I love it when people drive nails into their own coffin!
Now, I have never denied the things I've said; but I will always deny deliberate lies, and attempts to mislead and falsify!
So what does "When you refered to fetuses as sperm you where using your only little special dictionary", (which YOU said in order to pretend that I was trying to re-define fetuses)--have to do with an "unwanted smudge of sperm"?? Is a zygote, or a morula...equal to a fetus?? Then why did you make up that story in order to mislead the thread? Not only did you deliberately mis-state what I said, but you then added "blob" of sperm in order to make it appear that I might have been alluding to a blastocyst stage of development.
The fact is: what you said, and what I said, are entirely different--And they bear absolutely no comparison to one another. All I did was use descriptive language for the zygote. Only a fool or a dishonest person could confuse the description of "a smudge of sperm" with a developed fetus--only a fool or a dishonest person. Especially--since I was gracious enough to fully explain the matter!
Before I do so, however--a brief comment on your question about the smudge of sperm. I use such terms in order to prevent the argument from picking up sentimental and illogical hitchhikers along the way, such as the shape of the embryo, fetus, etc. The world is full of natural and man made objects that look like persons but they are not. An argument for the RIGHTS of human growth should not rely on attributes such as the number of cells, the size of the human growth, and so forth."
Here I told you clearly, that my reduction of the unborn to the smallest possible cellular consideration--formless and characterless--was made to clarify the argument, and to keep the argument at the zygote stage--so that it would not be colored with irrelevencies such as size, color, etc. You cannot possibly claim to be so stupid that you do not understand all of this--can you?? No, Tim. You cannot make such a claim.
So I did not refer to fetuses as sperm, which is the story that you made up in order to "justify" your assertion that I was using a "special dictionary". You made that story up because you were pissed at the fact that I had just chastized you for referring to the unborn as daughters, children, etc.
Now you've wasted a lot of time, Tim. I was forced to expose what you were doing on principle. You did the damage to yourself. All I did was tell you that you were being unkind, and also small minded--in attempting to mislead in such a way. I hope you have learned your lesson, but I am not going to hold my breath! :)
This was my coffee break. I will be back in about 7 hours. I am sure you would not apreciate me making stuff up about your meaning by attributing invented statements to you for a self serving purpose--and as a substitute for sound argument. If you continue to "debate" this way, then you will continue to lose my respect--and, believe me--you will be exposed at every turn. Perhaps you would prefer that to the damage that would incur if you stayed with the facts, and if you left the game-playing aside. That would disappoint me.
However, I will certainly understand if you merely want to deflect, mislead, and misdirect: I will understand-but I will not sanction it as intelligent or as decent behaviour.
Now don't just react. Walk around for a bit, and THINK about what you have done--and think about what I said... |
