I guess since babies don't have jobs, their value must be measured by their nutritional content, or the dollars per pound they fetch at the butcher's shop.
Does a baby have an inherent value to society at large? Yes of course. However where its real value is in its value to its family unit.
See the baby has value as a human being it has value to those in its family and the what not.
But let me ask you this. If my child got sick with cancer tomorrow how much are YOU willing to sacrifice for her sake? How much does she mean to society at large? How much are you going to care for her if me and my wife die? The truth is while we all go think of the childerns yet we really don't. They do tug at our heart strings so we are a bit more willing to open our purses for them in general. We do as a community deem somethings necessary for them a public education being one. Cause we hope that they grow up to become productive members or society at large.
BTW if you really wanted to poke a huge hole in my argument your best bet would to be to point out money earned through criminal pursuits. Then I would have had to start adding all sorts of caveats.
Throw a baby down a well, how much will society pay to get it out? Throw a baby into traffic, how many would risk their life to save it? Children have no income, but they could if we put them to work like we used to...they even work cheap...so why are there child labor laws?
You have conviction, but you haven't thought it through...
You want respectful replies? Then post in a respectful manner.
IIF I didn't complain about tone in the quote you posted initially...I said he isn't presenting a consistent platform to debate. My point about his response to PL was mostly that it was more coherent at least, so maybe he should try that? Because his more emotional responses to me are all over the place.
As to my first post, yep, had some snark. Called out no one specifically, quoted no one directly, no personal attacks, not a single swear word. Hardly lobbing molotov's. It did, however, clearly identify my point of contention right from the outset, give two assumptions that underlie the point I take issue with that I find faulty, then extended the reasoning behind those assumptions to their logical conclusions, which is ridiculous. This illustrates why I believe them faulty. It's not the most respectful rhetorical technique, but it does serve a purpose other than just being obnoxious.
For an idle post I free wrote on my phone I thought it wasn't too bad. Yeah, sarcasm is counterproductive most of the time, but it was too harsh for this board?
BTW, I would have thought that you would appreciate a structured argument from a noob poster (whether agreed with or not), but instead you've made two comments on my tone. Looking back over the posts, it looks like Flame ratio is about 10:1 between Goodlun and me...I appreciate that your reading and commenting on the thread, but are u just saying I should shut up and agree with Goodlun because he's senior on the board? I mean, I'm enjoying it now that I've determined he isn't just trolling (I'm pretty sure), but I've also been taking it REALLY easy on him, and that's apparently still too much...all I've done to this point is get him to publicly admit he compares unfavorably to Honey Boo Boo...