From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Steeves Dancing One More Time...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:51:14 GMT

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
] drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes...
] DJD> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
] DJD> ] drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes...
] DJD> ] DJD> 2. That the young gentleman who will kill women if
] DJD> ]         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
] DJD> ] DJD> they do not respect him
] DJD> ]      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
] DJD> ]
] DJD> ] So, Drieux, just who is this person who "will kill women if they do not
] DJD> ] respect him"?
] DJD> ]
] DJD> ] I sure haven't seen anyone threatening women here...  Where, then?
] DJD> ]
] DJD> ] Indeed!  When Janis Cortese spoke of "slitting throats," does this mean t
] DJD> ] she is threatening all men?  Or all people?
] 
] 
] DJD> p1: it is a mainstay of the AntiAboritonist Rhetoric that
] DJD> a thing is that which it can become.
] 
] I don't believe that!  Whence do you derive that I believe such a thing?
 
Your Argument in regards to what a woman does with that
which is not yet born, as if IT were something that
were already born.

Gee... looks like the simple:

A thing is that which it can become.

IF you do not hold that, then simply recant your RANTING
about what happens if a woman decides to have an abortion,
and accept that she has not MURDERED your child.

Until then, the point stands.

 
] DJD> p2: janis has not espoused this dogma.
] 
] So what...?
] 
] 
] DJD> p3: you have espoused antiaboritonist rhetoric.
] 
] So what...?
 
Hence I have offered you the STANDARD you laid down.

I have taken your rule of argument and applied it to YOU.
 
] DJD> p4: you did make the assertion that you would kill
] DJD> any woman who showed disrespect for you.
] 
] I did no such thing.  I said that the act of keeping someone in the dark
] about an important matter as abortion, was "disrespectful".
] 
] And furthermore, I did not imply that I would kill *anyone*, nor did I imply
] that I would kill *anyone* because of any particular *INSTANCE* of disrespect.
 

Please, be honest with yourself.

The post has floated around far too many times.

You posted that you would KILL on that condition.

] And yes, there *is* a difference between a hypothetical argument based upon
] one INSTANCE of "disrespect" and your "'logic' jump" to presume that I "would
] kill" anyone for showing *any* kind of disrespect, which you have "cleverly"
] equivocated into some sort of "desire for control".


Point of ORDER.

You have established the criterion that a thing is
that which it can become in your argument at women
on the abortion issue.

Now that this standard is applied to you, you wish
to say, "Well Please do NOT use my standard against me."

] 
] 
] DJD> {please, let us not equivocate that this is some
] DJD> rhetorical device, such is irrelevant to the argument.}
]                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
] 
] No, it's irrelevant to your agenda, actually.


It is a matter of fish or cut bait.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

] DJD> Now, if YOU will denounce p1, we can carry on smartly
] DJD> and not worry about trying to make things that which they
] DJD> are not yet, merely as they have a potential to become such.
] 
] I have never belived "p1," so please do not attempt to pin it on me, in order
] to pass me off as "another pro-lifer".


You may NOT LIKE to admit in public that you have
argued this point. This does not change the
fact that you have argued this point.

That you have argued this point, leaves you
vulnerable to the fact that you USE IT, even
if now you profess to not believing it.

NOW, are YOU RECANTING YOUR RANTFEST?


ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.