My Kidney Challenge II

[Hammster]

Yes I do. I've explained it several times now.

No, you’ve explained what you would that was moral. If you are being consistent, though, you would also think it moral to not give a kidney to your child because you have the right to use your uterus…er, kidney…however you see fit.

 

[Kylie]

No, you’ve explained what you would that was moral. If you are being consistent, though, you would also think it moral to not give a kidney to your child because you have the right to use your uterus…er, kidney…however you see fit.

You seem determined to miss my point.

 

[Hammster]

You seem determined to miss my point.

Not at all. I’m employing your point against you. You seem to be running from that.

 

[Kylie]

Not at all. I’m employing your point against you. You seem to be running from that.

I have already explained why it is different. You are determined to ignore me.

 

[Hammster]

I have already explained why it is different. You are determined to ignore me.

And I’ve already explained how it’s not. And you’ve avoided interacting with my argument. In your morality, you have the right to not use your uterus to keep your child alive. So in the same manner, it would be just as moral not to use your kidney to keep your child alive.

 

[Kylie]

And I’ve already explained how it’s not. And you’ve avoided interacting with my argument. In your morality, you have the right to not use your uterus to keep your child alive. So in the same manner, it would be just as moral not to use your kidney to keep your child alive.

Let me use an analogy to see if I can show what I'm trying to say...

I'm driving a car with a trailer attached.

If someone puts a piece of furniture into the trailer that I don't want, I would take it out. I don't care about it, and if it rains and this furniture is ruined, I don't give a rats.

But if I put some furniture into the trailer that I do want, I drive it home, cover it on the journey so it is undamaged, get it home, sand it back, repair any broken pieces, paint it, restore it and make sure it is treated well, then this is proof that I do want it.

Now, your argument, if applied to this situation, would be, "Why are you bothering to paint that piece of furniture that you brought home, covered to protect it from the rain? After all, you were happy to let the other bit of furniture you didn't want get ruined, so why do you bother fixing up this piece that you do want?"

If you can't see the difference, there is no point in trying to have a rational discussion with you.

However, I suspect you will try to simply say that a child is not a piece of furniture, missing the point of what an analogy actually is.

 

[Hammster]

Let me use an analogy to see if I can show what I'm trying to say...

I'm driving a car with a trailer attached.

If someone puts a piece of furniture into the trailer that I don't want, I would take it out. I don't care about it, and if it rains and this furniture is ruined, I don't give a rats.

But if I put some furniture into the trailer that I do want, I drive it home, cover it on the journey so it is undamaged, get it home, sand it back, repair any broken pieces, paint it, restore it and make sure it is treated well, then this is proof that I do want it.

Now, your argument, if applied to this situation, would be, "Why are you bothering to paint that piece of furniture that you brought home, covered to protect it from the rain? After all, you were happy to let the other bit of furniture you didn't want get ruined, so why do you bother fixing up this piece that you do want?"

If you can't see the difference, there is no point in trying to have a rational discussion with you.

However, I suspect you will try to simply say that a child is not a piece of furniture, missing the point of what an analogy actually is.

Let me explain using what you’ve already said. In your morality, you have the right to not use your uterus to keep your child alive. So in the same manner, it would be just as moral not to use your kidney to keep your child alive.

 

[Kylie]

Let me explain using what you’ve already said. In your morality, you have the right to not use your uterus to keep your child alive. So in the same manner, it would be just as moral not to use your kidney to keep your child alive.

So now you think you can tell me what I've already said. I don't need you to tell me what I've already said, I KNOW what I've said. And I've also said - several times now - that you've got it wrong. I have explained it several times, and even tried spelling it out with an analogy. But you still think that you know better than I do what my intended meaning is! It's extremely rude of you to keep doing this when I have tried several times to correct you. Why do you have this desperate need to cling to your strawman argument?

 

[Hammster]

So now you think you can tell me what I've already said. I don't need you to tell me what I've already said, I KNOW what I've said. And I've also said - several times now - that you've got it wrong. I have explained it several times, and even tried spelling it out with an analogy. But you still think that you know better than I do what my intended meaning is! It's extremely rude of you to keep doing this when I have tried several times to correct you. Why do you have this desperate need to cling to your strawman argument?

Straw man? Do you believe that you can do with your body what you want?

 

[o_mlly]

Let me use an analogy to see if I can show what I'm trying to say...

Well, at least that's new but, unfortunately, not good.

Count the number of times you use the word "want". I count 5. Same error as before. The life of a human being is not dependent on the will of another. It's not all about you, Kylie.

Oh, and did you not invite that person to put something into your "trailer" knowing full well that it could become a piece of "furniture"?

 

[Kylie]

Straw man? Do you believe that you can do with your body what you want?

Yes.

You seem to think that this means I MUST want a particular thing when that is simply not the case.

I am not opposed to people using their bodies to continue the lives of other people.

I am opposed to people using their bodies to continue the lives of other people WHEN THEY DO NOT AGREE TO DO SO.

 

[Kylie]

Well, at least that's new but, unfortunately, not good.

Count the number of times you use the word "want". I count 5. Same error as before. The life of a human being is not dependent on the will of another. It's not all about you, Kylie.

So if the doctors strap you down and forcibly remove your kidney and say, "It's not all about you, o_mlly," you'd understand completely, huh?

Oh, and did you not invite that person to put something into your "trailer" knowing full well that it could become a piece of "furniture"?

That's a terrible argument. It ignores things like rape, failed birth control...

 

[o_mlly]

That's a terrible argument. It ignores things like rape, failed birth control...

There you go again with rape as if it is the ordinary reason a woman seek an abortion.

As to "failed birth control", is the mother's reliance on an unreliable technology now the child's fault so as to permit the mother to murder the child? I think not.

 

[Hammster]

Yes.

You seem to think that this means I MUST want a particular thing when that is simply not the case.

I am not opposed to people using their bodies to continue the lives of other people.

I am opposed to people using their bodies to continue the lives of other people WHEN THEY DO NOT AGREE TO DO SO.

I get that. I’m not arguing against what you would do. I’m arguing that in the same you don’t think it’s an obligation to use your uterus to keep your child alive if you don’t want to, you would see that there’s no obligation to use your kidney to keep your child alive if you do not agree to do so.

 

[Kylie]

There you go again with rape as if it is the ordinary reason a woman seek an abortion.

As to "failed birth control", is the mother's reliance on an unreliable technology now the child's fault so as to permit the mother to murder the child? I think not.

If you think that people should never have sex except to procreate, you're missing one very important point: Sex is fun!

 

[Kylie]

I get that. I’m not arguing against what you would do. I’m arguing that in the same you don’t think it’s an obligation to use your uterus to keep your child alive if you don’t want to, you would see that there’s no obligation to use your kidney to keep your child alive if you do not agree to do so.

And you don't seem to get that if someone carries a pregnancy to term, then invests years raising their child, loving them and nurturing them, then they are NOT likely to turn around and say, "Meh, whatever, I don't care one way or the other."

 

[o_mlly]

If you think that people should never have sex except to procreate, you're missing one very important point: Sex is fun!

No surprise here. "But I just wanted to have fun so I'll just kill the child".

 

[Hammster]

And you don't seem to get that if someone carries a pregnancy to term, then invests years raising their child, loving them and nurturing them, then they are NOT likely to turn around and say, "Meh, whatever, I don't care one way or the other."

You keep shifting the focus. It doesn’t matter what they are likely to do. My point is that in your view, the morality to terminate a pregnancy and not give a child a kidney is the same.

 

[Kylie]

No surprise here. "But I just wanted to have fun so I'll just kill the child".

Good luck trying to get people from having sex for fun. Let me know how that works out for you.

 

[Kylie]

You keep shifting the focus. It doesn’t matter what they are likely to do. My point is that in your view, the morality to terminate a pregnancy and not give a child a kidney is the same.

My focus is that the two situations are completely different, and you seem incapable of seeing that.

Are we just going to go in circles around this point? Because if so, I don't see the point in wasting my time.