Is Ted a monster?

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
It's a remote tundra. He knows nobody is coming in the next few minutes in a blizzard and he knows the child has minutes before she dies of exposure. That point is invalid.
No, it's a valid point, particularly since we know that someone DID come along within the last few minutes. It, and the other points I made, show that your analogy fails.
 

Simpletruther

Well-known member
No, it's a valid point, particularly since we know that someone DID come along within the last few minutes. It, and the other points I made, show that your analogy fails.
No it's not. Ted is watching through the window as she slowly dies. Even given it's possible that someone might come, though incredibly unlikely, He could simply let her in and save her while he waits to see if this remote chance materializes and someone comes up. So again that long is completely invalid.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
No it's not. Ted is watching through the window as she slowly dies. Even given it's possible that someone might come, though incredibly unlikely, He could simply let her in and save her while he waits to see if this remote chance materializes and someone comes up. So again that long is completely invalid.
Yes, it is. Of course it's possible. As already stated, a few minutes ago somebody did. They could come back. Somebody else could wander by. And you've not even addressed the point that the child is an actual born person, while a fetus is not.

That's three separate points that show your analogy to be bad. You've only even tried to address one (and failed at doing so).
 

Simpletruther

Well-known member
Yes, it is. Of course it's possible. As already stated, a few minutes ago somebody did. They could come back. Somebody else could wander by. And you've not even addressed the point that the child is an actual born person, while a fetus is not.

That's three separate points that show your analogy to be bad. You've only even tried to address one (and failed at doing so).
And as I just pointed out its irrelevant, because they monster could have saved the child in the mean time in case nobody showed. If somebody did show in the next twenty minutes then great he turns the child over and he is done. If they don't show, the child is still saved.

So that point is invalid as I said.

And this is a silly objection anyway as the scenario can easily be altered such that the man is certain nobody will come soon enough to save the child only he can do it.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
And as I just pointed out its irrelevant, because they monster could have saved the child in the mean time in case nobody showed. If somebody did show in the next twenty minutes then great he turns the child over and he is done. If they don't show, the child is still saved.
That doesn't change the fact. Your claim was that unless he takes the child in, the child dies. That is not correct.
So that point is invalid as I said.
No, it's not.
And this is a silly objection anyway as the scenario can easily be altered such that the man is certain nobody will come soon enough to save the child only he can do it.
Great. Then alter it. As it stands, it fails.
 

Simpletruther

Well-known member
That doesn't change the fact. Your claim was that unless he takes the child in, the child dies. That is not correct.

No, it's not.

Great. Then alter it. As it stands, it fails.


Since it is trivially obvious the analogy could add detail to make it impossible for help to come, this particular objection is not very relevant. The general idea is still being conveyed. Nobody is going to cut bob slack because he thought it theoretically possible someone could dash in, in the middle of the blizzard and save the child at the last minute. For all reasonable purposes he let her die and was the only realistic hope. He acted like a monster.
 
Last edited:

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Since it is trivially obvious the analogy could add detail to make it impossible for help to come, this particular objection is not very relevant. The general idea is still being conveyed. Nobody is going to cut bob slack because he thought it theoretically possible someone could dash in, in the middle of the blizzard and save the child at the last minute. For all reasonable purposes he let her die and was the only realistic hope. He acted like a monster.
So you believed all along that he acted like a monster...why did you ask everybody else? And what is the whole point of the exercise?
 

Simpletruther

Well-known member
lol...you've addressed one of my three points and failed to show how it is not valid.

Your analogy fails badly.
Lol, no I clearly showed your first point trivial. That there is a technical possibilty left in the analogy someone could swoop in and save the child no matter how unlikely, is trivial and doesn't really do anything to justify Ted watching her slowly die. It was a nitpick debate tactic rather a a real significant point.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Lol, no I clearly showed your first point trivial. That there is a technical possibilty left in the analogy someone could swoop in and save the child no matter how unlikely, is trivial and doesn't really do anything to justify Ted watching her slowly die. It was a nitpick debate tactic rather a a real significant point.
It was a fact that showed that your analogy is flawed. Someone could save the child; nobody can go through the pregnancy on behalf of another woman.

Not to mention that you've still failed to even address the other two objections I raised. And even if you had, there are still other objections to raise.

Sorry, but as an analogy to abortion, it fails.
 

Simpletruther

Well-known member
It was a fact that showed that your analogy is flawed. Someone could save the child; nobody can go through the pregnancy on behalf of another woman.

Not to mention that you've still failed to even address the other two objections I raised. And even if you had, there are still other objections to raise.

Sorry, but as an analogy to abortion, it fails.
Yes a minor point to show it's not a perfect analogy, ok. Which again is cheap debate tactic. Since the particular point makes no difference to the force of the analogy.

Because most anyone asked would still say Ted was a monster and the point you raise would be a pathetic excuse if Ted tried to use it to explain letting her die while she begged him.

"Gee I thought someone else might save her in this blizzard wasteland without a soul in sight for miles and she slowly dies"

I have zero doubt you know that is true. And have little doubt you will never admit it despite you and everyone else reading this knows it....this based upon past experience with you.
 
Last edited:

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Yes a minor point to show it's not a perfect analogy, ok. Which again is cheap debate tactic. Since the particular point makes no difference to the force of the analogy.
Of course it does. It, alone, kills the analogy. There's a chance that someone else could take care of the child. That makes it a bad analogy for abortion.
Because most anyone asked would still say Ted was a monster and the point you raise would be a pathetic excuse if Ted tried to use it to explain letting her die while she begged him.

"Gee I thought someone else might save her in this blizzard wasteland without a soul in sight for miles and she slowly dies"

I have zero doubt you know that is true. And have little doubt you will never admit it despite you and everyone else reading this knows it....this based upon past experience with you.
None of which even addresses the flaw - or addresses the two other problems with the analogy I raised (not to mention the ones I didn't raise).

It's a terrible analogy.
 

Simpletruther

Well-known member
Of course it does. It, alone, kills the analogy. There's a chance that someone else could take care of the child. That makes it a bad analogy for abortion.

None of which even addresses the flaw - or addresses the two other problems with the analogy I raised (not to mention the ones I didn't raise).

It's a terrible analogy.
Because most anyone asked would still say Ted was a monster and the point you raise would be a pathetic excuse if Ted tried to use it to explain letting her die while she begged him.

"Gee I thought someone else might save her in this blizzard wasteland without a soul in sight for miles and she slowly dies"

I have zero doubt you know that is true. And have little doubt you will never admit it despite you and everyone else reading this knows it....this based upon past experience with you
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Because most anyone asked would still say Ted was a monster and the point you raise would be a pathetic excuse if Ted tried to use it to explain letting her die while she begged him.

"Gee I thought someone else might save her in this blizzard wasteland without a soul in sight for miles and she slowly dies"

I have zero doubt you know that is true. And have little doubt you will never admit it despite you and everyone else reading this knows it....this based upon past experience with you
Whether it's a pathetic excuse is irrelevant; the fact that it is possible is one of the many things that make your situation a failed analogy for abortion.
 

Simpletruther

Well-known member
Whether it's a pathetic excuse is irrelevant; the fact that it is possible is one of the many things that make your situation a failed analogy for abortion.
Not at all and it’s a silly claim.

That an anology doesn’t have a perfect correspondence doesn’t in the least invalidate it necessarily.
The difference would have to make a difference in one’s view of the force. And a remote chance of rescue doesn’t change the force. Bob has n excuse.

And if you want to play the absurd possibility game, then technically it’s possible thst aliens can swoop down and save the unborn baby from abortion and grow it t in a pod.

So in both cases there is only an unrealistic else saving the child. A tight analogy.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Not at all and it’s a silly claim.
Yes, at all. You don't seem to understand - I'm not saying Ted isn't a bad person because the girl might be picked up by someone else. I'm saying that the analogy is bad because (among other reasons, which you continue to ignore) the girl might be picked up by someone else. That is not the case with a pregnancy.
That an anology doesn’t have a perfect correspondence doesn’t in the least invalidate it necessarily.
No, it doesn't. Of course, it's a sliding scale. Analogies can be anywhere from very good to very bad. Obviously, the less good the correspondence, the less good the analogy. Yours, for the reasons (note: reasons, not just this reason) I've given, is a bad one.
The difference would have to make a difference in one’s view of the force. And a remote chance of rescue doesn’t change the force. Bob has n excuse.
I do not understand the reference to the 'force' here.
And if you want to play the absurd possibility game, then technically it’s possible thst aliens can swoop down and save the unborn baby from abortion and grow it t in a pod.
Yup, it is. That possibility is present for both situations, so it doesn't make your analogy bad.
So in both cases there is only an unrealistic else saving the child. A tight analogy.
Comparing aliens swooping down to someone coming by (which, after all, just happened) is ridiculous.

And, of course, you've still not even addressed the other two points I raised.
 

Simpletruther

Well-known member
Yes, at all. You don't seem to understand - I'm not saying Ted isn't a bad person because the girl might be picked up by someone else. I'm saying that the analogy is bad because (among other reasons, which you continue to ignore) the girl might be picked up by someone else. That is not the case with a pregnancy.

No, it doesn't. Of course, it's a sliding scale. Analogies can be anywhere from very good to very bad. Obviously, the less good the correspondence, the less good the analogy. Yours, for the reasons (note: reasons, not just this reason) I've given, is a bad one.

I do not understand the reference to the 'force' here.

Yup, it is. That possibility is present for both situations, so it doesn't make your analogy bad.

Comparing aliens swooping down to someone coming by (which, after all, just happened) is ridiculous.

And, of course, you've still not even addressed the other two points I raised.
The alien claim isn’t much more redicuoius than you pretending a absurdly small likelihood of of someone coming out of knownere in a blizzard makes any significant difference to the analogy.
 
Top