Down With Feminism

Tools    





No woman on earth wants to be a man.
Millions of (to-be?) transsexuals beg to differ.
Wasn’t referring to transsexuals.
What do you call women who want to be men? Some call them trans. And you just said they don't exist.
I never said anything of the kind.
If there are no women on earth who want to be men then transsexuals wouldn't exist.

Men should stay out of the abortion debate.
Disregarding someone's argument based on their sex is sexist and illogical. If you want to be logical then you should target the merits and flaws of their arguments, not the speaker's gender. Being a woman doesn't make a woman a higher authority on their body than a male doctor, for example. You should look up the appeal to authority fallacy.

Probably because she sensed that for you it was a huge deal to hold a door open. It isn’t.
It wasn't a huge deal for me, but perhaps she projected that. Regardless you have no way of knowing so you shouldn't make assumptions. Just another example of you not being logical.

I find accusing more daring girls of making you horny when you consciously contain your sexual urges superbly hypocritical.
I'm not blaming them for making me horny. It's on me to keep myself pure, and I take it as my responsibility not to look. If they are trying to tempt me though, that is on them. I don't blame them for my looking and my lusting when I do. But most guys don't try not to lust, quite the opposite, and I think women are a bit naive about it. That's the point I'm trying to make. I'm talking about awareness, not blame. It's for their own safety too as the police often try to point out.

Even if you really were to adopt a child conceived by rape, or any other unwanted child, just how many of them could you adopt? One? Two at most? And this is after you've been given the benefit of a doubt, and believed that you will indeed adopt them. Most people against abortion use this adoption argument even though many of them do nothing to support these children. I never saw any news about any Polish anti-abortion politician adopting a child, even though many of them used this argument. when asked why they are against it.
But I can't believe you think killing them is a better alternative than adoption. I can't adopt them all, but plenty of people are willing to adopt them. Even if they have to grow up in an orphanage it's better than not growing up at all.

The only one who seems angry & frustrated is you.
Actually, Stirchley, I thought you seemed angry and frustrated too. What's the point in arguing about how you seem to others? When people tell you something like that you should probably listen.

Women don't realise what provocative dress does to men. I try to look away and it really irritates me when women lean forward with massive cleavage or walk up stairs ahead of me with short skirts. It brings up some very primal urges that are hard to resist.
LOL. This gets better & better. Sexually repressed much?
Don't hate me just because you want to defend your beliefs Stirchly. I don't understand why you were so rude to me.
I don’t hate anyone & I’ve never been rude to you.
You said this to Mr. Minio:
See, this is why you keep getting emotional. Now I have an attitude problem, according to you. Can you not discuss a topic without making negative comments? What has this to do with the subject-at-hand, which is feminism?
Being pure is one of the most beautiful things I've experienced. It's something I strive for, and it feels wonderful. I don't know if I'm sexually repressed, but I do regret every time I've watched porn and masturbated. When I focus on God, strive for purity, and resist the temptation to watch porn and masturbate I feel much better. When I give in to it I feel like crap. During the transition of trying to get away from lust and back to purity is the hardest time to resist the temptation of looking at provocatively dressed women, but after getting over that hurdle it becomes easier. Why do you think that you can laugh at me and insult me and then deny ever being rude to me?



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
I'm genuinely unsure of where to draw the line on that one, since it's sort of a claim about the content of what someone is saying and not just straight name calling. But let's err on the side of civility when possible: if you think someone is lying, just say that, as opposed to extrapolating it into "liar."
I'd say, let's allow both, but on condition the person points out the exact point at which another is lying.

The issue with feminism is that its a term thats been bastardized because people have different interpretations on what it is like with gender and racism.
Terms such as "radical feminism" or "feminazism" weren't made without a reason.
If they are trying to tempt me though, that is on them.
The question here is whether or not they are actually trying to tempt you. That is, isn't it you who makes an assumption they do.
It's for their own safety too as the police often try to point out.
You know, you shouldn't leave your house for your own safety because chances are somebody will stab you. If a woman is raped, it can't be excused by saying "she was provoking him", no matter what she was wearing.
But I can't believe you think killing them is a better alternative than adoption. I can't adopt them all, but plenty of people are willing to adopt them. Even if they have to grow up in an orphanage it's better than not growing up at all.
That's true if we were talking about new-born children. As I pointed out in our private conversation, feti are not people. A zygote that does not feel and does not think is not a person. If you care about anything that grows inside a person's body, then you shouldn't let doctors remove your hypothetical tumor because that's something that "lives" inside of you too.
Being pure is one of the most beautiful things I've experienced. It's something I strive for, and it feels wonderful. I don't know if I'm sexually repressed, but I do regret every time I've watched porn and masturbated. When I focus on God, strive for purity, and resist the temptation to watch porn and masturbate I feel much better. When I give in to it I feel like crap.
Fair enough. Let me just explain why you feel better when you don't and worse when you do, so that you do not delude yourself. It's due to your Christian upbringing and religion. Years and years of indoctrination with its do's and don'ts created a feeling of guilt inside of you and shaped your views. In other words, you have been trained to feel guilt after you have masturbated. You have been trained to be against the abortion. You have been trained to pray to God every day. Is there anything that the Church says and you don't agree with? Because we've already established you believe every word in the Bible is true (more in our private converstation).
__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.



You know, you shouldn't leave your house for your own safety because chances are somebody will stab you. If a woman is raped, it can't be excused by saying "she was provoking him", no matter what she was wearing.
Just because you can't be completely safe is no reason to disregard ways to be more safe.


That's true if we were talking about new-born children. As I pointed out in our private conversation, feti are not people. A zygote that does not feel and does not think is not a person. If you care about anything that grows inside a person's body, then you shouldn't let doctors remove your hypothetical tumor because that's something that "lives" inside of you too.
Well since I never said anything to the effect of caring "about anything that grows inside a person's body," I'm not sure why you're making a point against it. Is this another straw man?

We are talking about a fetus. Biologically it has the entire genetic code of a human being, and it will become one unless otherwise prevented. So we are talking about a potential human being at the least. Why do you treat it as if it's a tumor to be removed and discarded? It doesn't feel? Well it can feel pain after 20 weeks actually. It can have a heart beat in 3 weeks. In 5 weeks it can have brain activity.

Fair enough. Let me just explain why you feel better when you don't and worse when you do, so that you do not delude yourself. It's due to your Christian upbringing and religion. Years and years of indoctrination with its do's and don'ts created a feeling of guilt inside of you and shaped your views. In other words, you have been trained to feel guilt after you have masturbated. You have been trained to be against the abortion. You have been trained to pray to God every day. Is there anything that the Church says and you don't agree with? Because we've already established you believe every word in the Bible is true (more in our private converstation).
That is a bit presumptuous though. Do you think perhaps it could be you who has been trained to ignore your conscience and not feel guilty?

By the time I was 5 years old I experienced God and spoke with him. Growing up I've learned many teachings from many churches I grew up believing were false. I've put my faith through the most vigorous scrutiny I could think of and tested everything I believed. I found many things I took for granted growing up turned out to be false, and things I thought were never possible in my faith turned out to be true. I have a deeply intimate personal relationship with God himself, and he speaks for himself, and so does every true Christian. I've met hundreds of Christians with similar experiences from many different churches, and I've met even more who think they're Christians even though they don't actually know God personally. Do you have any idea what the Bible actually teaches about God? But I understand your need to come up with a rationalisation to fit your own world view.



i'm SUPER GOOD at Jewel karaoke
Whether or not the unborn count as people is just as much a universal question as when people become legal adults or are allowed to vote. Moreso, really, since the risks of getting it wrong are so much worse.


You don't need to agree with me about that for this part, though. We're establishing a principle about whether people's opinions matter more or less based on how much something personally affects them. If not having to face possible criminals and violence each day doesn't dilute your opinion on whether an officer's reaction is reasonable, not having to face a possible pregnancy doesn't dilute a man's opinion on whether or not unborn children are people.
i dunno. this seems kind of pointless. i have my own thoughts on the subject, but i don't really feel like going through all the reasons back and forth with you. i know you aren't going to change my mind and i'm not going to change yours. i just want to reiterate that i would love to see more women in these positions of power. i really do think it would make a difference. and while i don't think you're like this Yoda, i do think a lot of these old men use the pro-life argument as a way to continue to control women. that's why i said what i said about seeing more women making these decisions/even celebrating Republican women making it to positions of power. again, wanna say i don't think this is your reason for being pro life, Yoda (or your wife's); while i really don't agree with you at all, i respect ur position because it comes from a place of thoughtfulness/what you think is right, no matter how wrong you actually are.
__________________
letterboxd



I'm not gonna pretend these discussions have a lot of potential to change minds, at least not immediately, and not with the actual participants. I suppose the kind of cautiously respectful impasse we're at is often the best-case scenario. "I can see why someone reasonable would believe this" is a pretty good place to be on most issues, at least relative to where they usually are.

I guess we'll see, on the women-in-power thing. My cynical side says it's the kind of general statement that never ends up true in a specific scenario, but I'd genuinely love to be wrong. You could get your Haley 2024 lawn sign right now and I'd be forced to concede.



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
Just because you can't be completely safe is no reason to disregard ways to be more safe.
That's right, but it's not a reason to be paranoid. You could make them wear burqas and never leave home under the pretext of protecting them, but by doing so you would be restricting their rights. Women have the right to wear skimpy clothes (for example now, when it's unbearably hot outside, but also in any other situation unless in a place with a strict dress code yadda yadda), and excluding some extreme cases (like walking around completely naked) this is a normal behaviour. Besides even if a woman was walking around naked, nobody would have had a right to touch her. Do you ever visit beaches?
Well since I never said anything to the effect of caring "about anything that grows inside a person's body," I'm not sure why you're making a point against it. Is this another straw man?
Well, I will have to return home and look up our Facebook conversation. Perhaps I'm mixing the two. but I believe you were talking about a baby growing inside a woman's belly.
We are talking about a fetus. Biologically it has the entire genetic code of a human being, and it will become one unless otherwise prevented.
You yourself just said it will become one, so you don't think a fetus is one. If you're studying to become a doctor and it's your second year, then even if you have all the knowledge required from a doctor, you still haven't graduated and got a job, so you can't say you are a doctor.
It doesn't feel? Well it can feel pain after 20 weeks actually.
Source?
That is a bit presumptuous though.
If you were born and brought up as a believer of another religion your views would have most probably been different. Unless you rejected them later on in your life, of course. Being brought up in Christian circles and wanting to closely belong to the community requires a person to agree with everything, or to keep silent about disagreeing with something.
Do you think perhaps it could be you who has been trained to ignore your conscience and not feel guilty?
Oh no, I have been brought up as a Christian, and successfully trained to some extent, but there always were some points with which I didn't agree. Even as a little kid I understood that since God is love and he loves everybody, then love is a good thing, and love between people of the same sex can't be bad. I understood what masturbation was and that by jerking off I weren't hurting anybody, and therefore it couldn't be a sin. I was interested in history at a very young age, and finding out why celibacy was introduced was eye-opening to me too. As a nice, kind and polite child that was brought up with only one idea of God in mind I did pray, attend masses and believe in God, but even then I was using my own logical thinking instead of taking it all at face value.

No, I don't think I'm ignoring my conscience. I'm just not abiding by made-up laws that seem ridiculous to me and are illogical/irrevelant from ethical point of view.
By the time I was 5 years old I experienced God and spoke with him.
Spoke with Him or spoke to Him? That's a big difference.

I've met even more who think they're Christians even though they don't actually know God personally
Which one do you know? Vishnu? Odin? Why is there only one God. Why is your image of Him the only true one? Are all believers of other religions wrong?
Do you have any idea what the Bible actually teaches about God?
Yes. That he is a murderous megalomaniac, and since you support God and believe every word in the Bible is true, then you are just as much in favor of murder as I am by supporting abortion.
But I understand your need to come up with a rationalisation to fit your own world view.
And I understand your own need to believe in God, or even one to belong to some community. Sorry if I'm biting too hard.



You yourself just said it will become one, so you don't think a fetus is one.
I think he's just arguing from the shared premise of "it's definitely a person after birth." He's not, ya' know, accidentally revealing he secretly doesn't believe what he's saying, or whatever the implication is supposed to be. Kinda just sounds like a semantic gotcha.

I'm not sure there's actually any philosophical difference here, anyway. The whole reason killing someone is wrong is because of their potentiality, because of the life they have yet to live which you've deprived them of. Drawing an ethical line at "is this person inside a uterus right now?" is completely arbitrary.

If you're studying to become a doctor and it's your second year, then even if you have all the knowledge required from a doctor, you still haven't graduated and got a job, so you can't say you are a doctor.
Well argued; let's kill med students.

A lot of very nuanced information here. Though I'm pretty sure the point holds even if you draw the line a bit later. Unless you're willing to agree that abortion should be banned or heavily restricted at some point later in pregnancy, of course.

If you were born and brought up as a believer of another religion your views would have most probably been different. Unless you rejected them later on in your life, of course. Being brought up in Christian circles and wanting to closely belong to the community requires a person to agree with everything, or to keep silent about disagreeing with something.
Oh no, I have been brought up as a Christian, and successfully trained to some extent, but there always were some points with which I didn't agree. Even as a little kid I understood that since God is love and he loves everybody, then love is a good thing, and love between people of the same sex can't be bad.
I understood what masturbation was and that by jerking off I weren't hurting anybody, and therefore it couldn't be a sin.
Which one do you know? Vishnu? Odin? Why is there only one God. Why is your image of Him the only true one? Are all believers of other religions wrong?
I'm kinda surprised to hear you say so many things that I don't think survive even light scrutiny. But they're all pretty far afield of the thread topic (abortion is kinda related, at least). If you're legitimately interested in discussing them, I'd be happy to engage with them in another thread (or even privately).



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
I think he's just arguing from the shared premise of "it's definitely a person after birth." He's not, ya' know, accidentally revealing he secretly doesn't believe what he's saying, or whatever the implication is supposed to be. Kinda just sounds like a semantic gotcha.
Fair enough.

I'm not sure there's actually any philosophical difference here, anyway. The whole reason killing someone is wrong is because of their potentiality, because of the life they have yet to live which you've deprived them of. Drawing an ethical line at "is this person inside a uterus right now?" is completely arbitrary.
If we take it like that, then even picking up a flower would be depriving it of potential life. Wait, not a flower. A seed.

Well argued; let's kill med students.
Freak you metaphors. Failing me at a time like this!

Unless you're willing to agree that abortion should be banned or heavily restricted at some point later in pregnancy, of course.
That goes without saying, although I of course should have said that. I generally thought 6 months to be the line. 20 weeks is not even 5 months, but it's still quite late so I asked for sources. Opinions vary, and I can see why taking the answer that is the earliest seems like a sane approach.

I'm kinda surprised to hear you say so many things that I don't think survive even light scrutiny.
Sorry to disappoint you. I'm not as wise as you think.

If you're legitimately interested in discussing them, I'd be happy to engage with them in another thread (or even privately).
I think this discussion deserves a separate thread regardless my further participation in it. That being said, I'm slowly getting tired of discussing these topics. You see, my movie watching is suffering from it. :P





If we take it like that, then even picking up a flower would be depriving it of potential life. Wait, not a flower. A seed.
I think the analogy would be a seed that's already been planted, is alive, and is growing, but just hasn't peeked above the surface yet. Otherwise just known as a plant.

That goes without saying
It should, but in America pretty much any restriction is a non-starter for a shocking number of people. My progressive friends love to point to the rest of the world when discussing America as an outlier on guns or healthcare, but they don't seem to realize (let alone care) that we're an outlier on abortion, too. For goodness' sake, France has heavy restrictions past 20 weeks, IIRC, and that's not exactly a conservative dystopia.

Opinions vary, and I can see why taking the answer that is the earliest seems like a sane approach.
FWIW, I'm not going to pretend this is easy or obvious. I understand why someone would look at a just-fertilized embryo and not see it as a person. But as tough as that is, it makes a lot more sense than trying to say, with a straight face, that it's not a person late in pregnancy, when it's basically indistinguishable from a newborn. That's a completely untenable position. But that's the kind of corner people argue themselves into when they just say "nope, just her body, nothing going on here, a fetus is no more a person than a toenail."

As hard as it is to see something as a person from fertilization, any point after that is either absurd or arbitrary. And it really seems like a lot of people's answer to this problem is just to avoid talking or thinking about it too much.

Sorry to disappoint you. I'm not as wise as you think.
Eh, I think you are. I think you could guess my responses to some of those, at least initially. The short version is that I think people have come to confuse legal principles of autonomy and freedom with moral philosophy. Live-and-let-live is a good principle when deciding what we should be using the state to enforce, but the bar is a lot lower for "is this ideal behavior?"

I think this discussion deserves a separate thread regardless my further participation in it. That being said, I'm slowly getting tired of discussing these topics. You see, my movie watching is suffering from it. :P
Totally fair, no worries. Appreciate the thoughtful response.



i'm SUPER GOOD at Jewel karaoke
Women have the right to wear skimpy clothes (for example now, when it's unbearably hot outside, but also in any other situation unless in a place with a strict dress code yadda yadda), and excluding some extreme cases (like walking around completely naked) this is a normal behaviour. Besides even if a woman was walking around naked, nobody would have had a right to touch her. Do you ever visit beaches?
yeah, just wanna tack onto what Minio is saying here, i have huuuge boobs and i live in florida. it's really, really hard for me to be modest the majority of the year.



It should, but in America pretty much any restriction is a non-starter for a shocking number of people. My progressive friends love to point to the rest of the world when discussing America as an outlier on guns or healthcare, but they don't seem to realize (let alone care) that we're an outlier on abortion, too. For goodness' sake, France has heavy restrictions past 20 weeks, IIRC, and that's not exactly a conservative dystopia.
This isn't even close to the most blatant example of this, but it's just been on my mind recently.

I've always been confused by the reasoning pattern where X (conservative person) asks why does Y (liberal person) use A (justification) for B (liberal idea) when A could also be used to justify C (conservative idea). And then no follow-up on whether or not A is a good justifying principle.


(the sides are totally arbitrary, feel free to swap conservative and liberal here, I just did this for convenience. Seen it on all sides.)


It seems like the outcomes would be that:
1. A is a good justifying principle, and both B and C are justified by it.
2. A is a bad justifying principle, and neither B nor C are justified by it.
3. A is either good/bad, but D (exception) applies to either B or C based on which side they prefer.

If 1, then X just revealed that they should adopt B, even though they don't like it.
If 2, then X just revealed that they should drop C, even though they do like it.
If 3, then why don't they think that Y has their own exception in mind? Basically, if X thinks it's strange that Y thinks A justifies B but not C, why doesn't X worry about how it's strange that X thinks A justifies C and not B?

Back to the practical example:

If you think it's weird that America's outlier status WRT abortion should be compelling for liberals, why isn't its outlier status WRT healthcare & guns compelling for you (or conservatives in general I guess). And if it's not compelling, why should that same reasoning pattern be compelling for the other side?

Again, not even close to the worst example, but I'm picking on Yoda because I think he'll actually give me an answer as opposed to others around the internet. I am genuinely curious. I don't really care about the actual argument being used here. I'm keeping this as a copy-paste for whenever I see it because it's seriously been bothering me as I've seen it around a lot.


Basically, the weird thing about it is that it seems like it BEGS for follow-up on exceptions for X's preferred side, but it almost is never packaged in with the attack.



I'm not sure there's actually any philosophical difference here, anyway. The whole reason killing someone is wrong is because of their potentiality, because of the life they have yet to live which you've deprived them of. Drawing an ethical line at "is this person inside a uterus right now?" is completely arbitrary.
More on topic response from me now.

I don't think that ethical line of being inside a uterus is completely arbitrary to the discussion of abortion.


(also not sure that potentiality compromises the entirety of killing's wrongfulness)



I actually agree with you, in part, about the potentiality. But I think you're also unconsciously (or unspoken, at least) including a piece of potentiality that is self-determining.

Let's take the seed metaphor. I agree with you in the case that if I care about the potentiality of the plant, I should not take it out of the soil and not allow it to grow. In the case of the seed, if I just left it alone it should likely grow into the plant just on the interaction with nature. My ethical duty in this case happens to be one where non-intervention is among my ethical options (along with watering it and taking care of it; if I choose to).

But there are a lot of problems with that metaphor, one is whether or not someone can be forced to take care of that seed. I'm guessing you'll say that if it's the downstream effect of choices made in mind of the potential potentiality (e.g. having sex) then I could be forced to take care of that seed even when it could not take care of itself (or be taken care of by anyone else). But at least that's a broader argument.

I don't think that the distinction of being in someone's uterus is "completely arbitrary" because it's also the distinction that includes a compulsion on someone to carry the pregnancy to term (and that constitutes great personal hardship). Implying that part doesn't matter, to me, misses a huge part of the perspective of the other side.

I'm not saying that it's obvious what to do in this case. But it has a considerable bearing on the situation. If abortion is boiled down to the weighing of life versus choice (not that it should be, but simplifying here), the definitions of life matter a great deal, and the conditions involving the choice do too; it's not completely arbitrary.


I tend to stay out of abortion arguments, because of my body it literally affects me less (i.e. I'm not currently capable of having a child). It's also an area that I think is properly polarized, because of how incredibly influential basic assumptions are (when 'life' starts, how 'compulsory' is it to force someone to carry a pregnancy to term, etc); so I'm not all that interested in arguments around it UNLESS people have SIMILAR assumptions.

But then I see 'discussions" where people say they are seeking actual common ground, but then they use pretty much the same ideas that they use when they are preaching to the choir. Doesn't make sense to me.

TL: DR I'm not trying to convince you. I just think that calling it arbitrary is unjust.



Just explaining my perspective. One of the "good" things about the abortion debate is that I can understand the "other side" more easily than other political topics because if I change some base assumptions, I can see the logic. The debate is one of those that is actually surrounding the topic area, it's not as much of a proxy as a lot of other debates, it's really about definitions of life and liberty to choose. That said, the strength of people's feelings on it certainly are used in overarching politics; sometimes (often?) poorly.



It seems like the outcomes would be that:
1. A is a good justifying principle, and both B and C are justified by it.
2. A is a bad justifying principle, and neither B nor C are justified by it.
3. A is either good/bad, but D (exception) applies to either B or C based on which side they prefer.

If 1, then X just revealed that they should adopt B, even though they don't like it.
If 2, then X just revealed that they should drop C, even though they do like it.
If 3, then why don't they think that Y has their own exception in mind? Basically, if X thinks it's strange that Y thinks A justifies B but not C, why doesn't X worry about how it's strange that X thinks A justifies C and not B?
I think it's because X already knows A is not a good justifying principle. So if Y were thoughtful enough to have that exception in mind when advancing A, they would be thoughtful enough not to hold A in the first place, or at least to advance the more nuanced version of A upfront.

But let's just say they are, for the sake of argument. Let's say their worldview is appropriately thoughtful, but for some reason their articulation or defense of that worldview is just kind of facile in its initial expression. Then we're left with Y having to articulate their exception, at which point we've at least rid ourselves of the overly simplistic A and hopefully brought more nuance into the discussion.

If you think it's weird that America's outlier status WRT abortion should be compelling for liberals, why isn't its outlier status WRT healthcare & guns compelling for you (or conservatives in general I guess). And if it's not compelling, why should that same reasoning pattern be compelling for the other side?
It shouldn't. The point of the comparison is to demonstrate that neither is compelling.

What you're asking in the paragraph above is useful for the kind of lazy whataboutism we're seeing a lot of these days, IE: defending Trump by pointing to Bill Clinton, or whatever. But there's no issue if your goal is to demonstrate that both are bad. If you're just carelessly deflecting, then yeah, the logic rebounds right back on you.



I don't think that ethical line is completely arbitrary.

I actually agree with you, in part, about the potentiality. But I think you're also unconsciously (or unspoken, at least) including a piece of potentiality that is self-determining.

Let's take the seed metaphor. I agree with you in the case that if I care about the potentiality of the plant, I should not take it out of the soil and not allow it to grow. In the case of the seed, if I just left it alone it should likely grow into the plant just on the interaction with nature. My ethical duty in this case happens to be one where non-intervention is among my ethical options (along with watering it and taking care of it; if I choose to).

But there are a lot of problems with that metaphor, one is whether or not someone can be forced to take care of that seed.
Oh, there are tons of problems with the metaphor, but I'm not the one who advanced it and I'm not suggesting it's analogous. I just said that if you're going to use it, the comparison would at least be with a living/growing plant, and not just a seed.

I don't think that the distinction of being in someone's uterus is "completely arbitrary" because it's also the distinction that includes a compulsion on someone to carry the pregnancy to term (and that constitutes great personal hardship). Implying that part doesn't matter, to me, misses a huge part of the perspective of the other side.
I think there's been a significant misunderstanding. The thing I called "completely arbitrary" was the attempt to draw a line (insofar as some pro-choice people attempt this at all) other than fertilization for when the unborn becomes a person. But the distinction between a plant, which can grow on its own, and a human child that can't, is definitely not arbitrary.



I think it's because X already knows A is not a good justifying principle. So if Y were thoughtful enough to have that exception in mind when advancing A, they would be thoughtful enough not to hold A in the first place, or at least to advance the more nuanced version of A upfront.
But shouldn't X say that, if that's their point? My problem is that that sort of continuation is NOT cleanly implied by the structure of the argument itself. People just use the structure and then don't follow up. Which presents the problem of it having drastically different implications depending on which of 1, 2, or 3 that they imagine.

In your case (and again, I don't think you were intending to make a full argument about the connection of health care, guns, and abortion) I actually had no idea that was your point. My problem with that in particular is that leaving that ambiguity between 1, 2, and 3 allows your point to both say A is bad AND use it as justification for C (this might not be X's intent, but it is an effect).

If A is bad, X should say A is bad.


But let's just say they are, for the sake of argument. Let's say their worldview is appropriately thoughtful, but for some reason their articulate or defense of that worldview is just kind of facile in its initial expression. Then we're left with Y having to articulate their exception, at which point we've at least rid ourselves of the overly simplistic A and hopefully brought more nuance into the discussion.
If that's true, then X continued the non-nuanced version of the argument by reversing it without correcting it. I guess I'm basically saying the logical structure of the argument is a tu quoque. The problem with tu quoque isn't that the reversal is necessarily incorrect it's that it doesn't actually address the underlying problem.


The point of the comparison is to demonstrate that neither is compelling...there's no issue if your goal is to demonstrate that both are bad
That's my problem though, I literally had no idea that was your goal. It sounds like you're in a version situation 2, where you think A is bad reasoning and it is neither convincing for B nor C (though other justifications may exist outside of A). It feels like I almost never see that part after this sort of argument.



Again, picking on you totally unjustly, you're just someone I can talk to about this and feel like I get something from it. I'm mostly checking that I'm not crazy.



Elaboration on that last point, because I can see how the part you quoted is a little confusing (for which I definitely take responsibility):

When I say it's arbitrary to ask "is this person inside a uterus right now?" my emphasis is on the "right now." I mean that nothing about being removed from a uterus magically grants you a level of humanity you didn't have before. I don't mean that babies needing a uterus to develop is arbitrary, or unimportant. It's obviously hugely important, since it creates an irresolvable tension between one person's right to life and another's bodily autonomy.



Elaboration on that last point, because I can see how the part you quoted is a little confusing (for which I definitely take responsibility):

When I say it's arbitrary to ask "is this person inside a uterus right now?" my emphasis is on the "right now." I mean that nothing about being removed from a uterus magically grants you a level of humanity you didn't have before. I don't mean that babies needing a uterus to develop is arbitrary, or unimportant. It's obviously hugely important, since it creates an irresolvable tension between one person's right to life and another's bodily autonomy.
Yes, okay, my misunderstanding then. Something felt off, which is why I got into a topic I almost never do. I basically agree with this, with the respected differences on how one defines person, life, and autonomy.



But shouldn't X say that, if that's their point? My problem is that that sort of continuation is NOT cleanly implied by the structure of the argument itself. People just use the structure and then don't follow up. Which presents the problem of it having drastically different implications depending on which of 1, 2, or 3 that they imagine.

In your case (and again, I don't think you were intending to make a full argument about the connection of health care, guns, and abortion) I actually had no idea that was your point. My problem with that in particular is that leaving that ambiguity between 1, 2, and 3 allows your point to both say A is bad AND use it as justification for C (this might not be X's intent, but it is an effect).

If A is bad, X should say A is bad.
That's my problem though, I literally had no idea that was your goal. It sounds like you're in a version situation 2, where you think A is bad reasoning and it is neither convincing for B nor C (though other justifications may exist outside of A). It feels like I almost never see that part after this sort of argument.
I'm genuinely surprised by this. I thought it was obvious that I was saying A was bad by making the comparison at all. But maybe I'm just assuming other people think or argue like I do there. If it wasn't evident to you, it's reasonable to assume it wouldn't be at others, so the correction is welcome.

Again, picking on you totally unjustly, you're just someone I can talk to about this and feel like I get something from it. I'm mostly checking that I'm not crazy.
No problem, don't mind at all. I'll keep this in mind the next time and probably throw in an extra sentence to avoid the problem.



I'm genuinely surprised by this. I thought it was obvious that was saying A was bad by making the comparison at all. But maybe I'm just assuming other people think or argue like I do there. If it wasn't evident to you, it's reasonable to assume it wouldn't be at others, so the correction is welcome.

No problem, don't mind at all. I'll keep this in mind the next time and probably throw in an extra sentence to avoid the problem.
It totally could be the case that I was dense to your intent because I'm already obviously irritated at the more general problem, but I was truly unclear on that being your intent (and I usually try to read through the idea in good faith).


Anyway, had an axe to grind, was off-topic, sorry everyone.



Every argument we've ever had (with totally interchangeable roles):

A: <thing>.
B: Did you mean <similarthing>? I think <thing> is wrong and I don't think that's what you meant.
A: Yeah, I meant <similarthing>.
B: Okay, that's what I thought. I agree with <similarthing>.