I've explained what I meant.
No you haven't. Let me be more clear. Explain what your point was to Taters. What was he supposed to get out of your message. Was he supposed to be convinced he should use the law. If so, why? Just because you do? What's that supposed to mean?
But we agree that there's some data there, right? That the study was done?
There is data. There were many disconnected studies done. The UN pulled them together and filtered the disparate data using definitions to get at the relative risks of sexual activity as well as pregnancy for women in developing as opposed to developed nations.
A one in two thousand chance of death still seems fairly high to me.
Could you point out where you got that number? I'm not being sarcastic, I just want us looking at the same exact page.
In any case, if a 1 in 2K chance seems fairly high to you, how does abortion make you any more comfortable? Especially if it is in a developing nation?
What do you mean "keep doing that"? And who said anything about women being desperate?
You said women won't do something if it is dangerous, so unless all pregnant women were raped, given that pregnancy is so dangerous why do they have sex? As far as being desperate... have you read your own material? I ask because you have so far said abortions aren't "that available" in developing nations, and then that women won't do something if they know if it is dangerous. Your own link discusses this. Maybe you should read your own link.
No, I didn't. Your "mistake", again.
I'm sorry, but if you were not claiming I had done something in this thread then your entire accusation falls apart.
From post #31...Your endless distortions - impossible to believe, by the way, that you're doing it by accident at this point - make it all but impossible to debate evidence with you. The second evidence is presented to support one's contention, you attack your opponent for not supporting an entirely different position. When they challenge you to show where they advanced that new position, you quote them promoting a yet different position, prompting a dispute about what position you originally accused them of promoting!
If I have done it here, then I have given you the posts for you to find it. If I haven't done it here then why are you bringing it up, especially as your accusation would be refuted by this thread.
Who said you had to do it in this thread? Do it in that thread... That's an unsatisfactory response. If they're bogus, prove it.
You don't seem to understand. If you are making claims about my behavior in this thread, then I don't understand why I'd have to start addressing it by discussing behavior found in another thread (discussed here or there). If you aren't making claims about my behavior here, then why are you mentioning anything?
About the other thread, your list includes repeats of stuff I had already dealt with, as well as stuff which is patently bogus. Thus I'm willing to let the "court" make its decision with what already exists. The defense rests just fine thank you. As I have said already, they either already made up their minds or they just don't care. I'd think you'd be happy I'm letting you have the last word on that subject.
I certainly precieved your post as an attack on mine. Why do you find that so unreasonable?
1) I still do not understand how you recognized a position I was attacking as "yours" in a post that was not to you, did not mention your name, and by the end of the thread you were claiming I was only inventing strawmen and never dealing with your real position. You could start by solving that conundrum for me.
2) I was posting to RAZD, in order to discuss his apparent support for claims which were not accurate, and use of material against another poster which was not entirely accurate. I was trying to convince RAZD to shift to a position more clearly in line with evidence on the issue. My post was NOT to you, nor intended to be to you. Given our history I figured that would have been for the best.
3) You are correct that I was attacking elements he seemed to be backing which were to be found in your posts throughout that thread (and IIRC he ref'd to some other thread). But as per 2 above, that does not mean I had any intention to engage you in dialogue on those points, and as per 1 above I was taken aback in that thread to hear you declaring I had been misrepresenting your position. That is why I am finding quite a bit of irony here...
I shouldn't write to you because I never get your position right, but if I write to someone else and you see I am addressing a position of yours then de facto I am writing to you, yet when I deal with replies by you I am then condemned for never getting your position right and so I should stop hounding you all the time because I am always writing to you and never getting your position right, which even if I don't write directly to you you can tell I am because you can see your argument being addressed in my post to someone else... Please stop the merry-go-round.
Do you ever notice how your little "jokes" don't ever seem to be funny?
Actually I thought it was funny, but even if I suffer from a bad sense of humor it wasn't an "old trick". Really I was making a joke.
If your egregious personal behavior didn't always become the topic of conversation, we could probably make some progress. You could, you know, actually argue in support of something instead of doing nothing but attacking your opponents on the most specious grounds possible.
Now wait a second, this thread was not about my personal behavior. You kept introducing me as a topic. And I WAS arguing in support of something. I was specifically trying to build consensus on the state of evidence.
I wasn't attacking opponents, but rather discussing the merits or lack thereof of specific studies to draw conclusions on the issues. That's totally impersonal. If you feel insulted because a study does not provide enough info, or is not completely on target, to support a complete conclusion... then you are taking things wayyyyy too personally.
And lets pretend for a second I always argue "against" and never "for", what difference does that make to you as long as my positions aren't inconsistent? How would that make me an asshole? And who cares if I was one. Even if I were the crabbiest bitter old man who only bitched and moaned, and never cracked a smile for anything, as long as I am correctly supporting my position, then that's all I have to do.
I mean the first think you could probably stop doing is replying to posts line-by-line. I reccommend that you attempt to respond to people and include no more than three quoted sections.
Uh, you mean like I did until you used a 6 quote response with several points for me to respond to? With the exception of perhaps two posts, where the separate quote boxes were from journal articles, I did EXACTLY what you just said. Go back through and you'll see its true. You were the first person to start with the multiple quotes and points. I just responded in kind.
If you don't give me so many different points to respond to, maybe by toning down insults and accusations and so stick to pertinent topic points, you'll find my posts resume their original short length.
Can we do that? I would sincerely like that. If you would like that, then let's do that together.
holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
™ Version 4.2