From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: NRL 
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:43:11 GMT

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. 

>
>> 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.

> 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.

>  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)

> 
>> 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.

> 
>> 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.

>
>Dean Kaflowitz
>

(Inference and inherent are not antonyms)

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. 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.


- Paul
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55037 can.politics:11351