That is not what I said. Your arbitrary assertions and misrepresentations are not "refutations". Word manipulations on behalf of your feelings are not logic.

"So you have eaten a child or a fetus, then? If not, your argument is specious and ridiculous" is bizarre, not logic.

Here's your argument laid out very simply in logical argument form:
A. People eat things that don't have rights.
B. Fetuses don't have rights.
A&B -> C. Fetuses have no rights and therefore may be eaten.

I simply pointed out that C doesn't hold in observation. Therefore either A or B or both must be false. It's actually 100% logical - it just refutes your assertion.

I did not say anything about eating children or fetuses. It's all yours. You said "So you have eaten a child or a fetus, then? If not, your argument is specious and ridiculous." Your leaps into the bizarre show that you have no concept of rational discussion.

You don't agree that only people have rights. You think fetuses have rights because they are "alive". That we don't "eat fetuses" does not give them rights.

You were the one who cited the example that we kill and eat other living things all the time. I simply pointed out that we don't kill and eat other humans - even the unborn - thus there is a significant distinction between man and beast.

"Only people have rights."

I completely agree. Your example, however, singled out the killing and eating of another creature as an example of presence of rights for man but not for beast. I don't see people killing and eating fetuses. If they have no rights, why not? If there is no difference between them, why not? It's your assertion. Defend it if you can.

Where do come up with nonsense like "eaten a child" as a requirement for an argument to not be "specious"? You are truly bizarre.

The reason why we have rights, which has been explained to you many times, has nothing to do with the fact of simply being alive. All kinds of creatures are alive and don't have rights. You said "A right to one's own life in no way gives one power to terminate another's". You terminate the lives of creatures who are alive all the time. Only people have rights. This has nothing to do with eating children or fetuses, which is not required to follow a simple explanation.

An individual has rights when he is an individual i.e. when he is born. He has no rights as a fetus as it is not an individual before then. Once the infant's head breaks a certain plane, he is then an individual with rights. An individual has rights so long as he has not abrogated the rights of others. The explicit knowledge of rights is not a pre-condition of those rights. Let's not play chicken and the egg.

After reviewing the history of this thread I noticed that basically after you post on things people stop talking. Seems that you are the annoying boor that everybody avoids at parties. Sorry I didn't realize that you are that pompous boor. I will bow out now and allow you to talk to yourself.

I do want to congratulate you on being the first person I have met here in the Gulch that I will be ignoring going forward.

Eyecu2's repetitive disgusting personal attacks, misrepresentations and dishonest attempts to undermine my posts as well as Ayn Rand's philosophy as nothing but unsubstantiated "opinion" no better than anything else as a matter of a priori principle are reprehensible. He cannot hide behind "opinion" to rationalize his nihilism. His posts have been perverse and dishonest. Discussion with him is impossible. Anyone can look at his history on this page and see that. He does not belong here.

No sir are the one who doesn't belong. When asked for an opinion I gave mine. No one asked you to declare that your opinion is the only valid opinion. Your having done so is what leads me to the comparisons that you find insulting. Completely fair and valid comparisons to both your tactics and diatribe. Yes your verbal diarrhea is offensive. Not because of its content but because of your demanding that it is the only valid opinion.

So I say again if you don't like my opinion, quit talking to me.

Your arbitrary pronouncement that what someone else writes is a priori mere unfounded opinion is not fact. It is a false assertion. You cannot hide behind "opinion" to escape responsibility for what you are doing. You are evasive and arrogantly, personally insulting. Philosophy is not mere taste. Posts you don't like are not "diahrrea". Take your food fight somewhere else. The entire mentality in your posts are in fact perverse for the reasons given several times. You don't belong here.

Perhaps it was because there is no such thing as a "fallacy of the exclusivity of an unborn child to its mother", which is incoherent. We have heard the religious assertions and rationalizations dogmatically denying a woman's right to not bear a child many times. There is no reason to have a perpetually "open mind" to every variation of what one already knows to be wrong. Rejection of religious dogma violating the rights of the individual is not mere "opinion" no better than anything else.

This thread is asking for an opinion. Your opinion is not a fact. If you desire someone to go elsewhere then go. As to being perverse, it is perverse that you continually attack my opinion and demand that I change. You offer nothing but your opinion and demand that it is fact. This is as ridiculous as me claiming that brussel sprouts are the best food possible and then demanding that you agree with me. BTW, I hate brussel sprouts but this is an example, I have no desire to discuss food with you.

To whoever took my point, enjoy it. But you really should hear the argument before you judge. Fact is what is said is entirely accurate even if it flies against conventional wisdom held by society and the opinions of objectivists here.

As stated above I will explain myself, just not here. But then you'd have to be open minded enough to actually listen AND willing to check your premise.

When someones gives reasons for a position, you cannot in logic arbitrarily ignore it by proclaiming in advance that is mere opinion. This obviously -- to everyone else -- is not "forcing opinions" on you, even when you yell in all capital letters. Anyone can see in your posts your stream of repetitive one-liner disgusting insults and arrogant false accusations substituting for rational discussion, which you deliberately ignore and evade. You are not engaging in discussion and cannot be expected to understand it. Your posts are perverse. No one enjoys that. Take your dogmatically unfounded "opinions", misrepresentations, insults, and evasions somewhere else. It does not belong on an Ayn Rand forum.

Troll? Until now I was assuming that you were attempting to troll me (and enjoying it too).

AJAshinoff asked for opinions and I offered my opinion, which I have repeatedly called my opinion. You jumped in and tried to correct my opinion with your opinion that you call facts. You get bent out of shape when I call your opinion reasonable but not acceptable for myself.

I have not at any time participated in name calling. I have rightly labeled your actions as Liberal like, when you demand that your opinion is accepted as fact. I have correctly described your long tedious rants to get me to accept your opinions as fact, as being verbal diarrhea or a tirade. If you find this criticism odious might I suggest that you adjust your actions. One doesn't remove corrective punishment from an unruly child just because they complain of the punishment.

Understand that I have a right to my opinion and whether or not you like it I have that right. You too have a right to your opinion whether or not I agree with it, but you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE YOUR OPINION ON ANYONE ELSE! If you do not like my opinion then quit talking to me.

Social context does not mean whatever you feel is "relevant". It refers to individuals interacting with each other. The concept of rights requires such a context. It is meaningless without that. The concept of rights only arises because of the fact that people relate to one another, which requires that society be subordinated to morality. "Life" is a distinct concept from a right to life. You are equivocating to rationalize using 'rights' as if it were a mystical 'intrinsic' property without regard to objective meaning and context.

eycu2 has repeatedly strewn insults as a substitute for reasoned argument, including the disgusting "diarrhea" and"'tirade" that he just arrogantly repeated. He does not belong here.

His repetitious name-calling of "like Liberals", characteristically with not even an attempt to state why, is making "Liberals" look better all the time. If only.

Discussion with him proved impossible long ago. His dogmatic assertions systematically evade all previous content as he pretends nothing has been said. He thinks he can get away with this evasion by dismissing whatever he doesn't like as "opinion" not requiring any acknowledgment. His repetitiously arrogant and condescending accusations, insults and evasions are perverse. He appears to be a deliberately obnoxious provocateur trying to see how far he can suck people into his game, which was over long ago. No one should take this troll seriously. He should be removed from the forum.

You should read Ayn Rand's explanations of rights, and in particular her defense of a woman's right of having an abortion if she does not choose to bear a child. It is fundamental to understand the concept of rights and their source, and not arbitrarily try to assign rights without regard to context and meaning.

This topic has been discussed many times on the forum. One post on this same page that is especially relevant is https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... But it's necessary to under the basic concepts. Jumping into the middle of a discussion may presume too much prior knowledge.

I have yet to insult you. I have compared what you are doing to the methods or tactics used by Liberals. If you find that insulting might I suggest you change your tactics.

You refuse to acknowledge that this is a discussion of opinions, that is the mistake that you are making here. Do you not understand the meaning of the word opinion? Or maybe you do not understand the meaning of philosophy. If you will go back and re-read my earlier posts, I included definitions of those two words.

As to me changing from calling your posts diarrhea to tirades. In the context of this discussion they are basically synonymous ie. mean the same thing.

Posted by ewv 1 hour, 43 minutes ago
"Your post is unresponsive to the difference in biological context before and after birth."

OK Would you then further explain or define what is meant by "biological context" since I do not understand the differences between the day before, the day of, and the day after http://birth.in a biological context.

And secondly since I'm sure you agree with Jefferson's DOI, when does the right to life apply and why at that time of the child's existence?

So now he's gone from "diarrhia" to "tirades". Philosophical truths are not by nature mere "opinion" and reasoned arguments are not "tactics". Rejecting Eyecu2's dogmatic philosophical skepticism and his arrogantly anti-intellectual a priori refusal to discuss any philosophical reasoning is not a "tirade" and not "Liberal". Neither are the refutations of the numerous false assertions he has made, which he ignores as if it never happened. He evasively refuses to discuss content on principle, replacing rational discussion with a repetitious stream of personal insults as he evades serious discussion on principle.

Discussion with someone who claims that everything is mere "opinion" as an excuse in advance to evade it no matter what is said is obviously impossible, but exposing him for what he is is not. The attempt to on principle reduce everything to "opinion" with no more value than anything else is nihilistic, self-contradictory and dishonest. He wants his own "opinions", including his "opinion" denying objectivity on principle, to be taken seriously as a justification for trashing and undermining whatever he wants regardless of what it is, while he pretends that they too are only "opinion" with no requirement to justify his assertions. It's not an innocent mistake. Both this overt nihilism refusing to acknowledge the content of and reasons for what others say and his stream of personal insults are contrary to the purpose and standards of this forum and do not belong here.

Your post is unresponsive to the difference in biological context before and after birth. It is not about having a brain or any other internal organ beginning to develop at "conception". Assigning rights to cells, embryos and fetuses by pointing to some internal organ development that begins before birth, which obviously it has to, completely ignores the meaning and source of the concept rights, ignoring why anything has rights and what that means. You can't point to some philosophically irrelevant isolated fact and leap to a much broader religious claim in the name of science. This has been discussed here in detail, which you have not addressed. Rejecting this rationalistic abuse of "science" is not "opinion".

I disagree with you to a degree. Again, I do not want this thread to redirect into a discussion on abortion and I certainly don't want to debate here the fallacy of the exclusivity of an unborn child to its mother.

I'm not saying this to tick anyone off. I have legitimate reason to see the matter as I do. If you want to talk more on this I will, just not here.