Traditional Catholic Man
@tradcatman.bsky.social
Reject the commodification & devaluation of human existence to advocate for life's sanctity #ProLife
False.
My argument was predicated on the justness of killing a child.
My argument was predicated on the justness of killing a child.
December 31, 2024 at 6:54 PM
False.
My argument was predicated on the justness of killing a child.
My argument was predicated on the justness of killing a child.
Yes I can.
Life from non-life has never been observed or replicated. Therefore, my argument still stands as valid.
Life from non-life has never been observed or replicated. Therefore, my argument still stands as valid.
December 30, 2024 at 4:45 PM
Yes I can.
Life from non-life has never been observed or replicated. Therefore, my argument still stands as valid.
Life from non-life has never been observed or replicated. Therefore, my argument still stands as valid.
What I am does not determine the validity of my argument. The antecedent and consequent do that:
P -> Q, P .: Q
You are inferring:
Religious(x) .: ¬(P ^ Q)
It represents a misuse of logic as x is incongruent with P & Q. Where did I use a religious premise in my rebuttal?
P -> Q, P .: Q
You are inferring:
Religious(x) .: ¬(P ^ Q)
It represents a misuse of logic as x is incongruent with P & Q. Where did I use a religious premise in my rebuttal?
December 29, 2024 at 3:34 PM
What I am does not determine the validity of my argument. The antecedent and consequent do that:
P -> Q, P .: Q
You are inferring:
Religious(x) .: ¬(P ^ Q)
It represents a misuse of logic as x is incongruent with P & Q. Where did I use a religious premise in my rebuttal?
P -> Q, P .: Q
You are inferring:
Religious(x) .: ¬(P ^ Q)
It represents a misuse of logic as x is incongruent with P & Q. Where did I use a religious premise in my rebuttal?
"child" refers to the age and level of development of a human being, e.g:
(a) A human being.
(b) Below the age of 18.
A human foetus posses both of these attributes, e.g., (a) refers to the substantial form, (b) refers to the accidental form.
It's a child.
(a) A human being.
(b) Below the age of 18.
A human foetus posses both of these attributes, e.g., (a) refers to the substantial form, (b) refers to the accidental form.
It's a child.
December 29, 2024 at 1:39 PM
"child" refers to the age and level of development of a human being, e.g:
(a) A human being.
(b) Below the age of 18.
A human foetus posses both of these attributes, e.g., (a) refers to the substantial form, (b) refers to the accidental form.
It's a child.
(a) A human being.
(b) Below the age of 18.
A human foetus posses both of these attributes, e.g., (a) refers to the substantial form, (b) refers to the accidental form.
It's a child.
Who the author is does not determine whether the treatise is true or false. The propositions determine whether the treatise is true or false.
Starting with the first proposition: is this true or false?
Starting with the first proposition: is this true or false?
December 29, 2024 at 1:36 PM
Who the author is does not determine whether the treatise is true or false. The propositions determine whether the treatise is true or false.
Starting with the first proposition: is this true or false?
Starting with the first proposition: is this true or false?
This is my position (below), the position you replied to.
If you don't know whether my position is true or false, then you cannot claim it to be either, i.e., you cannot refute my position.
If you don't know whether my position is true or false, then you cannot claim it to be either, i.e., you cannot refute my position.
December 29, 2024 at 10:49 AM
This is my position (below), the position you replied to.
If you don't know whether my position is true or false, then you cannot claim it to be either, i.e., you cannot refute my position.
If you don't know whether my position is true or false, then you cannot claim it to be either, i.e., you cannot refute my position.
On the contrary, if God is God then he must exist necessarily rather than contingently, in B-theory of time rather than A-theory of time.
Do you know the difference between A-theory and B-theory of time?
Do you know the difference between A-theory and B-theory of time?
December 28, 2024 at 7:45 PM
On the contrary, if God is God then he must exist necessarily rather than contingently, in B-theory of time rather than A-theory of time.
Do you know the difference between A-theory and B-theory of time?
Do you know the difference between A-theory and B-theory of time?
If you read the article then you would not respond by stating the same logical fallacy. Unless you read it but didn't understand it.
Here you go...
Here you go...
December 28, 2024 at 7:38 PM
If you read the article then you would not respond by stating the same logical fallacy. Unless you read it but didn't understand it.
Here you go...
Here you go...
It is unjust to end the life of a child, it is unjust to throw a child away in a rubbish bin.
Both are unjust actions.
Further, don't lie.
Both are unjust actions.
Further, don't lie.
December 28, 2024 at 4:12 PM
It is unjust to end the life of a child, it is unjust to throw a child away in a rubbish bin.
Both are unjust actions.
Further, don't lie.
Both are unjust actions.
Further, don't lie.
I belong to X, thus proving your claim to be a false claim.
I digress, here you go...
I digress, here you go...
December 27, 2024 at 7:19 PM
I belong to X, thus proving your claim to be a false claim.
I digress, here you go...
I digress, here you go...
On the contrary, my question is predicated on a what, not on a why. The reason for procuring an abortion is incongruent with whether she did procure an abortion.
Either she did or she didn't.
You answered a question that wasn't asked. That's on you.
Either she did or she didn't.
You answered a question that wasn't asked. That's on you.
December 27, 2024 at 3:36 PM
On the contrary, my question is predicated on a what, not on a why. The reason for procuring an abortion is incongruent with whether she did procure an abortion.
Either she did or she didn't.
You answered a question that wasn't asked. That's on you.
Either she did or she didn't.
You answered a question that wasn't asked. That's on you.
May I prevail upon your good favour to state which part[s] of this is false, and why it is false?
December 27, 2024 at 3:34 PM
May I prevail upon your good favour to state which part[s] of this is false, and why it is false?
No it wasn't.
It was this.
It was this.
December 26, 2024 at 2:58 PM
No it wasn't.
It was this.
It was this.
A child and a foetus are both human beings below the age of one year. Same substantial form, same accidental form, i.e., same thing: children.
I did make a religious argument, so why are you bringing religion into it?
I did make a religious argument, so why are you bringing religion into it?
December 26, 2024 at 2:41 PM
A child and a foetus are both human beings below the age of one year. Same substantial form, same accidental form, i.e., same thing: children.
I did make a religious argument, so why are you bringing religion into it?
I did make a religious argument, so why are you bringing religion into it?
I rebutted your argument (below) and you replied to my rebuttal by using Argumentum Ad Hominem to shift the topic.
I think we're done here. Thank you kindly for the discourse, I wish you all health and happiness.
I think we're done here. Thank you kindly for the discourse, I wish you all health and happiness.
December 26, 2024 at 2:36 PM
I rebutted your argument (below) and you replied to my rebuttal by using Argumentum Ad Hominem to shift the topic.
I think we're done here. Thank you kindly for the discourse, I wish you all health and happiness.
I think we're done here. Thank you kindly for the discourse, I wish you all health and happiness.
Inconguent. "shifting the topic" logical fallacy.
December 26, 2024 at 2:04 PM
Inconguent. "shifting the topic" logical fallacy.