Does he have a valid point?

[Zzyzx]

.

Bill Maher:
"When I hear from people that religion doesn't hurt anything, I say really? Well besides wars, the crusades, the inquisitions, 9-11, ethnic cleansing, the suppression of women, the suppression of homosexuals, fatwas, honor killings, suicide bombings, arranged marriages to minors, human sacrifice, burning witches, and systematic sex with children, I have a few little quibbles. And I forgot blowing up girl schools in Afghanistan."

Some say "The good outweighs the bad." If so what is that weighty good?

Many say "That is just the other religions." Is that true?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 458 by Paprika]
The premise that an organism of a species necessarily implies it is a (insert noun appropriate for that species.)

[Clownboat]

Say what you will, but that does not take away from the fact that your argument is literally, like attempting to claim that that scrambled eggs are just scrambled chickens.

It isn't, but I gather desperation is such a great motivator for people to misrepresent that argument.

I'll hold your hand for this one.
You are trying to make a connection that an embryo/blastocyst is a human.
If I grant you your argument (which I find illogical), then you must grant me that scrambled eggs are just scrambled chickens.

For this reason, I stated that your argument "is literally, like attempting to claim that that scrambled eggs are just scrambled chickens."

It is others who, deliberately or otherwise, confuse them and then accuse me of confusing them. Addressing the argument presented, of course, is too much for them.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser - Socrates

Or whining, like making quotes that don't actually establish anything.

More slander?
Perhaps we should keep holding hands here?
You placed the blame on others and claimed that they are confusing terms, deliberately or otherwise.

You see, this did not actually establish anything. It appears to be slander.
So ironically, my quoting of Socrates was an attempt to establish something. Meanwhile, you blaming of others and then your accusation of 'whining' just might come across as 'slander' to the readers. It sure does to me at least.

Off to wash my hands.

[Paprika]

Say what you will, but that does not take away from the fact that your argument is literally, like attempting to claim that that scrambled eggs are just scrambled chickens.

It isn't, but I gather desperation is such a great motivator for people to misrepresent that argument.

I'll hold your hand for this one.
You are trying to make a connection that an embryo/blastocyst is a human.
If I grant you your argument (which I find illogical), then you must grant me that scrambled eggs are just scrambled chickens.

For this reason, I stated that your argument "is literally, like attempting to claim that that scrambled eggs are just scrambled chickens."

Hardly, since most eggs for consumption aren't fertilised. Try again.

It is others who, deliberately or otherwise, confuse them and then accuse me of confusing them. Addressing the argument presented, of course, is too much for them.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser - Socrates

Or whining, like making quotes that don't actually establish anything.

More slander?
Perhaps we should keep holding hands here?
You placed the blame on others and claimed that they are confusing terms, deliberately or otherwise.

You see, this did not actually establish anything. It appears to be slander.

Hardly; it's pointing out obvious fact about certain people.

So ironically, my quoting of Socrates was an attempt to establish something.

My dear fellow, since you and others were losing the correction had to be made.

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 458 by Paprika]
The premise that an organism of a species necessarily implies it is a (insert noun appropriate for that species.)

Already demonstrated, but the point was just ducked:

Doesn't say anything about membership.

1. A biologic division between the genus and a variety or the individual; a group of organisms that generally bear a close resemblance to one another in the more essential features of their organization, and breed effectively producing fertile progeny.

1. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.

Then you tried to move on to debating the 'personhood'. Nice try.

[Bust Nak]

Already demonstrated, but the point was just ducked

You say ducked, I say rejected. An organism of a species does not necessarily implies it is a (insert noun appropriate for that species.)

Then you tried to move on to debating the 'personhood'. Nice try.

That's where we are heading, isn't it?

[Clownboat]

I'll hold your hand for this one.
You are trying to make a connection that an embryo/blastocyst is a human.
If I grant you your argument (which I find illogical), then you must grant me that scrambled eggs are just scrambled chickens.

For this reason, I stated that your argument "is literally, like attempting to claim that that scrambled eggs are just scrambled chickens."

Hardly, since most eggs for consumption aren't fertilised. Try again.

You just defeated your own argument. Do you see where? I tried to help by putting it in bold for you.
Really, I don't believe I need to say more. You keep evidencing my claims for me.

Above, your 'most' claim is like saying:
"We don't eat fertilized eggs, except for when we do"
- or -
"Some Canine's are teeth, therefore dogs are teeth".

It is others who, deliberately or otherwise, confuse them and then accuse me of confusing them. Addressing the argument presented, of course, is too much for them.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser - Socrates

Or whining, like making quotes that don't actually establish anything.

More slander?
Perhaps we should keep holding hands here?
You placed the blame on others and claimed that they are confusing terms, deliberately or otherwise.

My dear fellow, since you and others were losing the correction had to be made.

Once again, see the bold, then see the definition of slander:
slan·der
ˈslandər/Submit
nounLAW
1.
the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
"he is suing the TV network for slander"
verb
1.
make false and damaging statements about (someone).

Perhaps you will address the religious conviction/faith of some Muslims compared to some Christians that I keep pointing out to you and you keep ignoring.

I'm bringing this up to discredit your argument about how great the Christian faith can make a person be. So great in fact that they will go to dangerous areas (along with those that aren't Christians) in order to help people. If I grant you your premise, then therefore Islam must be true because some Muslims are actually willing to kill themselves for their faith as compared to putting on band aides in dangerous areas.

Welcome to the Muslim faith, or welcome to seeing the flaw in your logic.
If there is another explanation, I'm all ears.

[Paprika]

I'll hold your hand for this one.
You are trying to make a connection that an embryo/blastocyst is a human.
If I grant you your argument (which I find illogical), then you must grant me that scrambled eggs are just scrambled chickens.

For this reason, I stated that your argument "is literally, like attempting to claim that that scrambled eggs are just scrambled chickens."

Hardly, since most eggs for consumption aren't fertilised. Try again.

You just defeated your own argument. Do you see where? I tried to help by putting it in bold for you.
Really, I don't believe I need to say more. You keep evidencing my claims for me.

Above, your 'most' claim is like saying:
"We don't eat fertilized eggs, except for when we do"
- or -
"Some Canine's are teeth, therefore dogs are teeth".

On the contrary, because we don't eat scrambled eggs I took your point to be referring to non-fertilised eggs.

It is others who, deliberately or otherwise, confuse them and then accuse me of confusing them. Addressing the argument presented, of course, is too much for them.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser - Socrates

Or whining, like making quotes that don't actually establish anything.

More slander?
Perhaps we should keep holding hands here?
You placed the blame on others and claimed that they are confusing terms, deliberately or otherwise.

My dear fellow, since you and others were losing the correction had to be made.

Once again, see the bold, then see the definition of slander:
slan·der
ˈslandər/Submit
nounLAW
1.
the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
"he is suing the TV network for slander"
verb
1.
make false and damaging statements about (someone).

My dear fellow, the accusation of slander is a false and damaging statement about me. I do request that you desist.

Perhaps you will address the religious conviction/faith of some Muslims compared to some Christians that I keep pointing out to you and you keep ignoring.

Offtopic.

I'm bringing this up to discredit your argument about how great the Christian faith can make a person be.

Sounds like you have some other poster in mind.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 414 by Paprika]

[Replying to post 402 by Paprika]
Quite simply because an embryo isn't an individual or a member of the species.

Unfortunately for you, the embryo isn't like hair or a limb (I've already addressed this claim multiple times) because the embryo is, in and of itself, a separate organism.

When we eventually get to know what you mean by your terms, we will be able to evaluate your argument. As it stands, it fails to convince due to the conflation of your terms. Vagueness is killing your argument, so in order for you to rescue it I suggest that you:

1) Define what a "separate" organism means to you.
2) Define what an "organism" means to you.
3) Define what a "separate organism" means to you.
4) Define what you mean by "egg"'
5) Define what you mean by "chicken"
6) Define what you mean by person, and species, and member and adult and child and offspring and any OTHER term you want to use in order to prove your point.

Right now, I have NO idea what you mean. I hope you want to make a point that is comprehensible? Then stay AWAY from conflation.

As far as I can tell, a hair isn't a limb, or an embryo. These are all separate organisms.

Conflating meanings of words isn't helpful. Your entire argument rests on the tactic.
As it's an ERROR in logic to do so, it does NOT help your case in any way to indulge in the useless tactic. We would actually WANT to hear a coherent argument for your side. So help us help you build a better one than what you currently provide us.

"Conflation occurs when the identities of two or more individuals, concepts, or places, sharing some characteristics of one another, seem to be a single identity — the differences appear to become lost. In logic, it is the practice of treating two distinct concepts as if they were one, which produces errors or misunderstandings as a fusion of distinct subjects tends to obscure analysis of relationships which are emphasized by contrasts."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflation

[Clownboat]

On the contrary, because we don't eat scrambled eggs I took your point to be referring to non-fertilised eggs.

Scrambled eggs is a dish made from whites and yolks of eggs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrambled_eggs
Now we don't eat scrambled eggs???

It is others who, deliberately or otherwise, confuse them and then accuse me of confusing them. Addressing the argument presented, of course, is too much for them.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser - Socrates

Or whining, like making quotes that don't actually establish anything.

More slander?
Perhaps we should keep holding hands here?
You placed the blame on others and claimed that they are confusing terms, deliberately or otherwise.

My dear fellow, since you and others were losing the correction had to be made.

Once again, see the bold, then see the definition of slander:
slan·der
ˈslandər/Submit
nounLAW
1.
the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
"he is suing the TV network for slander"
verb
1.
make false and damaging statements about (someone).

My dear fellow, the accusation of slander is a false and damaging statement about me. I do request that you desist.

Might I suggest that if you are not committing slander, then my accusation is actually damaging to me for making a false claim. I have provided evidence and definitions and trust that the readers will not see it that way though, but if I'm wrong on this, the damage is done to me and not you.
You claim that my claim is false, but offer nothing in support of it like I have with the parts I have put in bold. I do hope that this will affect who's arguments are better in the eyes of the readers here.

I suggest that you show that my claim is false. Can you show that you had a real argument and that you were not just providing slander? If so, I would then owe you retraction.
Before you decide to do this or not, I suggest you look at the statements listed below to see if you really think they are actual arguments, or just slander.

How should I respond to these things you have stated?:
- It is others who, deliberately or otherwise, confuse them and then accuse me of confusing them.
- Addressing the argument presented, of course, is too much for them.
- Or whining, like making quotes that don't actually establish anything.
- since you and others were losing...

These seem like slander to me and nothing else. How can I debate such statements? I chose to not attempt to defend things like "since you and other were losing" and instead argue that it is slander and that it doesn't seem like you have an actual argument to debate. If I'm right, then "since you and other were losing" can be ignored and therefore that matter would be settled.

If I'm right, then your position just might be seen as weak. If I'm wrong and you can articulate how, then the damage is done to me and the credibility of my arguments.

Once again, you said: "Do you admit that it is a member of the chicken species? Do you admit that the human embryo is a member of the human species?"
To which I responded to in post 407 on pg 41: "It seems to me that you are at war with the English language.
If I want scrambled eggs, I don't ask for scrambled chickens and neither do you. Your defense is so weak IMO that you must obfuscate words in order to even attempt to have a point.

We all should know by now what an embryo is, just like we all know what scrambled eggs are. Your argument is literally, like attempting to claim that that scrambled eggs are just scrambled chickens."

Readers, did he defend against this accusation with reasoned arguments, or with slander? IF it is just slander, then I posit that the debate is lost for him. We are here to debate right?

[otseng]

It seems to me that you are at war with the English language.

It is others who, deliberately or otherwise, confuse them and then accuse me of confusing them. Addressing the argument presented, of course, is too much for them.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid making any personal comments of any nature.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.