Political Crossfire Forums

[steen]

straw man wrote: steen wrote: (1) there is no baby...
Talk about your revisionist linguistics! Hmm, you already answered this post once, back on 5/18. Seems like something made you scour my posts for anything to pick on, eh? Could it be that I creamed your deceptive claims in the other tread? How lame.

Quote: Nevermind calling a fetus a "baby" is a widespread and commonly accepted connotation, with widespread usage, which as a result wound up as perfectly valid definition in the dictionary. I am fascinated by your claim. Please show me a mainstream dictionary definition of the word "fetus" that includes "baby." No? So you are again lying? What a surprise.

Quote: You probably should refrain from bringing up someone else's revisionist linguistics, especially when it is done on purpose in a sarcastic thread. You are so much more black than the tea kettle. Ah, so this WAS a lame and pathetic attempt at pay back because I showed how dishonest and lame your incredibly stupid post was? Well, that's just plain pathetic. I almost feel sorry for you. Not even your pay-back is successful. You must feel completely inadequate by now. I feel for you. What a lame tantrum.

Quote: P.S. :

Question: Do you accuse all those dictionaries of "revisionist linguistics" as well? None of them are claiming that "fetus" is defined as "baby," so no I do not. Only the lame and pathetic pro-life arguments of semantic trickery and sophistry raise to that description, as your argument obviously is not possible without such lame sophistry.

As I stated previously, that's downright pathetic.

[straw man]

steen wrote: Hmm, you already answered this post once, back on 5/18.

Brilliant observation! Let's give you the nobel prize!

steen wrote: Seems like something made you scour my posts for anything to pick on, eh?

Well close. It was one particular thing to pick on. And that is your tendency towards revisionist linguistics. You see back on 5/18 I wasn't thinking about any times you accused people of revisionist linguistics. It wasn't on my mind and had nothing to do with my response. But then today I heard you accuse me of revisionist linguistics, and I thought, "wait a minute, this guy is the KING of revisionist linguistics.. and here he is going to call me out on it when I did it on purpose in a sarcastic thread. So I simply decided to call up an instance where you clearly did it, to show how the pot calls the tea kettle black. Except I didn't have to scour very hard for it. I have like a whole buffet of examples to choose from.

steen wrote: Could it be that I creamed your deceptive claims in the other tread? How lame.

And this was how many hours ago? You know I've been at work all day, and I have other duties there so I can't really respond to every point that I need to right away. You should give somebody at least a day or two before you make fun of them for not having a response to your arguments.

[straw man]

Oh and one more thing:

dictionary.com wrote: ba·by
n. pl. ba·bies

1.
a A very young child; an infant.
b An unborn child; a fetus.
c The youngest member of a family or group.
d A very young animal.

2 An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way.
3 Slang. A girl or young woman.
4 Informal. Sweetheart; dear. Used as a term of endearment.
5 Slang. An object of personal concern or interest: Keeping the boat in good repair is your baby.

If you want to accuse somebody of lying, you might want to do some fact checking first to ensure that they are indeed lying, lest you expose yourself for the liar that you are.

[steen]

[quote="straw man"]Oh and one more thing:

dictionary.com wrote: ba·by
n. pl. ba·bies Ah, but the issue was the definition of fetus. Go look that up. What? No mention of "baby"? Uhum, you lied.

[steen]

straw man wrote: steen wrote: Hmm, you already answered this post once, back on 5/18. Brilliant observation! Let's give you the nobel prize! Noting your petty rumination and childish tantrum doesn't warrant any price.

Quote: steen wrote: Seems like something made you scour my posts for anything to pick on, eh? Well close. It was one particular thing to pick on. Good heavens man. You even ADMIT to this? You admit that your post specifically is trolling and deliberately made to be antagonistic and nothing else? I really can't decide whether this is sign of pro-life lack of integrity or just you being stupid.

[AllAmericanMan]

[quote="steen"] straw man wrote: Oh and one more thing:

dictionary.com wrote: ba·by
n. pl. ba·bies Ah, but the issue was the definition of fetus. Go look that up. What? No mention of "baby"? Uhum, you lied. Why didnt you quote the whole thing steen? It says A fetus right under the definition for baby. Thus its not a lie to use the word baby in place of fetus. Regardless of what the definition for fetus says.

[steen]

AllAmericanMan wrote: steen wrote: straw man wrote: Oh and one more thing: dictionary.com wrote: ba·by
n. pl. ba·bies Ah, but the issue was the definition of fetus. Go look that up. What? No mention of "baby"? Uhum, you lied. Why didnt you quote the whole thing steen? It says A fetus right under the definition for baby. Colloquiums and terms of endearment. When you look up the term FETUS, which was what I was talking about, then you NOWHERE sees the mentioning of "baby." How many posts more are you going to lie about this? How many more times are you going to lie about this before you eventually realize that spewing your pro-life lies time after time merely shows how truly despicably dishonest the pro-life liars like you are?

Quote: Thus its not a lie to use the word baby in place of fetus. When you look up what "fetus" means, nowhere is "baby" included. Thus when you look for a word for "fetus," "baby" is not one of them. Once again, the pro-life pathetic and desperate need for sophistry is exposed. It is clear that pro-life has NOTHING other than sophistry and demagoguery to offer. Repeating the same nonsense and deceptive claptrap enough, and you somehow hope that it gets accepted as fact. No, it merely solidifies how despicably dishonest your endless lies are.




Regardless of what the definition for fetus says.[/quote]

[straw man]

[quote="steen"] straw man wrote: Oh and one more thing:

dictionary.com wrote: ba·by
n. pl. ba·bies Ah, but the issue was the definition of fetus. Go look that up. What? No mention of "baby"? Uhum, you lied.

Lied about what? That it's okay to refer to a fetus as a "baby"?

[straw man]

I don't know where you got "fetus" from steen, as the word being on trial other than that's what I referred to when I claimed we could call it a "baby" if we wanted to. So I had to say something to express the thought, I suppose I could have chosen "embryo" instead and said an embryo may be able to be called a baby and that word could have more success.. I should have played a safety and said "a metabolising growing group of cells carrying unique genetic code for a homo sapien person and is currently growing inside the uterus of a woman" can be called a "baby""

[straw man]

steen, when the dictionary calls a baby a fetus, it is ALSO calling a fetus a baby. Imagine THAT. The dictionary is specifically saying they are the same thing, hence the " ; fetus" part of the baby definition. They don't have to cross reference both ways. They are saying that A is equal to B, and now you are saying that they mean to say B is NOT equal to A?

[steen]

straw man wrote: steen, when the dictionary calls a baby a fetus, it is ALSO calling a fetus a baby. Imagine THAT. Actually, it doesn't. Your ignorance on this seems extreme. Could it be that you truly don't have a clue what you are talking about?

Quote: The dictionary is specifically saying they are the same thing, hence the " ; fetus" part of the baby definition. Your claim is a lie. Only if the definition of "fetus" included "baby" would this be true.

Quote: They don't have to cross reference both ways. Actually, they do, yes.

Quote: They are saying that A is equal to B, There is no "equal" sign. That's where you are going off track in your ignorance. there would ONLY be an "equal" sign if "fetus" also included "baby" in its definition. It does not, your claim is flat-out false.

Quote: and now you are saying that they mean to say B is NOT equal to A? Absolutely. If it is not in there, then it is not there. I am surprised that you don't even know this very basic aspect of dictionaries that most literate people understand?

[AllAmericanMan]

If I had a penny for every time Steen just calls people a liar and doesnt explain how.

[straw man]

That would be sweet to have that much $$$

For as many times as I read it I would be gettin' pretty close to earning that Twix bar.

Hey steen, do you have anything besides, "I told you so" ? or are we done?

[straw man]

Otherwise what is your argument exactly? Are you arguing:

"A fetus cannot be called a "baby" " ???

[steen]

straw man wrote: Otherwise what is your argument exactly? Are you arguing:

"A fetus cannot be called a "baby" " ??? Correct. Pro-life's spewed lies to the contrary is merely shoing you all to be a pack of liars whose lies need to be challenged. Not much debate in that, but as long as you and your pack of liars lie that much, there is no debate anyway, only the challenge of your lies.

Find me a definition of fetus that includes "baby," why don't you. No? Uhum!

[AllAmericanMan]

steen wrote: straw man wrote: Otherwise what is your argument exactly? Are you arguing:

"A fetus cannot be called a "baby" " ??? Correct. Pro-life's spewed lies to the contrary is merely shoing you all to be a pack of liars whose lies need to be challenged. Not much debate in that, but as long as you and your pack of liars lie that much, there is no debate anyway, only the challenge of your lies.

Find me a definition of fetus that includes "baby," why don't you. No? Uhum!

6 cents richer.

[straw man]

hey steen, I've been doing some experiments in various dictionaries and it turns out that your theory that the equality must be cross referenced both ways in the dictionary doesn't seem to be universally true. Try it!

Otherwise since that's all you got besides "I told you so, liar" kinda crap, I think we're done... (unless you want to try to back up your argument you just made then be my guest but it's suicide. You'd as might as well say gravity makes things fall up.

[steen]

liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar

There you are, that should get you a cup of coffee. Any other friggin irrelevant and stupid claptrap you want to spew to avoid dealing with the issues?

[straw man]

So I am lying that I found plenty of words which mean the same thing yet don't cross reference both ways in the dictionary?

[straw man]

Oh and I just called a fetus a baby. So have tons and tons of other people causing it to be a common connotation, and causing it to be a definition. So it looks like a fetus CAN be called a baby.. We just did. NICE ARGUMENT!