Roxeanne de Luca is an angry little person

I have written about Roxeanne de Luca a few times. She’s an annoying little creature who has a tendency to abuse science and logic. For instance, she once read a CNN article which clearly pointed out that while condom use amongst certain groups was on the rise, it was not yet high enough to offset the rates of various infections. From that she concluded that condoms are ineffective and that the best solution is to encourage abstinence. It was clearly an embarrassing thing to say, but she held her ground. She commented on my post and said that efforts to discourage condom use and encourage abstinence had resulted in lower HIV rates in South Africa. I said that was not true, supplied her with a source, and even broke down the information for her. The fact is, higher rates of condom use have been amazing for much of Africa, including South Africa. She then babbled something about me not supplying any sources (which would have been risible had it not been so awesomely mind boggling). She also said, apparently oblivious to her own unsourced statements about South Africa, that I had made the positive claim and I still needed to support it. Maybe she doesn’t know what “support” means? I’m not sure. Then she called me a liar about my age and ran away.

Fast forward and we have two more encounters with the creature. First, I recently wrote about the need for basic philosophy courses at the high school level because Roxeanne hasn’t the skill set necessary to participate in ethical issues that involve people other than herself. For example, she recently said it would be good to allow employers to force women to disclose whether they need birth control for contraceptive purposes or some other medical purpose. This would be a solution to the current Republican-created issue about mandating that insurance companies cover contraceptive care for women. Since both sides of the aisle at least agree that there is no moral issue in forcing insurance providers to cover non-reproductive related care, this seems to superficially work. But that’s where the problem is. If Roxeanne had the critical thinking skills that come with philosophy, she would know to look deeper. Namely, she would have asked if it was ethical to force patients to disclose their medical information to a third party in this context. Unfortunately, it didn’t even cross her mind that she needs to examine the consequences of her ‘solution’ in order to make sure it can actually work. As I said in my original post, it’s as if she’s playing chess without looking beyond her immediate move.

Second, she recently left a comment on one of the Doonesbury cartoons I posted. She contended that since an abortion is generally an invasive procedure, women shouldn’t have a problem with first having other invasive things put inside them. That is, women should be okay with trans-vaginal ultrasounds if they’re going to have other medical tools placed in their vaginas anyway. This was another embarrassment for Roxeanne. She may as well have said that men who have prostate exams (something which is voluntary, just like most abortions) should be okay with any state-sponsored device going up their anuses since they’re going to have a doctor’s fingers up there anyway. This is yet another example of why basic philosophy needs to be offered as early as possible.

Now to shift away from FTSOS, let’s look at Roxeanne’s blog. In the process of making my recent post about her here, I decided to also leave a comment on her site (which is what prompted her to sneak over here). I’ll keep the details short: She is contending that a couple which would abort a child under certain conditions (such as when the child has Down’s Syndrome) cannot later love that child. She believes these two things are mutually exclusive. Of course, she’s assuming that the couple views abortion as murder. Moreover, she’s assuming that if a person has a preference in their future child that love cannot later overcome it. It would be as if she wanted a house-trained dog, ended up getting one that pees all over the floor, and then when she keeps it and loves it anyway, some angry Internet personality came by and tells her she doesn’t really love it. Why, if she loved it, she would have always preferred a non-house broken dog! Once again, Roxeanne has embarrassed herself.

But let’s get to the really angry part. I mean, just steaming mad. It came in the form of an email this past Friday:

You obviously have no idea what an arrogant and ignorant little shit you sound like. Please, get out of school (you aren’t learning anything), get into the real world, and get a job.

Take, for example, your “only in college” idiocy from your latest trolling of my blog. Here’s the situation: two parents would have killed their baby girl if they had known that she had Down’s Syndrome. They missed their window of opportunity to have her ripped limb from limb, so they sued the hospital. Legally, they have no case unless (a) she already existed and (b) they would have killed her within that legally-allowable baby-killing window. Missing this very obvious point, you tell me that I need to: “Is this couple saying they want to now kill their child? Where did they say that. Please provide some quotations.”

Then I’m the annoying little creature who abuses science and logic. Well, from your perspective, that might be true, but from my more educated, more rational, real-world and academic perspective, you’re dead wrong.

Yeah, I played that card. Stop belittling your betters. You’ll get along in life more easily.

I still don’t see where Roxeanne is able to produce a single quote where the couple says they love their daughter now yet would kill her today if it was legal. And, of course, that quote doesn’t exist. Unfortunately, Roxeanne has no idea that it is the only way she can actually make her case.

Anyway. I’ve run across plenty of angry people on the Internet. I’ve even become angry plenty of times. But what I’ve never seen is a person get this angry this quickly. It isn’t like she isn’t responding to me on her blog. Despite doing that ever-so-annoying bullshit where comments are kept in moderation (thereby forcing me to copy them for future reference in case she makes alterations), she is allowing my posts. And she is replying; that apparently isn’t enough to quench her anger, though. For Roxeanne de Luca, it takes comments on not one blog, not two blogs, but on two blogs and in an email. “LOOK AT ME, MICHAEL! LOOK AT ME! I’M MAD AT YOU! YOU MUST KNOW THIS!”

I’m not sure which is more pathetic, the fact that she is so incredibly quick to anger or the fact that she’s so constantly trying to play up that she’s smarter than I am. First of all, she isn’t smarter than I am. Not by a long shot. I realize that’s an egotistical statement, but it’s factual. Look at the evidence: She concluded something incredibly stupid about condom usage, she doesn’t understand what constitutes a source or citation, she is unsure of what a positive claim is, she is unable to consider ethical issues beyond a superficial level, she thinks people who get elective procedures can legally be subjected to similar procedures as a consequence, and she believes that every single couple that would abort a fetus cannot, by definition, ever love their child in the future. I mean. This has to be embarrassing.

Second, her rhetoric reeks of desperation. It has been successful in getting a response from me (which, considering how much she craves my attention, is probably all she wants), but a mosquito on my arm can also get me to take short notice. Annoying things do that from time to time, I suppose. However, that isn’t an excuse for such superficial, amateurish rhetoric. It may match the level to which she is able to extend her logic, but it’s very much below what I expect from someone so willing to claim the mantle of intelligence.

You know, I’ve gone after a lot of different people in my time. A lot. But I don’t think it has ever been this easy.

About these ads

33 Responses

  1. You two might be made for each other.

  2. ROFLMAO.

    You really spent like five hours of your life talking about how much you dislike me? Get a life!

  3. […] Does anyone want to fisk Michael Hawkins?  For those who do not know, Mr. Hawkins is a college senior who is rather full of himself and thinks that I’m a shallow-thinking idiot.  (If I said that he’s a pro-choice liberal who studies philosophy and is also more than 25 years old, you would all start to snort your decaf in laughter.) […]

  4. “You’re blogging about me? Lol! Get a life! Oh. And here’s a link back to a post I made about you.”

    You really do struggle with thinking ahead more than one step.

  5. She believes these two things are mutually exclusive.

    No, she claims they are inconsistent. The Levy’s are suing the hospital for funds they say they will need to care for their daughter, and they are claiming the hospital is responsible because they never would have had the daughter if they had known she was sick. They would have just aborted her. But now that they have her, they love her. They just want the money.

    Many people that are surprised to learn they have a developmentally challenged child end up saying that the child turned out to be a blessing, that they love and cherish the child, and would not want to have aborted it. In the Levy’s case, they say the love and cherish the child, but they would have aborted it. They are arguing that they would have killed the child, and would have if they had only known. Parents making the case in a court of law that they would have killed their developing child (oh, I’m sorry – terminated) are leaving a public record that their child was unwanted and a burden. These actions are inconsistent with a loving parent, as are the comparisons the Levy’s make between their healthy children and the developmentally disabled child. The entire argument underscores a callous disregard for human life that is more and more commonplace in a society that places a premium on personal convenience.

  6. Roxeanne is saying that loving one’s disabled child and favoring abortion of disabled fetuses are incompatible with each other, that, yes, they are inconsistent. Or, to put it another way, she is saying these things are mutually exclusive.

    Yes, they do want money. They were saddled with problems which they planned on avoiding in life. Unfortunately, the hospital made a mistake, so now they feel they should be compensated. You have not made a point other than to imply that you think associating money with this couple makes them inherently evil.

    Many people that are surprised to learn they have a developmentally challenged child end up saying that the child turned out to be a blessing, that they love and cherish the child, and would not want to have aborted it. In the Levy’s case, they say the love and cherish the child, but they would have aborted it.

    You’re just making stuff up. People who turn out to be happy with a child they once thought would be too much of a burden say they are glad things turned out the way they did. Maybe they have even had their perspectives changed in regards to future children. However, none of that changes the past. If a couple says they would have aborted a disabled child if they had correct information, no amount of current happiness can change that. The Levy’s are no different; you’re attempting to draw a distinction which is entirely non-existent.

    Parents making the case in a court of law that they would have killed their developing child (oh, I’m sorry – terminated) are leaving a public record that their child was unwanted and a burden.

    You know who else would have terminated an unwanted fetus if given the correct information? All the parents you already mentioned.

    These actions are inconsistent with a loving parent,

    I once got a chocolate ice cream because I thought they were out of strawberry. After I started eating my cone, I found out someone had given me incorrect information and they still had the flavor I wanted. If I could have gone back in time, I would have gotten that strawberry ice cream. By your ‘logic’, I must hate chocolate.

    as are the comparisons the Levy’s make between their healthy children and the developmentally disabled child.

    They are highlighting the expectations they had based upon the misinformation the hospital gave them – that their daughter would be as healthy as their other children – in order to make their point. It does not follow that they therefore do not love their daughter.

    The entire argument underscores a callous disregard for human life that is more and more commonplace in a society that places a premium on personal convenience.

    Nope. It’s your incorrect framing of the facts and logic of the situation coupled with your non-scientific belief that a fetus is a human which attempts to create an argument which has anything to do with any sort of regard or disregard for human life.

  7. If they didn’t want the financial burden of raising their child, they could have put her up for adoption. (They still can, by the way.) But if they do that, they would only get minimal money from the hospital. If they would not have aborted the girl, they wouldn’t have any damages (as a legal matter). The only way that the family can get money is by claiming that they would have aborted her, but that they love her so dearly that they couldn’t give her up for adoption.

    Perhaps if you were to step outside the classroom, you would understand these things.

    and she believes that every single couple that would abort a fetus cannot, by definition, ever love their child in the future. I mean. This has to be embarrassing.

    ROFL.

    Um, Michael? I never said that. If you understood philosophy even a tenth as well as you said you did, you would understand that.

    What I said, as Nicholas said, is that loving your child and suing over having wanted to kill it, and still wishing that you did, are inconsistent. I am the first to say that many people are unsure about pregnancy but feel very differently once they meet their baby. But they aren’t suing over the lost right to have aborted. What you keep ignoring is that the genesis of the lawsuit is over the desire to go back in time and kill the child you claim to love so very much. Then you claim I’m angry, unintelligent, an embarrassment, and cowardly.

    No, I’m just an intelligent woman who has had enough of your idiocy.

  8. Roxeanne, you aren’t given any different of an analysis of the facts than anyone else. Yes, the couple is in a situation where they must claim that they would have aborted their fetus if given correct information. And yes, they are saying that they quickly came to love their child, a love which persists. But that’s where you lose it. At that point you just arbitrarily declare that people can’t love a child they would have aborted as a fetus because you personally think a fetus is the same thing as a human. You have an inability to view life from any perspective except your own.

    What I said, as Nicholas said, is that loving your child and suing over having wanted to kill it, and still wishing that you did, are inconsistent.

    If you’re going to contend that I’m wrong about something, it doesn’t help your case to then sum up your position in the exact same way I did.

    But they aren’t suing over the lost right to have aborted.

    They are suing over getting incorrect information, something which impacted their decision to exercise their rights.

    Then you claim I’m angry, unintelligent, an embarrassment, and cowardly.

    1. I claimed you’re angry because you sent me an email in addition to replying elsewhere. You not only really want my attention, but you also really want me to know how angry you are. 2. I later pointed out that you are not nearly as intelligent as I am and that claims to the contrary are risible. That does not mean I said you are unintelligent (though you’re making a hell of a case that you aren’t). 3. I’ve been repeating that you’ve embarrassed yourself because you said overtly illogical things about condoms, citations, positive claims, ethical issues, elective surgeries, and now this. 4. I said you were cowardly because you have a tendency to run away from discussions when the facts against you are exposed clearly. Moreover, you’ve been deleting comments on your own blog a la Neil rather than allowing your readers to see that you – gasp! – but be wrong. 5. And as if all that wasn’t enough, now you appear to be contending that all these claims of mine are based upon this single topic. No, Roxeanne. No. You have a distinct history and I’ve described it accurately.

    No, I’m just an intelligent woman who has had enough of your idiocy.

    Here’s the problem I have with your rhetoric: You attempt to use it to imply things which you have not established. For instance, there have been at least three times now that you’ve tried to say I don’t like you because you have a vagina. Your evidence includes me saying (quite some time ago) that you tried to claim the mantle of science and….well, I think that’s it. You’ve also attempted to say I’m an idiot, unintelligent, etc, but you started making these declarations without demonstrating why you think they’re true. I’m all for name-calling and insults, but those things need to have some real basis. If you look to my superior writing, you’ll see that when I say you’ve embarrassed yourself, I’ve established why I think that is.

  9. They are suing over getting incorrect information, something which impacted their decision to exercise their rights.

    As an attorney, I’m here to tell you that you are wrong. Incorrect information is not a basis for a lawsuit. The basis is that the incorrect information caused them to lose out on a legal right, which is to kill their child.

    If the couple really loved their baby, they would be THANKING the people for getting it wrong, not suing them.

    Not my fault that you fail to grasp this basic point, or are twisting and squirming to avoid it. That doesn’t make me stupid or any other ad hominem you want to throw against me.

    FYI to your readers: I received an engineering degree and a liberal arts degree (in four years, mind you) from one of the best universities in the nation. I received my JD from a top law school, with honours. When I was in the tech field, I worked in R&D and presented my findings at national conferences. The largest newspaper in my state has featured me on the front page of one of its sections. In addition to my day job, I’ve worked in think tanks and on high-level campaigns, developing public policy.

    Have fun twisting that into “dumb.” But as Neil keeps pointing out, calling me stupid is the concession speech.

  10. As an attorney, I’m here to tell you that you are wrong. Incorrect information is not a basis for a lawsuit. The basis is that the incorrect information caused them to lose out on a legal right, which is to kill their child.

    What is wrong with you? You have this habit of telling people they’ve misstated the facts, but then you immediately go and restate the exact same thing. Do you think that something becomes correct by virtue of Roxeanne de Luca typing it?

    The fact is, the couple did not lose any rights. They lost the ability to exercise their rights because they were given faulty information. Feel free to say this exact same thing again under a slightly different arrangement if it makes you feel better.

    If the couple really loved their baby, they would be THANKING the people for getting it wrong, not suing them.

    Are you willing to admit that you’re calling this couple liars when they say they love their child?

    Not my fault that you fail to grasp this basic point, or are twisting and squirming to avoid it. That doesn’t make me stupid or any other ad hominem you want to throw against me.

    I’m not sure if I should point out the irony in you chastising someone about ad hominens, if I should tell you that you clearly aren’t sure of the difference between an ad hominen which is a fallacy and one which is not a fallacy, or if I should note that you’re responding to the actual meat of what I said anyway. For now I will just say how amazed I am at the number of times that I can correct stuff you say by creating lists of three, four, five, or even more things which demonstrate how wrong you are.

    FYI to your readers: I received an engineering degree and a liberal arts degree (in four years, mind you) from one of the best universities in the nation. I received my JD from a top law school, with honours. When I was in the tech field, I worked in R&D and presented my findings at national conferences. The largest newspaper in my state has featured me on the front page of one of its sections. In addition to my day job, I’ve worked in think tanks and on high-level campaigns, developing public policy.

    And here we go with another instance where I can make several points to demonstrate your wrongness. First, you’re attempting to make an argument from authority. In this context that is a logical fallacy. Second, your logical fallacy doesn’t even work the way you intend because none of the things in your experience are especially relevant. You have a JD and that gives you credence on your claim about the lawsuit, but even there you’re only attempting to play semantics.

    Have fun twisting that into “dumb.” But as Neil keeps pointing out, calling me stupid is the concession speech.

    Here are some quotes from you:

    “Michael: that you are too stupid to understand…”

    “Their entire argument, my dear dumbass,…”

    “Michael, my darling idiot…”

    “You damn fool.”

    ““I’m suing over the right to kill the daughter I love” is all sorts of fucked up, as are the 26-year-old college students who pretend to be super-intellectual, better-than-thou philosophers but don’t understand that actual adults see them as smarmy, dumb twerps.”

  11. Michael, babe, you started it by calling me dumb. Anti-science. Lacking in an understanding of philosophy.

    I was not “making an argument from authority.” My point, which you missed (huge surprise), is that if you are indeed smarter than I am, you would have gone to Colby, Bates, Bowdoin, or the like on a free ride. You might have gone to Harvard. Great schools offered me free rides, Michael, based on academic prowess. If you are demonstrably more intelligent than I am, those opportunities would have been available to you. But they weren’t. Sorry.

    Incidentally, it took my friend Matt all of five seconds to slap you silly on my blog. Quite funny.

  12. […] Now, I’m not a fan of credentialism (“Obama went to HLS, and therefore, he’s Teh Most Brilliant Prez EVA!”), but, to a certain extent, your academic success is a measure of intelligence.  Back in the ’90s, when I was in high school, some well-regarded schools were sending me letters and begging me to apply for merit scholarships.  Had I had to pay my way through school, I would be a graduate of somewhere like Lehigh, Allegheny, or BU.  (There was also the automatic free ride at my state’s flagship school, in the honours programme, based on class rank.) What would not have happened is that I would be a 26-year-old student at Podunk U, claiming to be the most brilliant person in the histor…. […]

  13. I “started it”? Are you in the third grade? And what sort of memory do you fancy yourself to have? Are you going to respond to my 5 quotes of you insulting me? Do those quotes mean you’ve started the concession speech? Why or why not?

    I’ve called your arguments non-scientific because you use subjective opinion in place of evidence. I don’t think you hate science. That’s more of your friend Neil’s thing.

    Again, I’ve said you need philosophy lessons because you lack the critical thinking skills that it brings. Your arguments consistently look ahead single steps and nothing beyond that.

    You certainly did make an argument from authority. And you’re still doing it. You believe that people who go to particular schools (good job using Google to search for private schools in Maine) carry more weight in their arguments. In addition to that you are now claiming that the availability of scholarships indicates one’s intelligence. If you must know, I go to UMA because it’s near the vast majority of my family. I didn’t bother applying elsewhere because I knew I would get in here; I’ve had plenty of my education paid for via scholarships and grants. When I apply for graduate school, it is unlikely I will be footing much of the bill, if any.

    Incidentally, it took my friend Matt all of five seconds to slap you silly on my blog. Quite funny.

    Your buddy said “nuh-uh”.

  14. “Roxeanne is saying that loving one’s disabled child and favoring abortion of disabled fetuses are incompatible with each other, that, yes, they are inconsistent. Or, to put it another way, she is saying these things are mutually exclusive.”

    Mutually exclusive is different from incompatible, and they are both different from inconsistent. These are not synonyms. As someone familiar with science you certainly should be able to discern the distinctions.

    That aside, you claim that Roxeanne asserts loving one’s disabled child and favoring abortion are incompatible. She does not assert that.

    No need to go through the rest of your response line by line. It’s much the same.

  15. Sigh. Let’s go to the dictionary, shall we?

    Incompatible:

    4. Logic .
    a. (of two or more propositions) unable to be true simultaneously.
    b. (of two or more attributes of an object) unable to belong to the object simultaneously; inconsistent.

    And to Wikipedia: In logic, two mutually exclusive propositions are propositions that logically cannot be true at the same time.

    Roxeanne has said that these parents cannot love their child at the same time that they argue they would have aborted her as a fetus. She says those things are incompatible. Or, as dictionary.com says, that they are inconsistent. Or, as Wikipedia describes, since they cannot both be true at the same time (as per Roxeanne), they are mutually exclusive.

    That aside, you claim that Roxeanne asserts loving one’s disabled child and favoring abortion are incompatible. She does not assert that.

    Quality response. I explained my position, provided evidence for my claims, and you hopped on over and said “Nuh-uh!” That seems to be a pattern amongst Roxeanne’s commenters. Anyway, Roxeanne said this:

    [T]he couple claims to “love” their daughter, but are suing because they wished that they had murdered her during the legally-allowable time frame to do so. Those two things are inconsistent.

    In other words, parents who would have aborted a fetus under certain circumstances yet did not do so for whatever reason cannot later love their child if that child fit the circumstances that would have caused it to be aborted as a fetus.

  16. And even though everyone uses Wikipedia, I understand people like to counter its citation by disparaging it rather than responding to any content. In order to counter that, here is a link which says the same thing: http://www.intmath.com/counting-probability/9-mutually-exclusive-events.php

  17. Michael, I know it pains you, but at least get my argument right. Oh, wait, you can’t do that, because you can’t argue against anything that isn’t a straw man.

    I said that anyone who is smarter than I am has the opportunities available to me because of my smarts. Now, I know that I’m going to use theories of admissibility of evidence, so follow along closely: I’m not using “I went to school at XYZ Top University and you didn’t” to prove that I’m right; I’m using it to disprove your assertion that you are totally more brilliant than I am.

    You said,

    First of all, she isn’t smarter than I am. Not by a long shot. I realize that’s an egotistical statement, but it’s factual.

    Okay, if it’s factual, where’s the evidence? If you were smarter than I am, you would have the same, or more, opportunities, and it wouldn’t take you twice as long to get through school. Even with my double major, I was through in four years. (That’s what happens when you petition the dean for several semesters to exceed the allowable credit load.) FYI – one of those majors was engineering. So telling me that you need eight years to get a bio degree because you are double-majoring in something non-liberal-artsy just makes me laugh.

    Apropos of nothing, I didn’t google those schools. Some of us are actually aware of which schools are good, where they are located, and what their athletic departments are like, and some of us find this information to be helpful.

  18. First, I know it’s sort of your specialty to do this, but you’ve forced my hand: You’re lying. You used an argument from authority to bolster your position. Considering how many times I’ve seen you brag about yourself in just a few blog posts, I can’t say I’m surprised. Second, it does not follow that a person who gets scholarships is smarter than another person. Third, I’ve had plenty of scholarships and grants. Fourth, I chose to go to the school in the area where I grew up because it offered a quality education near my family and friends. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Fifth, it’s clear I’m smarter than you by virtue of the fact that you can’t keep up with these arguments. Even with your own arguments, you fail to look ahead more than a single step. You think in simple ways, Roxeanne. Sixth, I really do love these opportunities to knock down the inane things you say by making lists of all your errors. I have literally never had such an easy time debating a person on the Internet.

  19. Clearly, I struck a nerve.

    You claim to be smarter than me, but all I see are comical arguments made by a kid who has no clue what he’s talking about and is on the eight-year plan to graduate. You claim that all of my accomplishments are not evidence of intelligence, claim to be smarter than I am, but offer no proof of your own.

    Michael, if you were as smart as me, let alone smarter, you would have pulled off those two majors long ere now. It’s what I did, at a much better, much tougher school.

    You would also know what an argument from authority is, and understand that I haven’t been using it. As I said, my argument is that if you were really all that and a bag of chips, you would have graduated by now. Sorry, dude, but I pulled off two majors at a much tougher school in four years flat – while battling illnesses.

    It’s only “easy” for you to debate me because you aren’t even addressing my points, thinking through my arguments, or being remotely honest about what I’m saying. Not hard to argue against a straw man, is it, champ?

    Guppy that’s about to get flushed down the toilet – and laughs at the big fish in the ocean. Keep laughing, kiddo. Keep laughing.

  20. This is getting old. I address your points from a number of angles, you claim I didn’t, then you pretend to know something about my scholastic history. And to compound things, you’re convinced your argument from authority works so long as you attach a secondary point to it. It’s too bad for you, though, that no one is impressed by someone who can’t analyze a situation beyond a single step,

    Next time you visit Google you should look up some philosophy lessons instead of a few private schools in Maine.

  21. Speaking of not addressing points, I’m going to try a new tactic with you. I’m going to keep asking you one thing at a time until you respond. Feel free to go on about whatever, but I’m only going to ask you about individual points until you answer them.

    So for starters, you said that calling another person “dumb” is the start of the concession speech. I quoted you insulting me in such a fashion 5 times. Does that mean you have started* to concede? If not, why is it different when you call people dumb?

    *Interestingly, you started nearly from the get-go.

  22. Michael, I said that calling ME dumb is a concession speech. When you call a woman “dumb” who completed engineering, a liberal arts degree, and law school in less time than it took you to get through undergrad, you look foolish.

    Some of your problem is that you are unable to understand fine-tuned, nuanced arguments. As but one example, I stated that parents who wanted to abort their baby and are suing over the lost right to be able to do so do not love her. Criteria 1, Criteria 2, right there. You ignored Criteria 2 to create a straw man (that all parents who wanted to abort don’t love their baby). Then, pleased with your internet debating abilities, you wrote posts about how angry and stupid I am. Another example would be above: you aren’t as smart as I am (again, if you were, two degrees wouldn’t take you this long, especially not from an easier school than my alma mater), so calling you “dumb” is to drive home that point, not a concession speech.

    Your basis for believing that you are smart is your own assessment of your internet debating abilities. Your own blog-readers think you’re being a moron; my blog-readers are trying to gently (or not so gently) point out the error in your reasoning. A subjective assessment of your own brilliance is never logical proof thereof, which is why I keep hammering away on the fact that you can’t get through college in a timely fashion. The latter is evidence of your academic prowess; the former is something that I remember from elementary school. “Yeah, well I totally won, and I’m right because [distorts argument].”

    Incidentally, it is your foolishness that is painful, not your brainpower (or lack thereof). It’s a big, big world out there, with big, big fish,and Guppy Michael from the Fishbowl is about to get a ride down the toilet. I’m done “debating” you; let us resume this when you get out of college and into the real world, and when the medium-sized fish eat you for breakfast and the big fish aren’t even aware of your existence. I’m done having you jerk off, metaphorically or literally, by pretending to be “better” than I am, as if an internet debate can unwind my years of achievement and your total lack thereof. That’s not how it works in reality, Guppy Michael.

  23. For what it’s worth, this is an argument from authority. Now, let’s line up what I said with it. My claim: if you are really smarter than I am, you would have had all the higher education opportunities available to me, and more. Fact indicate that such is not the case, ergo, you are only a legend in your own, Guppy Michael, mind. The syllogism:
    If A -> B
    ~B (facts)
    Therefore, ~A

    That is hardly “A is an authority who believes B, and therefore, B is correct.”

    If you want an argument from authority, look to your posts wherein you call me anti-science and say that as a bio major (amazing amazingness!11!), you are correct. Or the times in which you claim that your super-awesome philosophy classes make you The Ultimate Authority in the World.

    And to compound things, you’re convinced your argument from authority works so long as you attach a secondary point to it. It’s too bad for you, though, that no one is impressed by someone who can’t analyze a situation beyond a single step,

    Well, it’s not an argument from authority, and yes, attaching a secondary point does change the relevance or admissibility of a piece of evidence. While I have zero desire to spend months of my life explaining the nuances of evidence to you, try a primer. Note that the purpose of which evidence is being offered is every bit as important as why it is being offered. This isn’t a court room (nor a philosophy classroom), but the same rules and logic apply.

  24. A better flowchart.

    With that, peace out. I’ll let you to your ridiculousness, and I’ll continue rocking the world.

  25. Here is what I’ve gathered:

    Roxeanne de Luca cannot be called dumb.

    Roxeanne de Luca is a strong woman who is hated by men by virtue of being so strong.

    Roxeanne de Luca has several degrees.

    Roxeanne de Luca really has several degrees.

    Roxeanne de Luca wants you to know just how many damn degrees she has.

    Roxeanne de Luca is really smart. Because she has degrees.

    Roxeanne de Luca’s degrees are awesome.

    Roxeanne de Luca rocks the world. Mostly because of her degrees.

    Now, if we can get by your arrogance, ego, and bragging, I would like to actually address a few points. If I’m jumping the gun, let me know and we can pause after this. I wouldn’t want to stop you from telling everyone how awesome you are.

    You did make an argument from authority. That’s the reason why you spend so much of your time talking yourself up on the Internet. I have no problem admitting that you’re just smart enough to retroactively claim you really meant to make an entirely different argument, but the facts remain. You want us to believe you’re right about things because you have an engineering and law degree. That isn’t a valid substitute for making a real argument, Roxeanne.

    For more evidence of your bragging and authority arguing, see here. Despite having a limited background in biology, you tried making your usual argument from authority. Not only was it invalid no matter what your education, but it didn’t even work since your degrees are only marginally relevant. Moreover, you act like it would be impossible to find someone with more education than you who disagrees with your positions. I have to wonder what sort of excuse you would use in order to avoid debating such a person.

    After this, here are the questions I’m going to keep repeating until you answer it (so save us some time, huh?): Can you quote where I called you anti-science? Can you quote where I said I am right by virtue of being a biology major? (You don’t have to answer this one, but what is it with you an reflection? I use a piece of rhetoric or accuse you of this or that and you immediately do as much stretching as you can to boringly say the exact same thing back to me.)

    Well, it’s not an argument from authority, and yes, attaching a secondary point does change the relevance or admissibility of a piece of evidence.

    Learn to read more carefully. Your argument from authority does not work no matter what you add to it. Your addition may work on its own (which is why you added it after you were caught in a fallacy), but it does nothing to change the fallacy itself.

  26. Michael, you SAYING that it is an argument from authority doesn’t make it so. How about you make an actual ARGUMENT, in which you define your terms and show how my language matches up with it?

    Oh, wait, you CAN’T do that, because all you are capable of doing is repeating yourself over and over and making condescending remarks.

    Stop acting like such a child. I explained what an argument from authority was and demonstrated how my argument does not match up to it. Rather than explaining your point, you go with the very elementary-school “Nah uh! You’re wrong because I said so!”

    Do you even KNOW what an argument from authority is and the limits of it as a logical fallacy? Or are you just slinging terms around like a monkey throws its scat?

    Well, Michael the Mendacious, if you’re so much smarter than I am, surely you can make a better argument. But you don’t, which somehow makes me wrong.

    I’m ashamed to be part of the same species as you are, Guppy Michael. But I eagerly await watching the world kick your ass, which it is going to in a big, hard way.

  27. But hey, it’s always everyone else who has the problem. Neil, Nicholas, Matt, my other commenters, and I, are all the ones who don’t get your special specialness.

    When you misinterpret our remarks, it’s your awesome “rhetoric.” When we point out that you’re doing so, you say that we aren’t responding to your arguments. When you set alight a field of straw men, in your world, it’s proving that you are definitively smarter than we are. When we explain ourselves (see, my comments re: the couple who sued, as well as an argument from authority), you ignore those explanations and say we’re incapable of defending ourselves. When you want to claim the mantle of science in a debate about the beginnings of human life, you point to the fact that you’re studying biology. When I respond that guess what, you’re not the only scientist here, that’s an appeal to authority and you say that I’m full of myself.

    You’re either a very, very fucked up young man who needs help, or you are the most obnoxious, mendacious individual I’ve ever had the misfortune to encounter. Just a little life tip: play up the “young man with problems” interpretation, because that’s at least fixable.

  28. I have already shown a number of times why your argument was one from authority. You keep referencing your degrees in order to shut other people up. You did it here by referencing your degrees, you did it by telling me that I was wrong on a point of semantics by saying you’re a lawyer, and you did it early on in a post where I pointed out your abuse of science. It’s a pattern with you. The fact that you can link to a definition of what you did and say “This isn’t what I did” doesn’t change things.

    Oh, wait, you CAN’T do that, because all you are capable of doing is repeating yourself over and over and making condescending remarks.

    So I call people dumb, I repeat myself, I make arguments from authority (as you’ve recently said elsewhere), and I make condescending remarks. What other points of mine against you would you like to steal?

    Rather than explaining your point, you go with the very elementary-school “Nah uh! You’re wrong because I said so!”

    You know, it’s still stealing my rhetoric even if I prefer to spell it “nuh-uh”.

    But hey, it’s always everyone else who has the problem. Neil, Nicholas, Matt, my other commenters, and I, are all the ones who don’t get your special specialness.

    I stopped reading your blog after I left my last comment. I’m not going to risk typing out something someone is likely to delete in cowardice (as you have already done).

    When we point out that you’re doing so, you say that we aren’t responding to your arguments.

    Oh. So it was this other point of mine against you that wanted to steal, I guess.

    When you want to claim the mantle of science in a debate about the beginnings of human life…

    I say that people stealing rhetoric is an indication of a win, but it goes a little beyond that. It also tells me that the rhetoric really got under that person’s skin. Saying you claim the mantle of science, that you’re boring, etc…all these things seem to have really gotten to you. Thanks for proving the veracity of my post title here.

    …you point to the fact that you’re studying biology [in order to claim the mantle of science].

    Damn it, I hate borrowing from you, but here I go again: You’re a liar. Here is what I said:

    As for your fallacious argument from (your own supposed) authority, none of your degrees make you somehow correct that not only is conception when humanity begins but that you also need not explain why you think that. In fact, if you wanted to go with this fallacy, I’m sure I have far more formal experience in biology than you. Does that make me an authority over you? (Well, I suppose the fact that I don’t confuse development for the subjective idea of non-taxonomic “humanity” does give me more credibility, but that’s a matter of knowing my stuff better, not how far along anyone is in their education.)

    In other words, Roxeanne, my superior experience within biology does not give me an excuse to avoid answering questions. You feel differently about your degrees in fields irrelevant to biology and the abortion debate.

  29. Roxeanne,

    I’ve read all of the posts on this thread and, frankly, I’m astounded. As Michael says, you’re shamelessly dodging arguments and appealing to your own authority. Nearly every time Michael addresses your laughable behavior, you ignore it and then promptly try to accuse Michael of the same. Then, as if that wasn’t enough, you spend the rest of your time calling people dumb and making condescending remarks when you’ve just finished criticizing or are about to criticize others for calling people dumb and making condescending remarks. It’s like you aren’t even trying to hide your lack of integrity.

    But hey, maybe I’m just saying this because you’re such a strong woman and I’m intimidated by all your degrees. You go, girl.

  30. Weird how Roxeanne runs away when she can no longer make arguments from popularity in addition to her arguments from authority.

  31. No, arguing with someone as mendacious as you gets boring. As I’ve pointed out, when we’re discussing abortion, you pull out your biology classes (and the major that it took you 8 years to complete); when you get smacked around with embryology textbooks and R&D engineers, you scream that we’re engaging in appeals to authority.

    It’s more of the same with your “arguments”. Nothing but a series of contradictions, each “point” brought out as you see fit for the moment, then contradicted five minutes later. As if this isn’t the Internet, in which your lies are there for all to see.

    Hey, how was the Great Toilet Flushing of 2012, aka your graduation? Has it happened yet, or will Guppy Michael reach his 27th birthday while still in college? Is the guy who thinks he’s all that and a bag of chips suddenly realising that taking eight years to graduate from college makes him pretty dumb in the grand scheme of things?

  32. Revisionist projection is a new one for me. You’re the kid who got her ice cream knocked out of her hand on the playground. When everyone laughed at you, you got embarrassed and now you want to knock my ice cream to the ground. Unfortunately, you don’t have facts or intelligence or anything remotely convincing to offer. Let me review for you.

    In between bouts of bragging about yourself (I think you even once bragged about being 5’9″), you appeal to your experience in science. In response I have primarily done two things. First, I said you’re trying to claim the mantle of science. Apparently for you that means I hate you because you’re a woman. No one is yet sure how you made that connection. Second, I have pointed out that I actually have greater knowledge and experience in biology than you, but that does not mean I can rely on that fact in order to make my arguments. From there you have revised history and projected your argument style onto me; you have claimed that I am using my superior experience in biology in order to make an argument from authority. Not only is that false, but it is exactly opposite to the point I made at the end of my comment four posts up from this one.

    As for “getting smacked around” by your appeals to authority from a few textbooks, you need to take another look. Those books all refer to the process of development. Your arguments against abortion refer to a subjective concept of humanity.Your ‘logic’ here is silly.

    It’s more of the same with your “arguments”. Nothing but a series of contradictions, each “point” brought out as you see fit for the moment, then contradicted five minutes later. As if this isn’t the Internet, in which your lies are there for all to see.

    You have this habit of making claims without backing them up. Okay, so you think I’ve contradicted myself? Where? Give us quotes, Roxeanne. Where have I lied? I’ve taken the few minutes to point out exactly where it is you have gone wrong in one of your arguments here: You said I used my superior knowledge and experience in biology to make my argument, but as we can see four posts prior to this one, that is not true. Why can’t you seem to be this specific?

    Is the guy who thinks he’s all that and a bag of chips suddenly realising that taking eight years to graduate from college makes him pretty dumb in the grand scheme of things?

    You seem to think you know when I started college. You don’t. Moreover, you seem to think I’ve always had one major. I haven’t. I jumped between a couple before settling on biology. For the credits I have in that subject, it has taken me 2.5 years to gather them all together. Unlike you, I didn’t want to spend a full four years getting a degree in a subject in which I wasn’t even going to bother creating a career. But hang on. You do claim to have published a scientific paper. It seems that there just might be some fruit of your labors. Unfortunately, I’ve searched your name in Google Scholar, regular Google, and PubMed. There’s nothing there with your name. Where is your paper, Roxeanne? For someone who brags like a schoolchild, you don’t seem to be parading your accomplishments too much.

  33. You would think that someone who claims to have so much knowledge and experience would be encouraging education regardless of the years it may take someone to obtain a degree or their age. Doesn’t Roxeanne have 2+ degrees or something like that? And what is this assumption that if you are older than the “normal” college age then one must have taken longer than normal to obtain their degree? That’s a ridiculous way of thinking. I will be 25 when I graduate with my Biology degree, of which will have taken me 3 years not 4. So layoff the assumptions on age and degree progress.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 206 other followers

%d bloggers like this: