by Higgenbotham » Wed Aug 28, 2024 7:48 am
Bob Butler wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2024 2:56 am
Higgenbotham wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 9:27 pm
Is this your typical two paragraph response that you described in the fourth turning forum in 2007? In that post, which I have just verified can be found in John's archives, you bragged about gaslighting other members of that forum. You referred to what you were doing as snark. Your snark is just grotesque gaslighting.
I am going with gaslighting as deliberately lying to change someone's view of reality and snark as criticizing others unfairly to hurt their feelings. I don't think either of us is lying, both sincerely believe our perspectives, but we both criticize the other in snark fashion. I note no attempt to prove world population decline, economic decline, or a federal conspiracy promoting police use of force. Are you conceding the truth of my posts?
I have resolved to respond briefly in other people's threads, thus the short one or two paragraph posts. Ideas which require longer posts probably belong here. I assume posts which address me by name in a snarky fashion are invitations to respond. It should not come as a surprise when I do. As usual, Clarkmod responds with censorship in spite of the invitation. I do think, however, your noting of racial police violence and evasion is pertinent, and your focus rather than mine.
You can "go with" that if you want, but guess what? You're twisting definitions again because gaslighting is recognized as not necessarily being intentional. What you're doing is gaslighting. Based on how I've seen you interact with other posters, it has to be assumed to be intentional, but it's what you are actually doing that matters.
Example of what you are doing:
Navigator wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 11:21 pm
Bob Butler wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 11:45 pm
I am kind of sorry that instead of defining any key property of a fetus, you are diverting to a whole bunch of other issues. Most are worthy. Most belong on other threads and should be debated. I am considering moving most of the other issues to my own thread and responding here only to abortion related questions. (#6)
Bob (and other interested),
What we have in the past couple of days of posts is a concrete example of what happens when you engage with others.
My post on 4 Oct, copying a post I made in 2011.
Navigator wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 1:49 pm
To get back at the core topic, abortion, I am reposting what I wrote about it before:
Navigator wrote: ↑Sun Nov 14, 2021 12:11 am
As we get further and further from Christ's teachings as a society, things get worse and worse.
I also view Abortion (save in the cases of rape and incest) as murder.
The leftists say "a woman gets to chose what to do with her body". In a way I agree. But the choice is made when you decide to have sex. Sex, the power of procreation, is something that God wants us to be very careful about. It is meant for the creation of families, and, by commandment, is meant to be only between a man and wife.
Sex is not just some recreational activity. Immorality leads to all kinds of pain, hardship and difficulties. The worst of which is probably the damage it does to the family, the bedrock of any society/civilization itself.
I this post, I dealt with abortion and my views on it based on religion.
This is one, maybe two topics (if you want to separate the religion out, but then my views on abortion are based on my religious views; obviously).
Instead of dealing with these two issues, you brought up all the others that I have responded to, starting with this post from you:
Bob Butler wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 5:58 pm
This still leaves it as a European white supremicist urge to impose one's own culture on those who do not share it. It is much like the bigot's desire to protect traditional prejudices or the rich folk's desire to keep undue influence on government. Freedom and independence imply not imposing one's way on others. Yes, the Evangelicals, Catholics and Jews share a European religious doctrine, but America is not supposed to impose religious doctrines on those who do not share it. Does the government punish women for not covering their hair, or anyone for eating meat on Friday? I think not. I do not care how profoundly you believe in your own doctrine or prejudice, do not try to impose it on others.
Again, can you identify a scientifically measurable property that a fetus has which animals we raise for meat does not? Your definition of sentient is a religious doctrine. You cannot declare an official religion then enforce it's doctrine.
You in fact started talking about not only abortion and possibly its religions implications, but the following:
1 – Accusations of Christianity being racist
2 – Accusations of the Rich desiring undue governmental influence
3 – Accusations of people imposing their views on others.
4 – Accusations that restricting or limiting abortion is to restrict freedom and independence.
Since you brought all of these up, each required a response.
Then, in your next response, you brought up, even more points as you further muddied the water, losing almost all focus on any kind of debate:
Bob Butler wrote: ↑Thu Oct 05, 2023 1:10 am
In MSNBC’s
The Last Word tonight, Lawrence O’Donnell made a point that the Republicans do not know how to nominate a competent speaker that knows how to do the job. For the longest time, the Democrats held Congress and were the speakers. In recent times the Republicans have had the occasional chance, and their people were universally disasters. They tended to resign or retire. True, this is the first time they have had to vote out their own guy, but they simply do not know how to do the job.
From my point of view, a lot of it is just having a different job. The Democrats try to help the people. The Republicans try to force their culture on others. Thus they are an alliance of bigots, religious fanatics and the rich. They made it illegal to follow one’s own morality, and they censor attempts to spread conflicting cultures. The whole point is to impose their own way of thought on others. Certain aspects of white culture are imposed by force of government on those belonging to other cultures.
I am not sure if the bigots, religious fanatics or rich are the worst.
Again, define a property that can be scientifically, repeatedly detected in a fetus, but not in your typical animal grown for meat. Your objection is to a religious doctrine.
A religious doctrine. You have no right to impose it on those that do not share it.
Not that you are apt to succeed. Note in your post you quote religions, not cultures. The attempts by conservatives to dictate religious beliefs in conflict with women has resulted in the women winning the vote in the US every single time since Roe was overturned. Come 2024, if conservatives continue to attempt to impose their culture on the women of America, the Democrats are apt to win Congress. There is no other way to restore control of their own bodies. And then the conservative collapse will be on. A right to reproductive health care. Voting rights. An end to gerrymandering. Common sense gun control. Fighting censorship by underling the First Amendment. Etc... You let in a decisive progressive Congress, and they won’t stop at one issue.
I really just ought to shut my mouth and let you cut your own throats. Ah, well. You can’t say you weren’t warned.
Rather than supply counter arguments you brought up the following ADDITIONAL POINTS:
1 – Accusing all Republican Speakers of the House of having been disasters.
2 – Stating that Democrats are just trying to help others
3 – Accusing Republicans of being just an alliance of the rich, fanatics, and bigots.
4 – Stating that a fetus is meat, ala hamburger
5 – 2024 Election Predictions
6 – Voting rights
7 – Gerrymandering
8 – Gun Control
9 – Censorship
I wanted to stay on my topic of Abortion in the debate, but now had to deal with all of these additional things you brought up.
Since Abortion is the topic of debate on this thread, I answered about body control in my ORIGINAL post, and reiterated this point. I also explained why a fetus is not meat.
Navigator wrote: ↑Thu Oct 05, 2023 8:29 pm
4 - A fetus is not a piece of meat. It will become a human being unless steps are taken to kill it. The "option" for men and women is to not engage in unprotected sex unless they want a chance at creating a human being. This is where choice occurs. Once you have created a human being, you are obligated to take care of it. By your argument, parents could just starve an infant and be ok, as forcing them to care for it is "imposing morality".
Your response to this was to do the debating equivalent of “stomping your feet” while holding your hands over your ears.
You then bring up the additional issue of:
1 – Censorship in Schools.
Bob Butler wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 12:06 am
A fetus
is a piece of meat. Again, you have not been able to argue otherwise. I doubt you can, yet it is the major way in we differ. Define one property a fetus has which meat animals don’t. If you can’t find such a property, you are trying to impose by government force a religious doctrine. You can’t do that.
Ironic, considering it is DeSantis and others who are crippling what schools teach and are promoting censorship of books and libraries. This is a problem in rural red areas. Democrats are not seeking to force evangelicals to have abortions or promoting bigotry against bigots. They seek freedom, free speech and democracy, not imposing or creating trouble for others. This is definitely a lie.
You then end your statements by calling me a liar, blaming me for bringing up additional issues.
Bob Butler wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 12:06 am
You need not blabber lies about the conservative progressive divide and ruin what little credibility you have. Stick with one issue at a time. I feel like I have had to address every issue under the sun in this note. Really work on the property a fetus has that a meat animal doesn’t. All these scattered distractions on other issues count for nothing as you can’t do that. Trying to solve each issue in one paragraph really isn’t adequate. A thread is more like it.
I am going to this effort to show logically, to anyone who uses logic, that you in fact inserted all these additional topics (at least 14 by my count) into the argument yourself, and then blame me for going off topic! See proof shown above.
As for the original debate points:
I also provided you with the argument that a fetus is a human being. Multiple times. Also see above.
I also provided you with the arguments regarding morality and its necessity for society. (as in Murder cannot be allowed/condoned). I haven’t seen any counter arguments on that.
The point is that you cannot stay on topic, you cannot engage in debate, and just get mad when your points are logically disproven.
I just am having fun pointing out.
spottybrowncow wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2023 9:02 am
Navigator,
I’ve dealt with this in the past, though your patience greatly outpaces mine.
My advice - cast not your pearls before swine.
[quote="Bob Butler" post_id=88622 time=1724828187 user_id=3010]
[quote=Higgenbotham post_id=88621 time=1724808477 user_id=100]Is this your typical two paragraph response that you described in the fourth turning forum in 2007? In that post, which I have just verified can be found in John's archives, you bragged about gaslighting other members of that forum. You referred to what you were doing as snark. Your snark is just grotesque gaslighting.
[/quote]
I am going with gaslighting as deliberately lying to change someone's view of reality and snark as criticizing others unfairly to hurt their feelings. I don't think either of us is lying, both sincerely believe our perspectives, but we both criticize the other in snark fashion. I note no attempt to prove world population decline, economic decline, or a federal conspiracy promoting police use of force. Are you conceding the truth of my posts?
I have resolved to respond briefly in other people's threads, thus the short one or two paragraph posts. Ideas which require longer posts probably belong here. I assume posts which address me by name in a snarky fashion are invitations to respond. It should not come as a surprise when I do. As usual, Clarkmod responds with censorship in spite of the invitation. I do think, however, your noting of racial police violence and evasion is pertinent, and your focus rather than mine.[/quote]
You can "go with" that if you want, but guess what? You're twisting definitions again because gaslighting is recognized as not necessarily being intentional. What you're doing is gaslighting. Based on how I've seen you interact with other posters, it has to be assumed to be intentional, but it's what you are actually doing that matters.
Example of what you are doing:
[quote=Navigator post_id=83211 time=1696735267 user_id=2754]
[quote="Bob Butler" post_id=83187 time=1696650351 user_id=3010]
I am kind of sorry that instead of defining any key property of a fetus, you are diverting to a whole bunch of other issues. Most are worthy. Most belong on other threads and should be debated. I am considering moving most of the other issues to my own thread and responding here only to abortion related questions. (#6)
[/quote]
Bob (and other interested),
What we have in the past couple of days of posts is a concrete example of what happens when you engage with others.
My post on 4 Oct, copying a post I made in 2011.
[quote=Navigator post_id=83136 time=1696441755 user_id=2754]
To get back at the core topic, abortion, I am reposting what I wrote about it before:
[quote=Navigator post_id=65721 time=1636863080 user_id=2754]
As we get further and further from Christ's teachings as a society, things get worse and worse.
I also view Abortion (save in the cases of rape and incest) as murder.
The leftists say "a woman gets to chose what to do with her body". In a way I agree. But the choice is made when you decide to have sex. Sex, the power of procreation, is something that God wants us to be very careful about. It is meant for the creation of families, and, by commandment, is meant to be only between a man and wife.
Sex is not just some recreational activity. Immorality leads to all kinds of pain, hardship and difficulties. The worst of which is probably the damage it does to the family, the bedrock of any society/civilization itself.
[/quote]
[/quote]
I this post, I dealt with abortion and my views on it based on religion.
This is one, maybe two topics (if you want to separate the religion out, but then my views on abortion are based on my religious views; obviously).
Instead of dealing with these two issues, you brought up all the others that I have responded to, starting with this post from you:
[quote="Bob Butler" post_id=83138 time=1696456729 user_id=3010]
This still leaves it as a European white supremicist urge to impose one's own culture on those who do not share it. It is much like the bigot's desire to protect traditional prejudices or the rich folk's desire to keep undue influence on government. Freedom and independence imply not imposing one's way on others. Yes, the Evangelicals, Catholics and Jews share a European religious doctrine, but America is not supposed to impose religious doctrines on those who do not share it. Does the government punish women for not covering their hair, or anyone for eating meat on Friday? I think not. I do not care how profoundly you believe in your own doctrine or prejudice, do not try to impose it on others.
Again, can you identify a scientifically measurable property that a fetus has which animals we raise for meat does not? Your definition of sentient is a religious doctrine. You cannot declare an official religion then enforce it's doctrine.
[/quote]
You in fact started talking about not only abortion and possibly its religions implications, but the following:
1 – Accusations of Christianity being racist
2 – Accusations of the Rich desiring undue governmental influence
3 – Accusations of people imposing their views on others.
4 – Accusations that restricting or limiting abortion is to restrict freedom and independence.
Since you brought all of these up, each required a response.
Then, in your next response, you brought up, even more points as you further muddied the water, losing almost all focus on any kind of debate:
[quote="Bob Butler" post_id=83143 time=1696482626 user_id=3010]
In MSNBC’s [i]The Last Word[/i] tonight, Lawrence O’Donnell made a point that the Republicans do not know how to nominate a competent speaker that knows how to do the job. For the longest time, the Democrats held Congress and were the speakers. In recent times the Republicans have had the occasional chance, and their people were universally disasters. They tended to resign or retire. True, this is the first time they have had to vote out their own guy, but they simply do not know how to do the job.
From my point of view, a lot of it is just having a different job. The Democrats try to help the people. The Republicans try to force their culture on others. Thus they are an alliance of bigots, religious fanatics and the rich. They made it illegal to follow one’s own morality, and they censor attempts to spread conflicting cultures. The whole point is to impose their own way of thought on others. Certain aspects of white culture are imposed by force of government on those belonging to other cultures.
I am not sure if the bigots, religious fanatics or rich are the worst.
Again, define a property that can be scientifically, repeatedly detected in a fetus, but not in your typical animal grown for meat. Your objection is to a religious doctrine. [i]A religious doctrine.[/i] You have no right to impose it on those that do not share it.
Not that you are apt to succeed. Note in your post you quote religions, not cultures. The attempts by conservatives to dictate religious beliefs in conflict with women has resulted in the women winning the vote in the US every single time since Roe was overturned. Come 2024, if conservatives continue to attempt to impose their culture on the women of America, the Democrats are apt to win Congress. There is no other way to restore control of their own bodies. And then the conservative collapse will be on. A right to reproductive health care. Voting rights. An end to gerrymandering. Common sense gun control. Fighting censorship by underling the First Amendment. Etc... You let in a decisive progressive Congress, and they won’t stop at one issue.
I really just ought to shut my mouth and let you cut your own throats. Ah, well. You can’t say you weren’t warned.
[/quote]
Rather than supply counter arguments you brought up the following ADDITIONAL POINTS:
1 – Accusing all Republican Speakers of the House of having been disasters.
2 – Stating that Democrats are just trying to help others
3 – Accusing Republicans of being just an alliance of the rich, fanatics, and bigots.
4 – Stating that a fetus is meat, ala hamburger
5 – 2024 Election Predictions
6 – Voting rights
7 – Gerrymandering
8 – Gun Control
9 – Censorship
I wanted to stay on my topic of Abortion in the debate, but now had to deal with all of these additional things you brought up.
Since Abortion is the topic of debate on this thread, I answered about body control in my ORIGINAL post, and reiterated this point. I also explained why a fetus is not meat.
[quote=Navigator post_id=83163 time=1696552159 user_id=2754]
4 - A fetus is not a piece of meat. It will become a human being unless steps are taken to kill it. The "option" for men and women is to not engage in unprotected sex unless they want a chance at creating a human being. This is where choice occurs. Once you have created a human being, you are obligated to take care of it. By your argument, parents could just starve an infant and be ok, as forcing them to care for it is "imposing morality".
[/quote]
Your response to this was to do the debating equivalent of “stomping your feet” while holding your hands over your ears.
You then bring up the additional issue of:
1 – Censorship in Schools.
[quote="Bob Butler" post_id=83165 time=1696565184 user_id=3010]
A fetus [i]is[/i] a piece of meat. Again, you have not been able to argue otherwise. I doubt you can, yet it is the major way in we differ. Define one property a fetus has which meat animals don’t. If you can’t find such a property, you are trying to impose by government force a religious doctrine. You can’t do that.
Ironic, considering it is DeSantis and others who are crippling what schools teach and are promoting censorship of books and libraries. This is a problem in rural red areas. Democrats are not seeking to force evangelicals to have abortions or promoting bigotry against bigots. They seek freedom, free speech and democracy, not imposing or creating trouble for others. This is definitely a lie.
[/quote]
You then end your statements by calling me a liar, blaming me for bringing up additional issues.
[quote="Bob Butler" post_id=83165 time=1696565184 user_id=3010]
You need not blabber lies about the conservative progressive divide and ruin what little credibility you have. Stick with one issue at a time. I feel like I have had to address every issue under the sun in this note. Really work on the property a fetus has that a meat animal doesn’t. All these scattered distractions on other issues count for nothing as you can’t do that. Trying to solve each issue in one paragraph really isn’t adequate. A thread is more like it.
[/quote]
I am going to this effort to show logically, to anyone who uses logic, that you in fact inserted all these additional topics (at least 14 by my count) into the argument yourself, and then blame me for going off topic! See proof shown above.
As for the original debate points:
I also provided you with the argument that a fetus is a human being. Multiple times. Also see above.
I also provided you with the arguments regarding morality and its necessity for society. (as in Murder cannot be allowed/condoned). I haven’t seen any counter arguments on that.
[b]The point is that you cannot stay on topic, you cannot engage in debate, and just get mad when your points are logically disproven.
I just am having fun pointing out. [/b][/quote]
[quote=spottybrowncow post_id=83218 time=1696770137 user_id=3064]
Navigator,
I’ve dealt with this in the past, though your patience greatly outpaces mine.
My advice - cast not your pearls before swine.[/quote]