TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 7,531
First of all, I want to praise ExistentialGoof for his contributions to various topics and his counter-arguments against the pro-lifers and prohibitionists. However, he done goofed when he engaged with the pesky bad faith pro-lifer, u/breckenridgeback user on the reddit thread. 
In all seriousness though, personally I would not have engaged in further debate with someone who decides to turn an civil, rational open discussion into an interrogation, investigation, probe, criticism of one's own credibility or character. I would have just ended it then and there, and that's where existentialgoof made the mistake of continuing to engage with this person, breckenridgeback.
Note: This thread is not directed at existentialgoof himself, but rather the pesky pro-lifer, breckenridgeback for his ad-hominems, strawmans, and logical fallacies.
With those things addressed and mentioned, now onto the main topic of this thread. This thread isn't just going to focus on what the reddit thread is about (I just brought up the reddit thread to illustrate and support what I'm going to cover here). Instead, it's more about how pro-lifers fail to engage in a civil, rational discussion with dissenting parties by resorting to investigating, passing judgment, presumption, and even trying to dig up old threads to use as ammunition against the OP as well as other users. If pro-lifers and similar people want to have an honest, open-discussion with us, then they should focus on the argument instead of attacking our credibility, state of mind, and our character. Resorting to such lows because they have nothing to add or could not rationally refute our claims is not going to be conducive, productive, nor meaningful in terms of getting anywhere. Maybe their goal is just to continue to suppress and silence the dissenting voice and point of view (us pro-choicers), and if so, then they would be violating our rights to exercise our freedom of speech.
In all seriousness though, personally I would not have engaged in further debate with someone who decides to turn an civil, rational open discussion into an interrogation, investigation, probe, criticism of one's own credibility or character. I would have just ended it then and there, and that's where existentialgoof made the mistake of continuing to engage with this person, breckenridgeback.Note: This thread is not directed at existentialgoof himself, but rather the pesky pro-lifer, breckenridgeback for his ad-hominems, strawmans, and logical fallacies.
With those things addressed and mentioned, now onto the main topic of this thread. This thread isn't just going to focus on what the reddit thread is about (I just brought up the reddit thread to illustrate and support what I'm going to cover here). Instead, it's more about how pro-lifers fail to engage in a civil, rational discussion with dissenting parties by resorting to investigating, passing judgment, presumption, and even trying to dig up old threads to use as ammunition against the OP as well as other users. If pro-lifers and similar people want to have an honest, open-discussion with us, then they should focus on the argument instead of attacking our credibility, state of mind, and our character. Resorting to such lows because they have nothing to add or could not rationally refute our claims is not going to be conducive, productive, nor meaningful in terms of getting anywhere. Maybe their goal is just to continue to suppress and silence the dissenting voice and point of view (us pro-choicers), and if so, then they would be violating our rights to exercise our freedom of speech.
Last edited:
