan
it's aesthetics if you take aesthetics (ie how a person looks) into consideration - which you don't

You do not have a "single person decide it" -- you are oversimplifing which creates problems with it - it's not a simple issue

those who put the species before themselves have what it takes - knowledge, understanding

If you are so preoccupied with being prejudiced against eugenics to understand eugenics than I have nothing more to say to you

You seem to have an ugly habit of beating people into submission with your beliefs. That's what fundies do and part of the reason I really don't like them.

The parents should decide whether a baby lives or dies if it is deformed. I'm pro-choice on matters of life and death--the parents decide whether or not to have an abortion, and a person with a severe illness and injury should be able to end his life if he so desires. One of the things that separates a free state from a totalitarian one is the right to make choices about your fate.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Kazan
mikhael you clearly don't understand argumentum ad verecundiam - it's only a fallacy when the authority has no credibility in the subject in which it is referenced - so all your little "pointing out KAzan's argumentum ad verecundiams" are not AAV's

i'll address the rest of your comments later - when I feel like wasting more time on this thread - i should be doing work instead of bantering with bull****ists

Actually, you are mistaken. AAV is also appeal to unrecognized authority. I don't recognize your authorities. You haven't shown them to be credible. You just tell me they are. You expect me to simply accept that they are valid or to go and prove their validity myself. I'm not here to prove your case. That's your job.

I'm going to ask you once: quit with the personal attacks. They're not warranted. If you can't debate without being offensive, then there's no point in continuing to discuss anything with you.