Subject:
|
Re: Boy sues (and wins) for NOT being aborted
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 17 Nov 2000 22:00:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
163 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> > > The funny thing about life is that if you don't now it any other way, you
> > > accept it the way it is. I'm certain that even though this boy is not able
> > > to communicate with us the way a 'normal' person is, he is still alive and
> > > would like his existance to continue.
> >
> > That is a horrifically presumptuous and naive statement. If your claim
> > were true, there would be no history of euthanasia, nor suicide, nor
> > assisted suicide.
>
> No, not true. I, at least, preface my opinions with 'I', to note my opinions
Well, sort of. A statement of certitude differs from an expression of
opinion in that certitude implies fact or truth. Had you said "I think that
even though this boy..." it would have expressed your opinion and eliminated
any need for after-the-fact disclaimers such as you've used above.
Obviously every post is implicitly the opinion of the poster, but certain
phrasing imparts to an idea a basis in fact and logic rather than simple
opinion.
Besides which, I stand by the assertion that the "you accept it the way it
is" comment is short-sighted if not actually naive.
> You, have felt it neccessarily to use insult, though. ("naive")
To turn your own opinion-vs-fact reasoning against you, I didn't insult
you; I labeled your statement as naive and presumptuous. Equivocation
aside, I was responding to your assertion which came across as an
over-simple blanket evaluation rather than a case-specific comment.
> Unfortunately, this is a time-tested liberal tactic, and I can expose it.
> Liberal tactic #1- Resort to name-calling to arouse emotion in lieu of reason.
Have you ever heard a speech by Newt Gingrich or Jesse Helms or Rush
Limbaugh or any other assembly-line right-wing demagogue? Certainly you
can't be suggesting that Liberals have pioneered the field of name-calling.
I'm not even that proficient at it, for pity's sake!
> My comment was only in reference to this boy, for whom we only have the
> information at hand - that the suit was brought my the parents, not the boy.
Indeed the suit was brought by the parents, but your statement:
> > > The funny thing about life is that if you don't now it any other way, you
> > > accept it the way it is.
doesn't visibly limit itself to the boy, and in fact identifies a nebulous
"you" as the one who accepts whatever life "you" are dealt.
> > > We 'normal' folks like to play God and judge the 'value' of that human life
> > > (and sometimes end it), while we simultaneously choose to save all sorts of
> > > less intelligent animals and plants.
> >
> > Again, quite naive. The issue is not simply the 'value' of human life but
> > rather the quality of that life, and for you to claim some knowledge that
> > others "would like [their] existance (sic) to continue" is as presumptuous
> > as claiming that someone else most likely would prefer to end his life.
>
> Dave (no personal offense intended)
none taken, by the way, though I appreciate the gesture 8^)
> Don't presume to place yourself in the position of God over anyone, which
> you do when you start to evaluate "quality of life".
Where in my post did I evaluate anyone's quality of life? Certainly not
in the part you quoted, in which I stated quite clearly that no one is truly
capable of judging the quality of another's life.
> I, at least, value humans, which, I see, you don't.
Either you're deliberately misreading my post or you simply don't get it,
since I obviously value human life, but the possessor of that life is the
final arbiter (when able to be) in judging the quality of that life.
Stating that the boy would most likely want to live, whether simply your
opinion or not, is inherently presumptuous while knowing nothing of the
boy's feelings on the matter.
> Let's be open about our positions. I don't judge the life of others, you
> presume to.
Don't put words in my mouth (or on my screen). I made no statement of
evaluation of either the value or quality of anyone's life, yet you seem
inspired to claim that I did. Rather, I stated that no one should presume
to judge the quality of another's life nor to claim that someone "would like
his existance (sic) to continue" when the claimant has no real knowledge of
the individual's life beyond a five paragraph blurb.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Boy sues (and wins) for NOT being aborted
|
| (...) No, not true. I, at least, preface my opinions with 'I', to not my opinions You, have felt it neccessarily to use insult, though. ("naive") Unfortunately, this is a time-tested liberal tactic, and I can expose it. Liberal tactic #1 - Resort to (...) (24 years ago, 17-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
