I did and came across this definition: ‘of or for a particular person.’
My niece, Amber, is a particular person, whether she was just birthed, or it was 20 minute earlier when she was in the womb and the doctors were telling my sister to push.
That’s called cherry picking. It’s intellectually disingenuous, not that you’d understand that concept given your displayed levels of reading comprehension, but ignoring the core definitions of the word to play gotcha games with a secondary definition of ‘person’ which you are also intentionally misrepresenting the definition of doesn’t make you right, it just reinforces that your intentionally malicious attempts to circumvent agreed upon language conventions and collective are necessary for you to even pretend like you have a leg to stand on in the conversation.
You literally cannot hold or present your position without first bastardising any attempt to communicate in good faith by arbitrarily redefining words.
In other words, you’ve proven yourself either disingenuous or stupid, which one comes down to your actual cognizance of your actions.
Oh, so you can choose a definition and deny a fetus any rights because of it, but if I use a definition of the same word, it’s intellectually disingenuous? Be consistent man.
If you want an honest discussion about the rights of women vs a fetus, I’ll be glad to have it. I just ask that you stop playing games and actually discuss.
You’re doing it again, if you can’t foster understanding you fail at the basis of communication and the reasoning for using a set of agreed upon definitions for delivering and interpreting conceptual ideas. I get it, you can’t participate in good faith communication because you lack the education and comprehension of how to participate in good faith communication.
Maybe next time try to internalise the definition being presented to you instead of disingenuously and intentionally misrepresenting agreed upon primary definitions of words.
I don’t see any reason to repeat myself, if you can’t communicate in good faith then your ideas aren’t worth listening to.
We can choose different definitions of ‘individuals’ or we can talk about the core of our arguments - you don’t think the babys life should be considered when weighing an abortion or not, and I do think it should be.
We can discuss and try to come to some common ground, or you can continue your inconsistency and rude behavior. I’d prefer the former, but if you can’t handle an honest discussion, I’m fine with the latter.
No, when someone presents you an idea or concept you use their definitions so that you understand what they are trying to communicate.
You have no interest in discussion otherwise you’d have been capable of participating in good faith and fostering a maximal amount of understanding between both parties while making the utmost attempt to accurately and correctly interpret the other person’s communication.
Instead you choose to misrepresent other people’s messages, you intentionally try to force your definitions on their words in an attempt to discredit them rather than internalise and comprehend them.
You think we don’t understand your position because you choose not to understand ours. We do understand your position, we have the added understanding of our position and by contrasting and comparing the two we’ve determined yours is incorrect. You however choose to disregard our position, refuse to interpret our position in good faith, refuse to understand why our position makes your position invalid, and then you attempt to disingenuously misinterpret and misrepresent our position.
You are incapable of participating in the discussion you think you want to have because of your own short comings regarding communicative ability.
This isn’t a matter of opinion, this is an objective fact of interpersonal communication, something you are lacking a sufficient grasp of to participate in.
No, when someone presents you an idea or concept you use their definitions so that you understand what they are trying to communicate.
Oh so I always have to use whatever definitions of words you come up with to have a conversation with you?
You intiated a conversation with this question to me “Nothing hard about it, to have individual rights one must first be an individual. If you don’t understand the word individual pick up a dictionary.” - I looked it up and used the definition. Then you get mad because I didn’t choose the definition that you, not even stated, but rather thought of. What are you even arguing?
I don’t think that’s a good faith discussion and I’d rather not discuss such a complex, nuanced moral issue with someone that only believes they’re 100% right.
You’re the one saying I need to use your definition of words no matter what. But you didn’t provide any definitions. Come on, man. At least pretend like you might want to one day have a single argument in good faith.
I did and came across this definition: ‘of or for a particular person.’
My niece, Amber, is a particular person, whether she was just birthed, or it was 20 minute earlier when she was in the womb and the doctors were telling my sister to push.
That’s called cherry picking. It’s intellectually disingenuous, not that you’d understand that concept given your displayed levels of reading comprehension, but ignoring the core definitions of the word to play gotcha games with a secondary definition of ‘person’ which you are also intentionally misrepresenting the definition of doesn’t make you right, it just reinforces that your intentionally malicious attempts to circumvent agreed upon language conventions and collective are necessary for you to even pretend like you have a leg to stand on in the conversation.
You literally cannot hold or present your position without first bastardising any attempt to communicate in good faith by arbitrarily redefining words.
In other words, you’ve proven yourself either disingenuous or stupid, which one comes down to your actual cognizance of your actions.
deleted by creator
Oh, so you can choose a definition and deny a fetus any rights because of it, but if I use a definition of the same word, it’s intellectually disingenuous? Be consistent man.
If you want an honest discussion about the rights of women vs a fetus, I’ll be glad to have it. I just ask that you stop playing games and actually discuss.
You’re doing it again, if you can’t foster understanding you fail at the basis of communication and the reasoning for using a set of agreed upon definitions for delivering and interpreting conceptual ideas. I get it, you can’t participate in good faith communication because you lack the education and comprehension of how to participate in good faith communication.
Maybe next time try to internalise the definition being presented to you instead of disingenuously and intentionally misrepresenting agreed upon primary definitions of words.
I don’t see any reason to repeat myself, if you can’t communicate in good faith then your ideas aren’t worth listening to.
We can choose different definitions of ‘individuals’ or we can talk about the core of our arguments - you don’t think the babys life should be considered when weighing an abortion or not, and I do think it should be.
We can discuss and try to come to some common ground, or you can continue your inconsistency and rude behavior. I’d prefer the former, but if you can’t handle an honest discussion, I’m fine with the latter.
No, when someone presents you an idea or concept you use their definitions so that you understand what they are trying to communicate.
You have no interest in discussion otherwise you’d have been capable of participating in good faith and fostering a maximal amount of understanding between both parties while making the utmost attempt to accurately and correctly interpret the other person’s communication.
Instead you choose to misrepresent other people’s messages, you intentionally try to force your definitions on their words in an attempt to discredit them rather than internalise and comprehend them.
You think we don’t understand your position because you choose not to understand ours. We do understand your position, we have the added understanding of our position and by contrasting and comparing the two we’ve determined yours is incorrect. You however choose to disregard our position, refuse to interpret our position in good faith, refuse to understand why our position makes your position invalid, and then you attempt to disingenuously misinterpret and misrepresent our position.
You are incapable of participating in the discussion you think you want to have because of your own short comings regarding communicative ability.
This isn’t a matter of opinion, this is an objective fact of interpersonal communication, something you are lacking a sufficient grasp of to participate in.
Oh so I always have to use whatever definitions of words you come up with to have a conversation with you?
You intiated a conversation with this question to me “Nothing hard about it, to have individual rights one must first be an individual. If you don’t understand the word individual pick up a dictionary.” - I looked it up and used the definition. Then you get mad because I didn’t choose the definition that you, not even stated, but rather thought of. What are you even arguing?
I don’t think that’s a good faith discussion and I’d rather not discuss such a complex, nuanced moral issue with someone that only believes they’re 100% right.
Do you practice being this stupid or does it come naturally?
You’re the one saying I need to use your definition of words no matter what. But you didn’t provide any definitions. Come on, man. At least pretend like you might want to one day have a single argument in good faith.