The relationship between a mother and their young of any other species of animal is never described as being parasitic. Rather than me building a case against your straw man, find one reputable source provide the link please that describes the unborn human fetus as [i]PARASITIC[/i].
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
I don’t see that at all. Almost ALL adjectives have a noun counterpart. Please describe to me how the words used destroy my argument.
[/quote]
You don’t see it, because like I said before, you refuse to entertain anything anyone writes that might prove you to be incorrect. (This would explain why you ran away from the drinking age conversation you started.) I cannot believe you refuse to acknowledge that you are fully aware what a fucking adjective is, and how it is different than a noun, because it would ruin your bunk rebuttal.
I cannot fathom a grown, educated man would link a definition he didn’t comprehend.
But you know what, I’m going to show you why, that was a post rife with inconsistencies.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Redefining words to win an argument will NEVER allow you to win the debate.[/quote]
That isn’t what she did. Not at all. Not for one instant did she do that.
Did she imply that a fetus is analogous to a parasite by using the adjective “parasitic”? I’m about to get to that
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
par�??�?â?¢a�??�?â?¢site - [par-uh-sahyt]
noun[/quote]
I’m a super-fan of your google-fu, but too bad you are quoting and linking a word she didn’t use. Notice you quoted and linked to a noun, parasite. She used an adjective, parasitic. Adjectives describe nouns. Which means she used a word that means “what I’m talking about acts like a parasite.” She used the adjective parasitic to imply a fetus acts like a parasite. She did not, in fact call it a parasite.
Note my use of the word “like” in the second to last sentence. I am going to refute the argument brewing in your brain as you read this: one noun, one thing, doesn’t have to be a parasite to be described as acting like a parasite. That is the point of an adjective, to describe nouns.
She was describing a noun, using an adjective. You defined a noun, one she didn’t even use.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
- an organism that lives on or in [i][u]an organism of another species[/i][/u], known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.[/quote]
The distinction between noun and adjective here is important because note what you emphasized as proof of her fallacy. The portion of the definition you posted that speaks to a parasite being a separate species. This is were you claiming she is “redefining” a word is totally and completely false, therefore destroying your rebuttal.
She didn’t say the fetus was a parasite, she said it was parasitic. (I cannot believe I have to explain this…) She said it acts like a parasite, which would make what species it was moot, because you don’t have to be the noun to be described as having the characteristics of said noun.
So therefore she didn’t “redefine” anything. You just made a bad rebuttal. You shot for the empty net, and the puck hit the goal post.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Calling a newborn, who is the exact same species as the mother is a blatant attempt appealing to others emotions.[/quote]
Okay, first off, you are in no position to be calling others out on appeals to emotion. That would make you the largest hypocrite I have run across in a long time. The first photo you posted in the first post to the first thread that spawned this very thread was an appeal to emotion. (It also, most likely, exploited an innocent child to further an agenda that the child likely didn’t comprehend. But I’m speculating here.)
This is an emotional topic, and appeals to emotion are expected, and at times, almost necessary. If appeals to emotion where removed from this thread, your post count, among others, would drop dramatically. I would imagine it would still be in the first thread.
Secondly, she didn’t call the newborn anything. Nice try though. She was clearly speaking of an unborn child.
Third, she didn’t “call” the unborn child anything. She described it as being like something. Dang, that pesky little difference between a noun and adjective comes into play again.
Fourth, you or anyone else could get every doctor, priest and president that has ever lived to line up and show me study after study and chart after chart, lay the facts right down in front of me that shows how a fetus and a trichinella behave in a manor that is indistinguishable from each other for X amount of weeks, and I will reject the very notion it is possible. I’d sooner clean my ears with a shotgun that admit it was true, even if it were true.
That is why I’m taking exception to your post to her. I agree with the point you are trying to make. But you do such a bad job of making it, it makes me not want to agree, and I have to.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
If you would like to have a discussion, then please come forward with an open mind.[/quote]
This has to be a joke coming from you.
Your mind, at least about this topic, is so far from open it couldn’t be any further away. You cannot honestly believe you are open minded about this.
This statement is also completely irrelevant to her post, or your response until this point.
Now, I’m not saying your mind not being open about the subject is right or wrong. I have respect for your enthusiasm and determination. And I would imagine not having an open mind is why you are the way you are about it. So don’t take me pointing out how ludicrous it is for you to ask someone to “come forward with an open mind” about this topic as a slight. It isn’t. It is ludicrous, but not a slight.
The whole “I respond above your quotes to appear superior” is annoying as hell too.
[/quote] edited slightly
