I am. Not my job. Mostly because I don't care if the are pro dueling or not. I don't even know why dueling is illegal.
So if the issue came up in a public voter referendum, you would vote yes, that it should be legalized again? If that is the case, I suspect you may be far more Libertarian leaning than many of the other abortion pro-choicers in this crowd.
In ancient Rome at one time, it was legal for fathers to kill their children, no questions asked. Don't forget about slavery, the Holocaust, etc... genital mutilation of female girls still going on in some parts of the world Do you still hold to your argument, or do you concede the point here?
And they all thought it was reasonable. At least those that participated. But somewhere along the line, more people deemed it not reasonable. And things changed.
How about when people support one thing, but oppose something else, yet they are having to use double standards and inconsistent logic to support one while opposing the other? Is that moral relativism, or just plain intellectual self-dishonesty? (ergo, "I want this, so I'm just going to come up with selective logic to justify it")
To answer that without knowing the reason it became illegal in 1st place would be an uninformed vote. Yes, I consider myself fairly libertarian. As I bet most do. If it's not against the rights of another human person, I care less what one does. And based on that 1 assumption alone, if 2 people consented to go at each other until one dies, who am I to stop them? But I suspect there might be more to it than that simple thought. Who knows.
All morals are relavtive. Constitutional rights are based on it. Are they not? But I say, one can not infringe on another's rights. And killing ones living breathing child is an infringement. At least today. There was a time, I think, when children were like property, such as women and blacks used to be. IMO, those would be against constitutional rights. And they were. That's why women and blacks are not thought of as property any more.
Well then, dairyair, I am not accusing you individually of hypocrisy or logical inconsistency on this.
LOLOLOLL Honest!??? "suspecting" something to fulfill one's own idea of what others think is not honest. Do something different here...show PROOF. Even if the ZEF is considered a person that can't take away the woman's rights....she can claim self defense and have it killed... So people can argue and argue about the fetuses "rights" but it can't destroy someone else's rights....so there doesn't seem to be much of an argument for declaring a ZEF a person.... a real waste of time..
I think you misunderstand burden of proof. There are some cases where it is required, and some cases where it is not required. Rejecting my argument entirely because you do not have absolute proof of one aspect of it (an aspect which is not too unreasonable to posit, I might add) is willful ignorance. That means you would rather not see the argument, so you are demanding unreasonable proof as an excuse to reject it outright and not even have to consider the implications, or concede your logical inconsistency that the argument would point out.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Do something different here...show PROOF. LOLOLOLL Honest!??? "suspecting" something to fulfill one's own idea of what others think is not honest. Even if the ZEF is considered a person that can't take away the woman's rights....she can claim self defense and have it killed... So people can argue and argue about the fetuses "rights" but it can't destroy someone else's rights....so there doesn't seem to be much of an argument for declaring a ZEF a person.... a real waste of time.. Ya, I knew you didn't have proof but it was entertaining to see how many words you could use to admit it.. ...and more cherrypicking...tsk,tsk..
You are sadly mistaken then. Many "pro-choice" advocates are downright pro-abortion, as evidenced by their expressed opinions, arguments, and policies they support. We've had threads about this in the past. ("pro-abortion" means they support abortion, beyond just merely supporting a woman's legal right to be able to get one)
Like I already stated before (in this thread), if you want evidence, just ask a handful of people around you. (friends, neighbors, acquaintances) That's something not that difficult to do. You just don't want to have evidence.
That's kind of like saying "You haven't proved your point, but even though it wouldn't be that difficult for me to find this out for myself, I don't care if you are right."
I said almost all. Every group has fringe. Your chosen groups have fringe. Most people are not pro-abortion, and believe it's a terrible decision to make. There are all sorts of decisions I think people should be free to make, that are indeed, very very bad decisions. Being free to make a terrible decision is part of what makes this country great.
Why didn't YOU do that ? Then you would have had some idea about what you posted... Again, this dueling crap has nothing to do with abortion....it's just a desperation move by those with no good argument to take away women's rights.
Of course they are, and it's both teams. Based on this forum, most republicans hate science, refuse to wear masks, are aren't pro-life as much as they are pro-birth. They worship Trump as much as they worship their chosen deity, and are, in general, rather mean spirited and angry. Their care for their fellow citizens ends on the birth date. I know a LOT of republicans, and none of them spout that sort of crap. The fringe is ALWAYS the noisiest.
This thread reminds me of "Dueling Banjos".... YUP, I believe dueling with banjos should be legal ...
You did, and I quoted it and showed where, while not the exact words were used, you said the same thing. You are basically trying to argue, "I didn't say water was damp, I said it was wet." And while I agree that there are times that semantics are important, one has to show when such a case occurs. Appeal to Extreme Fallacy. There is no indication that making dueling legal, that suddenly everyone will be dueling. FOr that matter, abortion shows us the most likely course. While there was an initial surge, abortion has been steadily decreasing since being made legal. So I really see no evidence that doing so will cause any more chaos that any illegal duels cause currently. And if you think that duels don't happen in modern day culture, then meet me on the playground after school!