From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 7 Jan 93 13:34:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <C0En7z.115@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
> In article <1993Jan5.180911.11405@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com
> (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >In article <C0E0rw.6KA@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
> >> In article <1993Jan4.133209.20757@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com
> >> (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >> >Paul Lebow is now answering his own strawman argument.
> >> >He, curiously, deleted my demonstration of how he is
> >> >completely wrong in his statement of what Heather's
> >> >question assumed, and responds instead to his own
> >> >remarks of what Heather's question assumed.
> >> >
> >> Dean Kaflowitz objects to my interpretation of a question posed by Heather,
> "Do
> >> you know of any way to give rights to a fetus without taking away rights
> from
> >> the pregnant woman?"  I pointed out that the question has an obvious answer:
> >> one can not.
> >
> >You spent hundreds of lines avoiding an answer to the question, and
> >finally grudgingly admit an answer.  A reasonable debater would
> >answer the question and then address the logical consequences.
> 
> You pretend to forget that it was I who first objected to the question.  I
> only gave the trivial answer (three times, in fact) at your request. 

I forget and pretend nothing in this.  And you did spend a lot of
effort in avoiding giving an answer to her question.  Why do you
deny it?
 
> >> To me, a question with an obvious answer is, by definition,
> >> rhetorical.  It is a statement rather than a real question.
> >> There's nothing
> >> wrong with that, but I feel totally justified in my interpretation.
> >
> >Isn't that special?  This is really all so much spin-control by
> >you Mr Lebow.  You originally answered the question by stating
> >that Heather's question assumed certain conclusions.  I demonstrated
> >that it did not.
> 
> Not to me.

Did you miss the posting?  I know you followed it up by deleting
the arguments presented and providing instead a ponderous
dissertation on context that had nothing to do with Heather's
question or the conclusions you assumed on her behalf or my response
to you.  As you never responded to my arguments, I consider them
unchallenged.
> 
> > You avoided that discussion entirely, and now
> > declare victory ("I feel totally justified...").
> 
> Victory, Dean?  Now I'm beginning to understand where you are comming from.

Again, you declare that you are right and I am wrong without ever
challenging the arguments I presented to show that the conclusions
you assumed on Heather's behalf are not present in Heather's
question.

> >  The fact remains
> >that your interpretation was incorrect; the assumptions you assigned
> >to Heather's question were not inherent in the question but instead
> >were your own inferences.
> 
> (Inference and inherent are not antonyms - PL)

In this instance, and for someone who intones "context" as a mantra,
you are simply avoiding the issue again by means of hair-splitting.
No, they are not antonyms, but in the matter of Heather's question
they may as well be.  What you inferred was not part of Heather's
question.
 
> >> If the question were, "How will the rights of a the pregnant woman change if
> >> the unborn is given increased rights?"  I would consider this a meaningful
> >> question.
> >
> >So what?
> 
> Well, Dean, if I considered Heather's question not meaninful, and you continue
> to
> ignore my opinion, then maybe an example of a meaningful question might
> enlighten 
> you.  Silly me.

I was discussing Heather's question.  I was explaining its meaning
and how you had made untrue statements about it.  Dragging in a
second question does not address Heather's question or your
arguments about it (or rather, your previous evasions) nor
my arguments about it.  Again, so what?
 
> >> As I said before, I think your reinterpretation of Heather's question and
> >> invalidation of my inferences to be quite presumptuous.
> >
> >
> >So sorry, darling.  I consider myself thoroughly chastised.  Last
> >time I felt this way, I'd forgotten to extend my pinkie whilst
> >sipping tea at a garden party.  Imagine my mortification.
> >
> >Well, at least you admit that they were inferences and not
> >inherent in Heather's question.  It's a start.  I find your
> >declaration of victory very amusing.  The technique always tickles me.
> (Inference and inherent are not antonyms)

See above.

> I'm sorry you place so little value in the power of context.  In your
> totally logically connected world, words are linked as railroad cars.  How 
> Spockian.

This is just dreadful stuff from you, Mr Lebow.  Heather's question
could have been the basis of discussing the issue of rights and
seeking a resolution of priority of rights, conflict of rights,
all manner of interesting issues that are part of the abortion
debate.  I even tried to move in that direction by discussing
Heather's question in some detail, with some discussion of the
nature of rights and conflict of rights.  Your responses were
generally inadequate.  I see where you are coming from as
well, Mr Lebow.  You hate to have someone contradict you and
desperately cling to fallacious arguments rather than move to
more fertile areas of discussion.

I am hard-pressed to see the fault in trying to conduct a discussion
using logic.  I assume, Mr Lebow, that you have a problem with
being logical.  I make no apologies for trying to conduct a logical
discussion, but I do extend my sympathies to you for your inability
to do so.

> To one who is opposed to abortion, the presumptions I raised scream
> out 
> from the page.  Your real arrogance is not in the remarks you make, but in your
> 
> inability to accept the notion that I could receive a different message from
> Heather's question than your 'correct' version. I'm sure preaching to the choir
> is quite satisfying for you.

This last bit from you is mystifying.  If you don't want to discuss
matters with accuracy, but prefer instead to create strawman arguments
and deal only with them, that's your pleasure.  I may take the time, as
I have done here and in the past, to point out that they are strawman
arguments, and I hope that won't trouble you too badly.

Dean Kaflowitz

"Headpieces stuffed with clay"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion