I go literal when people talk. My brain doesn’t go metaphorical, sorry. What problem is it to you?
Also conservatives call me a dude more than you do, so another reason to go hang out with them. Thanks.
Most definitely. I am still attempting to figure out if it is some inability to grasp the meanings, or deflection.
Drew is not an expert. Drew does not have any structured formal training in sociology or psychology, game theory, or any associated fields.
Look here:
What does this have to do with what we were talking about?
And you know what? Back then I didn’t care if anyone called me a girl, so I’m just gonna get back into that then. But don’t expect me to respect you or anything.
Because to effectively interpret a study one must have training in such disciplines.
If a study says that 29% of the men and 14% of the women were victimized by a specific form of DV, I don’t think I need training in specific areas.
List the antecedents. That is the problem, you may read the words but you are incapable of truly understanding the reasons. You just parrot the conclusions of studies.
What are the antecedents.
…
antecedents: a thing or event that existed before or logically precedes another.
What specifically are you looking for? What led up to the abuse, or things that happened before the study was taken, etc?
List the antecedents.
So the type of abuses they endured, what led up to them, etc.? I need a specific example.
Tell me what exactly you’re looking for!
Drew
I would not use that argument. There’s too many problems with that.
- It is not illegal to kill gays (mainly gay men) or atheists in certain countries. Does this make it not murder?
It’s not an argument, it is the refutation of a specific claim. You’re taking a specific rebuttal to a specific claim, and producing a non sequitur. No it would not be murder to kill a gay man if it was not classed as murder, but it would be immoral.
I was however, only addressing the anti choice circular reasoning fallacy, that abortion is murder. When the truth is that they want it to be classified as murder, by taking away women’s bodily autonomy, and enslaving them . Obviously this is more complex than one single argument, FYI I don’t believe murder need necessarily always be immoral.
- If one animal (including us) kills another of it’s own species, this is also counted as murder, and there is nothing illegal about it. Do Animals Murder Each Other? | Live Science
You’re missing the point again, murder by definition is unlawful. That was the point of the challenge to their claim abortion is murder.
There’s other problems, but that’s my main one.
Again you’ve made an incorrect assumption, that I was presenting a defence of abortion, which was not the case. I was challenging a specific claim made by anti-choicers.
No, murder is killing another of your own species. Whether it’s legal or not changes how it’s received.
Liberals (with a capital L) getting LGBT and other people, or just sane people, on their side since 2022!
NO!!! (Shouts the facts)
by definition (which btw frames understanding via language)
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
I assume the military is chalk-full of murders??? 
1 Like
Obviously you need a heck of a lot more training because you got mired when asked to offer antecedents for the example you provided.
1 Like
No it isn’t, consult a dictionary, and other species have no relevance to my point about the original claim by those who oppose abortion.
I’ve no idea what you mean sorry.
1 Like
No.
Yes.
. . . . . .
I have no idea what you mean by “antecedents,” even when I looked up the defintion!
It means that you’re getting LGBT people against you when you claim
Careful, child. Your naive ignorance is showing.
2 Likes