B
bobolink
Guest
Is that summary all I need to post?
Philosophy isn’t my strong point.
I feel out of my depth completely.
- Status
Philosophy isn’t my strong point.
I feel out of my depth completely.
V
Veritas248
Guest
Just post it. Let them deal with the confusion.
Confuse them out of their beliefs, so to speak.
Confuse them out of their beliefs, so to speak.
B
bobolink
Guest
If only I could get them to read that Kreeft article. I could link to it but they will laugh at me and not read it.
V
Veritas248
Guest
They only reason they won’t read it is because they are too afraid that it will change their minds. They will express this in some sort of denial, but if they were really secure in their beliefs, they they would have no problem in reading it.
By the way bobolink, do have any idea what happened to they Abort73 message board? It’s been down for some time.
By the way bobolink, do have any idea what happened to they Abort73 message board? It’s been down for some time.
B
bobolink
Guest
V
Veritas248
Guest
Just as I thought. If you had stated the information in your own words, someone would have asked for a source. Provide the source and someone tells you to state it yourself. Some sort of cycle seems to be prevalent in that discussion.
They need to stop avoiding the information you supply (like the godlessprolifers post you put a few posts earlier. There is brilliant logic in that.) and find the logical flaws if they can. They are acting so immature. When it comes to logic, It is not the source that matters, but the content.
My advice is to stand your ground. Tell them that unless they attempt to refute the logic you presented, you’ll take their silence as an acceptance.
They need to stop avoiding the information you supply (like the godlessprolifers post you put a few posts earlier. There is brilliant logic in that.) and find the logical flaws if they can. They are acting so immature. When it comes to logic, It is not the source that matters, but the content.
My advice is to stand your ground. Tell them that unless they attempt to refute the logic you presented, you’ll take their silence as an acceptance.
B
bobolink
Guest
Sure, I’ll do that - thanks Veritas.
V
Veritas248
Guest
No problem at all.
D
Dale_M
Guest
Exactly. No one likes to do the work for someone else. It doesn’t apply to just this particular issue, it applies to any topic which is discussed online. If you hope to convince anyone, you need to be persuasive. To be persuasive, you need to speak in your own voice.
I’m sorry that I didn’t catch the drift of this thread before you posted the Kreeft summary. You really do have to take the time and put in the effort to internalize the thinking of your sources and then to tell it in your own words. Otherwise folks are going to dismiss you. And that isn’t what you want.
B
bobolink
Guest
I don’t feel I have the intellectual capability to summarise Peter Kreeft! This is my problem.
D
DawnInTexas
Guest
Eight (8) years from today, I will be a completely different person. I will not have any cells left in my body that are present today.
<-That’s just something to think about. Granted, my cells have the genetic blueprints to reproduce themselves, so bone replaces bone, etc. Also, I grew (hormones), just as I did as a babe in my mother’s womb—until I stopped. Now, why do you think that is? No matter the answer, it’s a miracle.
Bottom line is, our Faith has to come into play. Otherwise, what keeps us from killing each other?
There is God’s Law, and there’s man’s law. When the 2 do not agree, God’s Law takes precedence. <-It should, anyway. Especially for Christians.
Thinking of the 10 Commandments—These are God’s Commands-God’s Orders to each of us. If the fear of going to hell is not enough (or the chance of) for a person to not commit an act, then not much of what you can say will pervade that person from committing an act.
That is, unless God The Holy Spirit allows that person the Grace to know God’s Will. Even then, it is up to the individual to accept that Grace, or not.
I hope this makes sense. I have been defending life online and on God’s side of the fence at our local Abortion Clinic for years. I have gotten to the point, (like Fr. Corapi) where I post online-then leave. I don’t usually argue anymore. They have heard the truth…and it is up to the individual what they do with it.
Keep up “The Good Works.” And, may God Bless you in your work.
+Peace Be With You. -Dawn
Some inspiration, if you’ve never seen it. Wake Up America! From Father John Corapi:
youtube.com/watch?v=pTHmn13v7Ts
And, one more. New War/Old War:
youtube.com/watch?v=B2PsB5T5Ndo&NR=1
<-That’s just something to think about. Granted, my cells have the genetic blueprints to reproduce themselves, so bone replaces bone, etc. Also, I grew (hormones), just as I did as a babe in my mother’s womb—until I stopped. Now, why do you think that is? No matter the answer, it’s a miracle.
Bottom line is, our Faith has to come into play. Otherwise, what keeps us from killing each other?
There is God’s Law, and there’s man’s law. When the 2 do not agree, God’s Law takes precedence. <-It should, anyway. Especially for Christians.
Thinking of the 10 Commandments—These are God’s Commands-God’s Orders to each of us. If the fear of going to hell is not enough (or the chance of) for a person to not commit an act, then not much of what you can say will pervade that person from committing an act.
That is, unless God The Holy Spirit allows that person the Grace to know God’s Will. Even then, it is up to the individual to accept that Grace, or not.
I hope this makes sense. I have been defending life online and on God’s side of the fence at our local Abortion Clinic for years. I have gotten to the point, (like Fr. Corapi) where I post online-then leave. I don’t usually argue anymore. They have heard the truth…and it is up to the individual what they do with it.
Keep up “The Good Works.” And, may God Bless you in your work.
+Peace Be With You. -Dawn
Some inspiration, if you’ve never seen it. Wake Up America! From Father John Corapi:
youtube.com/watch?v=pTHmn13v7Ts
And, one more. New War/Old War:
youtube.com/watch?v=B2PsB5T5Ndo&NR=1
V
Veritas248
Guest
It is hard to summarize Peter Kreeft without losing some of his main points.
It is a lot of information. It would take hours and hours or reading, planning, and summarizing to present Kreeft’s case as your own.
Even then some of his logic may be lost
It makes for a stronger argument when presented by one who has more knowledge of the subject. Therefore if one wants to get people to accept an argument, the strongest possible form of the argument must be given. Therefore since Kreeft is a better philosopher, his words and logic, presented as they originally were, makes for a stronger argument. If people are too lazy to read it, then that is there problem. They have no business denouncing a credible argument, especially if they have not read it. If they do not read the argument, which in its present form is a better case than if bobolink presented it, they have no authority denying th existence of credible arguments. They show themselves to be lazy and their credibility suffers as a result.
It is a lot of information. It would take hours and hours or reading, planning, and summarizing to present Kreeft’s case as your own.
Even then some of his logic may be lost
It makes for a stronger argument when presented by one who has more knowledge of the subject. Therefore if one wants to get people to accept an argument, the strongest possible form of the argument must be given. Therefore since Kreeft is a better philosopher, his words and logic, presented as they originally were, makes for a stronger argument. If people are too lazy to read it, then that is there problem. They have no business denouncing a credible argument, especially if they have not read it. If they do not read the argument, which in its present form is a better case than if bobolink presented it, they have no authority denying th existence of credible arguments. They show themselves to be lazy and their credibility suffers as a result.
D
Dale_M
Guest
Aw, you need to have more faith in yourself! You do just fine here. Take it point by point, and write down on paper how you would say what Kreeft has said. Then when you are done, revise the whole thing to polish it up.
In the Kreeft example, you might not want to throw all thirteen points at them at once. But if you have internalized his thinking, you will know when to use the appropriate point or points.
D
Dale_M
Guest
Bobolink is trying to persuade people in that Irish forum. He loses if they aren’t exposed to his arguments.
And they will reject his Kreeft link (or similar links), because they will think “If this guy is too lazy to learn his own arguments, why should we bother with them?”
Bobolink deserves credit for wanting to change the minds of those who support abortion. It is much easier not to bother with the debate.
V
Veritas248
Guest
There still runs the risk of a weaker argument. He wants the strongest possible argument right?
D
Dale_M
Guest
No, he wants to persuade and this involves more than just logic.
V
Veritas248
Guest
Perhaps. But if he doesn’t offer a strong case for his side, then no one will want to believe it. That is what persuasion is. Proving that your side is better than theirs.
B
bobolink
Guest
If I try to summarise Kreeft in my own words, I get the following messages in my brain:
Error 404 / Bad Request.
V
Veritas248
Guest
That is why I suggest keeping Kreeft’s original words.
D
Dranu
Guest
I’ll try to give you what little advice I can muster.
Kreeft’s argument from the four possibilities of procuring an abortion are rather interesting, I have never thought about that before. Whenever I have argued the abortion issue I always try to do some of the following:
**1.) **Inquire into definitions, especially of human life, personhood, and murder (as one must in arguing).
2.) Set up the circumstances in which the person believes killing is always wrong (murder).
3.) Stay very clear from religion unless they consider themselves Catholic.
4.) Make sure to distinguish that abortion is different from contraception if they bring up the ol’ “Oh and I bet you believe using a condom is wrong because it kills the sperm, etc.” Note the term Contraception.
Now this following “argument” has never failed me once (convincing is another issue since man’s will and intellect often contradict). It requires a little bit of ingenuity (via Socratic Method) to apply it to particular cases. I originally heard it from a wise Catholic poster on another forum and have since put it to the test. When testing their definitions of personhood remember these two criteria:
Either:
A.) A definition of personhood given post conception fails in application of a definite criterion. For example one millisecond prior or one cell less than the said point, would not be sufficient to distinguish personhood from non-personhood. If not this, then we can keep going back until we find that fine particular that draws the line, but this will go on to one second, an hour, day, two cells, twenty cells, etc. So if you remove that one cell or development at some later time (given all else remains the same) are they human?
B.) **The definition of personhood could be applied to people that they would not deny personhood too. ** For example if one defines it as the mature activity of the nervous system, one could point to people who have brain surgery, paralytics, people with Parkinson’s, mental disorders, etc., and deny their personhood. This will force the person to make some redefining which will likely now violate A again, and so on. Often they will say something along the lines of: “well some of those people have had a fully mature system once, and therefore they are still human”. However, If you are defining it by an empirical thing, then that defining criterion is utterly lost once the person loses the empirical thing. Only a soul could continue that or a re-working of the definition. Of course saying when a person has a soul amounts to a sort of ‘he is a person because I sayz so’.
I can see a way around this, but only with some very sick and twisted views on who is a person and who is not. People who are in that category need some other reworking before you can ever convince them about abortion being wrong.
Also note, in the end we really do not really know for certain when personhood starts, but in truth we really do not know anything. Conception just seems the most reasonable (as it is definite, and does not run into B’s problem either), just like eating seems the most reasonable thing to do when one is hungry.
Kreeft’s argument from the four possibilities of procuring an abortion are rather interesting, I have never thought about that before. Whenever I have argued the abortion issue I always try to do some of the following:
**1.) **Inquire into definitions, especially of human life, personhood, and murder (as one must in arguing).
2.) Set up the circumstances in which the person believes killing is always wrong (murder).
3.) Stay very clear from religion unless they consider themselves Catholic.
4.) Make sure to distinguish that abortion is different from contraception if they bring up the ol’ “Oh and I bet you believe using a condom is wrong because it kills the sperm, etc.” Note the term Contraception.
Now this following “argument” has never failed me once (convincing is another issue since man’s will and intellect often contradict). It requires a little bit of ingenuity (via Socratic Method) to apply it to particular cases. I originally heard it from a wise Catholic poster on another forum and have since put it to the test. When testing their definitions of personhood remember these two criteria:
Either:
A.) A definition of personhood given post conception fails in application of a definite criterion. For example one millisecond prior or one cell less than the said point, would not be sufficient to distinguish personhood from non-personhood. If not this, then we can keep going back until we find that fine particular that draws the line, but this will go on to one second, an hour, day, two cells, twenty cells, etc. So if you remove that one cell or development at some later time (given all else remains the same) are they human?
B.) **The definition of personhood could be applied to people that they would not deny personhood too. ** For example if one defines it as the mature activity of the nervous system, one could point to people who have brain surgery, paralytics, people with Parkinson’s, mental disorders, etc., and deny their personhood. This will force the person to make some redefining which will likely now violate A again, and so on. Often they will say something along the lines of: “well some of those people have had a fully mature system once, and therefore they are still human”. However, If you are defining it by an empirical thing, then that defining criterion is utterly lost once the person loses the empirical thing. Only a soul could continue that or a re-working of the definition. Of course saying when a person has a soul amounts to a sort of ‘he is a person because I sayz so’.
I can see a way around this, but only with some very sick and twisted views on who is a person and who is not. People who are in that category need some other reworking before you can ever convince them about abortion being wrong.
Also note, in the end we really do not really know for certain when personhood starts, but in truth we really do not know anything. Conception just seems the most reasonable (as it is definite, and does not run into B’s problem either), just like eating seems the most reasonable thing to do when one is hungry.
- Status